On 4/26/2020 12:04 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 12:24 PM Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com
<mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
/> As I understand the UP, it's a statistical statement /
No. It says the more exactly you specify the position of a particle
the less exactly you can specify the velocity of the particle; or
stated in a alternativ form, the shorter the time duration the more
energy a particle (or even empty space) can have without detecting any
violation of the law of conservation of energy.
/> The UP follows from the postulates of QM. So if one assume
these postulates, there is indeed a proof of the UP./
I repeat, this is physics not mathematics, if an experiment violates
somebody's postulates then that's just too bad for the postulates
because experiment and observation is the ultimate authority in
science. And, given that it can make predictions to 12 significant
digits, experiment and observation tells us that virtual particles
exist as unequivocally as science can tell us anything.
I think you are to readily reifying the mathematics. Virtual particles
are just Feynman's invention to keep track of consistent expansions of
the Green's function. There are other mathematical techniques for
calculating the same number. So what it means for virtual particles to
exist not really so unequivocal.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb2bcf19-2192-7bc6-b84b-f72c5953e8b9%40verizon.net.