On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:00 AM Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Firstly, concerning the postulates of QM and the UP,* > Mathematics has postulates. Science doesn't. The nearest equivalent for Science is experimental results. So it doesn't matter where you originally got an idea, if the idea allows you to make better predictions than anybody else (astronomically better in the case of virtual particles) then scientists will take your idea very very seriously indeed. *> There's an axiomatic approach to QM* > No there is not, like every other branch of science there is only an experimental approach. > > *which does NOT include the UP. This is what's presented in texts on > QM. Those postulates include, for example, the operators for position and > momentum, and so forth. The UP is definitely NOT one of these postulates, > and the UP can be derived from them. It's done in any decent course in QM. > Do you agree or not? AG* > I neither agree nor disagree because I don't know what the hell you're talking about. All I know is if Virtual Particles or the Uncertainty Principle or even Quantum Mechanics itself couldn't make predictions that could be confirmed experimentally no scientist would pay them any attention. And the Virtual Particle idea can make better predictions than anything else in all of Science. Full stop. * > your virtual particles are just terms in a perturbation expansion which > helps in a calculation. This doesn't mean they actually exist in violation > of energy conservation. * > Hmmm...I wonder if that's why they're called VIRTUAL particles and not just particles. John K Clark -- 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/CAJPayv0359FZi9Tk4vFSxu8hqwqRCw5z7McFK_JhKWKALPH20A%40mail.gmail.com.
