Virtual... Schmirtual! The only reason physics uses the term 'virtual' is due to the inadequacies of the theories (mathematical equations) to properly model physical reality! If one looks at spacetime as being a seething plenum of random oscillations of some fundamental 'stuff ' at extremely small dimensions and extremely high frequencies, then what appear to be physical objects (i.e., subatomic particles) are simply LOCAL coherent oscillations/swirlings of that fundamental stuff.
Just look out over the desert and what do you see? 'Nothing', you say! Of course, that's obvious! So you take another swig of that ice cold brewski, check out the Dime Box Babes for a few seconds, and then look up and, Holy Vortex Batman! That dust devil just appeared out of nowhere (a local, coherent swirling of stuff), swirled for a few moments, and then disappeared back into the nothingness (randomness) from whence it came… so too it goes with 'virtual' particles/photons/gravitons/yourfavoritetons! For some reason, these temporary coherent entities do not achieve the conditions necessary to become 'stable', and thus, they 'pop into and out of existence'. What are the conditions that result in stable, long-lived (subatomic/atomic) particles? Perhaps the intense conditions inside of a star, or that exised sometime shortly after the big bang (if that even really happened). Are there any good theories that start from this kind of fundamental view of spacetime? With this view, one can also see why probabilities figure so prominently in QM! -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [HYPERLINK mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dark Energy was :The Memristor On Jan 2, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > Horace, > > Thanks for a good analysis of this new theory vis-a-vis your theory > and the mainstream thinking which precedes it. > > It can be noted that your objection: "It seems to me this thinking is > not right in that it leaves the question: what entity then remains to > communicate via gravitons?" is also a semantics issue that goes away - > with a more complex definition of "what is virtual" in the sense that > can be implied from their paper. > > Many of us may not like whatever new definition of 'graviton' or > 'photon' emerges from this, since it could (possibly) imply something > akin to "flavor oscillations" which are seen in the neutrino to > rationalize how a graviton, for instance, can go from massless to at > least expressing a mass-like effect. That is a form of > 'communication'. I don't think the photon and graviton are analogous. The graviton is analogous to the virtual photon, which is the electromagnetic force carrier. If the physical law isomorphism I propose exists, then there necessarily exists an analog to the photon. I called it a "graviphoton" in order to be consistent with the naming conventions demanded by the isomorphism. The virtual particles, the virtual photon and graviton, are the force messengers, the "real" particles are quantized energy packets. The difference between them lies in the dimensions in which they reside. It is too bad this relationship was not understood when the graviton was named. Otherwise the graviton would have been named the "virtual graviton", and the graviphoton would have been named the graviton. The existence of the graviphoton could have profound implications for astronomy. Best regards, Horace Heffner HYPERLINK http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date: 1/1/2009 5:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date: 1/1/2009 5:01 PM
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
