Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Seeing back thks to QM + Do virtual particles really exist? + Rethink: time is basic

#1
C C Offline
How quantum physics allows us to see back through space and time
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...8c697c493c

EXCERPT (conclusion): . . . If it weren’t for this rare transition, from higher energy spherical orbitals to lower energy spherical orbitals, our Universe would look incredibly different in detail. We would have different numbers and magnitudes of acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background, and hence a different set of seed fluctuations for our Universe to build its large-scale structure out of. The ionization history of our Universe would be different; it would take longer for the first stars to form; and the light from the leftover glow of the Big Bang would only take us back to 790,000 years after the Big Bang, rather than the 380,000 years we get today.

In a very real sense, there are a myriad of ways that our view into the distant Universe — to the farthest reaches of deep space where we detect the earliest signals arising after the Big Bang — that would be fundamentally less powerful if not for this one quantum mechanical transition. If we want to understand how the Universe came to be the way it is today, even on cosmic scales, it’s remarkable how subtly dependent the outcomes are on the subatomic rules of quantum physics. Without it, the sights we see looking back across space and time would be far less rich and spectacular. (MORE - missing details)


Do virtual particles really exist?
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/as...a2019d2915

EXCERPT (conclusion): . . . So the quantum vacuum really does have observational effects, and those effects have been observed experimentally on ~micron scales and astrophysically over stellar scales. That doesn’t mean that virtual particles are physically real, however. It means that using the calculational tool of virtual particles in the vacuum allows us to make quantitative predictions about how matter and energy behave as they pass through empty space, and how empty space comes to possess different properties when external fields or boundary conditions are applied. The particles, however, are not real, in the sense that we cannot collide or interact with them.

However, if you have real particles — i.e., a non-vacuum state — then the same quantum field theory techniques you would use to calculate the quantum vacuum actually tells you about real, physical particles (and antiparticles) that can pop in-and-out of existence. For example, we normally think of a proton as being made of three quarks, held together by gluons. But when we perform high-energy collisions of these protons and probe their insides through deep inelastic scattering, we actually find all sorts of extra particles inside: extra quarks and antiquarks, an extreme density of gluons, and even leptons and additional bosons in there. Not only are the effects of virtual particles “real” in particle-rich environments, but the particles themselves are real, too.

In the vacuum of empty space, no matter what boundary conditions you set up or how strong your external fields are, you won’t ever be able to scatter off of whatever’s in the quantum vacuum. However, the quantum vacuum itself will exhibit real, physical effects on matter and radiation that passes through them. The vacuum gets polarized, meaning it generates its own internal fields, and those internal fields — not just the external ones — affect the matter and radiation that passes through. However, there are no particles themselves in there to smash into, collide with, or scatter off of.

The effects of the quantum vacuum are real; the virtual particle visualization is useful, but the particles themselves are not real. Only if you have real particles in your space can the virtual particles arising from particle-field or particle-particle interactions actually be directly detected, indicating their “realness” in some sense. Remember, the only justification we have for calling anything “real” is that we can detect and measure it. The effects of virtual particles are real, but the particles themselves are not! (MORE - missing details)


VIDEO: Time is fundamental, space is emergent – why physicists are rethinking reality

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QOAcQCFNtbo
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
Leibniz was always smarter than Newton. It's a shame most people have no idea who Leibniz was.

Virtual particles are more transitory than unreal.
Reply
#3
Magical Realist Offline
I can see how Time may be be a fundamental irreducible of the universe. I mean everything happens in the form of moments following moments. Words in language. Numbers in math. Propositions in logic. Events in history. Cause and effect in science. Notes in music. Thoughts and actions in ethics. It all assumes a basic sequentiality that is primal and inherent to all that can happen and can be known to happen. Barbour wants to get rid of this flow of time, and the block universe is certainly one way of thinking about it. But we never truly escape this temporal movement of everything. We are soaked in the flux of becoming, things coming to be and things ceasing to be all at the same time.
Reply
#4
Syne Offline
In this case, Smolin is smarter than Barbour, and I own books by each, although I think both tend to run too far with their theorizing. Barbour is correct that time is only change, but goes on to claim that, if nothing changed, there would be no time. That there could ever be no change at all is a big assumption, not supported by anything we know. Even vacuum fluctuations would indicate some change, even in empty space. And Smolin is obviously correct that space is just a relationship between objects, as Leibniz explained and GR demonstrates.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Are virtual particles real? Magical Realist 6 65 Feb 7, 2024 07:07 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Article The electron is so round that it’s ruling out potential new particles C C 0 85 Apr 11, 2023 04:47 PM
Last Post: C C
  Quantum particles aren’t spinning. So where does their spin come from? C C 1 202 Dec 2, 2022 10:44 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Crisis in particle physics forces a rethink of what is ‘natural’ C C 1 128 Mar 3, 2022 05:01 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Quantum particles can feel the influence of gravitational fields they never touch C C 1 138 Feb 17, 2022 01:28 PM
Last Post: Kornee
  X particles detected + How infinite series reveal the unity of mathematics C C 0 76 Jan 25, 2022 06:20 PM
Last Post: C C
  Virtual particles may be real particles out of phase with our reality + New adsp mode C C 0 74 Oct 28, 2021 09:35 PM
Last Post: C C
  Weird matter made of partial particles + Search for grand unification of aromaticity C C 1 115 Jul 27, 2021 12:18 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  "Human-scale" object reaches a quantum state + Quantum tunneling of particles is FTL C C 0 139 Jun 17, 2021 11:42 PM
Last Post: C C
  Using optical data to reveal basic structure of spacetime in rotating frames C C 0 137 May 11, 2021 07:57 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)