Quantum Entanglement - Speeed of light

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Dec 31, 2021
2
0
10
The “void” of space and time contains energy. Virtual particles “borrow” it and pop into existence (and return it to the void and pop out of existence. Like Schrodinger's cat, only being called into existence by drawing attention to it, choosing it to exist, owning it. Not a vacuum but a void. No free particle. The particle must be owned on both sides of the void. In fact it can have 2 owners as in the Quantum entanglement. (A shared ownership only in different spaces.)
 
Jan 27, 2020
263
88
780
Empty space holds perhaps the top spot when it comes to a phenomenon that defies our intuition. Even if you remove all the particles and radiation from a region of space — i.e., all the sources of quantum fields — space still won't be empty. It will consist of virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles, whose existence and energy spectra can be calculated. Sending the right physical signal through that empty space should have consequences that are observable.

The best way to approach this concept is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle* is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a child’s swing. If you give it a shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always the same, no matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion of the swing. Now compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what would happen if you started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back and forth swings. Well, the swing would start jiggling around all over the place, in a very unnatural motion, and it would not swing smoothly at all. The poor child on the swing would be furious at you, as you’d be making his or her ride very uncomfortable. This unpleasant jiggling motion — this disturbance of the swing — is different from the swing’s natural and preferred back-and-forth regular motion just as a “virtual particle” disturbance is different from a real particle. If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

For example, an electron is a real particle, a ripple in the electron field; you can hold one in your hand, so to speak; you can make a beam of them and send them across a room or inside an 20th century television set (a cathode-ray tube). A photon, too, is a real particle of light, a ripple in the electromagnetic field, and you can make a beam of photons (as in a laser.)

virtual photon.png
Fig. 1: Two electrons approach each other; they generate a disturbance in the electromagnetic field (the photon field); this disturbance pushes them apart, and their paths are bent outward. One says they "exchange virtual photons", but this is just jargon.

But if two electrons pass near each other, as in Figure 1, they will, because of their electric charge, disturb the electromagnetic field, sometimes called the photon field because its ripples are photons. That disturbance, sketched whimsically in green in the figure, is not a photon. It isn’t a ripple moving at the speed of light; in general isn’t a ripple at all, and certainly it is under no obligation to move at any one speed. That said, it is not at all mysterious; it is something whose details, if we know the initial motions of the electrons, can be calculated easily. Exactly the same equations that tell us about photons also tell us about how these disturbances work; in fact, the equations of quantum fields guarantee that if nature can have photons, it can have these disturbances too. Perhaps unfortunately, this type of disturbance, whose details can vary widely, was given the name “virtual particle” for historical reasons, which makes it sound both more mysterious, and more particle-like, than is necessary.

virtualphotonele positron.png
Fig. 2: As in Figure 1, for a positron (an anti-electron) and an electron; now the slightly different disturbance causes the two particles to attract one another, and their paths are bent inward.

This disturbance is important, because the force that the two electrons exert on each other — the repulsive electric force between the two particles of the same electric charge — is generated by this disturbance. (The same is true if an electron and a positron pass near each other, as in Figure 2; the disturbance in this case is similar in type but different in its details, with the result that the oppositely charged electron and positron are attracted to each other.) Physicists often say, and laypersons’ books repeat, that the two electrons exchange virtual photons. But those are just words, and they lead to many confusions if you start imagining this word “exchange” as meaning that the electrons are tossing photons back and forth as two children might toss a ball. It’s not hard to imagine that throwing balls back and forth might generate a repulsion, but how could it generate an attractive force? The problem here is that the intuition that arises from the word “exchange” simply has too many flaws. To really understand this you need a small amount of math, but zero math is unfortunately not enough. It is better, I think, for the layperson to understand that the electromagnetic field is disturbed in some way, ignore the term “virtual photons” which actually is more confusing than enlightening, and trust that a calculation has to be done to figure out how the disturbance produced by the two electrons leads to their being repelled from one another, while the disturbance between an electron and a positron is different enough to cause attraction.

Now there are many other types of disturbances that fields can exhibit that are not particles. Another example, and scientifically one of the most important, shows up in the very nature of particles themselves. A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.

It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field. The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle. However, the combination of the two is just such as to be a nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and momentum, and with an electron’s mass. This is sketchily illustrated in Figure 3.

elecphotonloop..png
Figure 3: Feynman diagram needed to process Figure 2.

Fig. 3: An electron may naively be thought of as a ripple of minimum intensity --- the minimal ripple --- in an electron field. But the electron interacts with the photon field (i.e. the electromagnetic field) and can create a disturbance in it; in doing so it too ceases to be a normal particle and becomes a more general disturbance. The combination of the two disturbances (i.e. the two "virtual particles") remains a particle with the energy, momentum and mass of the incoming electron.

The language physicists use in describing this is the following: “The electron can turn into a virtual photon and a virtual electron, which then turn back into a real electron.” And they draw a Feynman diagram that looks like Figure 4. But what they really mean is what I have just described in the previous paragraph. The Feynman diagram is actually a calculational tool, not a picture of the physical phenomenon; if you want to calculate how big this effect is, you take that diagram , translate it into a mathematical expression according to Feynman’s rules, set to work for a little while with some paper and pen, and soon obtain the answer.

Another example involves the photon itself. It is not merely a ripple in the electromagnetic field, but spends some of its time as an electron field disturbance, such that the combination remains a massless particle. The language here is to say that a photon can turn into a virtual electron and a virtual positron, and back again; but again, what this really means is that the electron field is disturbed by the photon. But why are we seeing a positron — an anti-electron — and yet I am only referring to the electron field? The reason ties back to the very reason that there are anti-particles in the first place: every field, by its very nature, has particle ripples and anti-particle ripples. For some fields (such as the photon field and Z field) these particle and anti-particle ripples are actually the same thing; but for fields like electrons and quarks, the particles and anti-particles are quite different. So what happens when the electron field is disturbed by a passing photon is that a disturbance is set up that has some electron-like disturbance with net negative electric charge, and some positron-like disturbance with net positive charge, but the disturbance as a whole, like the photon itself, carries no net charge at all.

elec photon muon loop feynman.png
Fig. 4: The Feynman diagram needed to calculate the process in Fig. 3. One says "the electron emits and reabsorbs a virtual photon", but this is just shorthand for the physics shown in Fig. 3.

Our picture of an electron in Figure 3 was itself still too naive, because the photon disturbance around the electron itself disturbs the muon field, polarizing it in its turn. This is shown in the corresponding Feynman diagram is shown in Figure 5. This goes on and on, with a ripple in any field disturbing, to a greater or lesser degree, all of the fields with which it directly or even indirectly has an interaction.

* virtual particle - the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle allows for particle-antiparticle pairs to appear spontaneously out of empty space for very brief periods of time. These so-called virtual particles (or quantum vacuum fluctuations) are ubiquitous, and create measurable effects such as the Casimir-Polder force and the Lamb shift. Some physicists (most famously, Tryon 1973) even appeal to the same kind of mechanism to explain the origin of the entire universe from a background of empty spacetime.

The "vacuum energy" is a specific example of ZPE which has generated considerable doubt and confusion. In a completely empty flat universe, calculations of the vacuum energy yield infinite values of both positive and negative sign--something that obviously does not correspond to the nature of the real world.

Observation indicates that in our universe the grand total vacuum energy is extremely small and quite possibly exactly zero. Many theorists suspect that the total vacuum energy is exactly zero.

It definitely is possible to manipulate the vacuum energy. Any objects that change the vacuum energy (electrical conductors, dielectrics and gravitational fields, for instance) distort the quantum mechanical vacuum state. These changes in the vacuum energy are often easier to calculate than the total vacuum energy itself. Sometimes we can even measure these changes in the vacuum energy in laboratory experiments.
(See: https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/defenders-guide-to-science-and-creationism/big-bang-something-from-nothing/ ; See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/follow-up-what-is-the-zer/ )

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/12/yes-virtual-particles-can-have-real-observable-effects/?sh=50eae7ab357b

See: https://medium.com/nakshatra/the-nature-of-nothingness-understanding-the-vacuum-catastrophe-c04033e752f4

See: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

See: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/are-the-energy-fluctuations-in-space-real-or-virtual.937363/

Particles are just not simple objects, and although they are often described as simple ripples in a single field, that’s not exactly true. Only in a world with no forces — with no interactions among particles at all — are particles merely ripples in a single field! Sometimes these complications don’t matter, and we can ignore them. But sometimes these complications are central, so we always have to remember they are there.
These seemingly insignificant particles have made quite an impact on the universe we know today. Not only do they explain ‘particle-particle interaction’, but they can be traced back to the origin of the universe.
Hartmann352
 
Sep 19, 2020
22
0
530
Empty space holds perhaps the top spot when it comes to a phenomenon that defies our intuition. Even if you remove all the particles and radiation from a region of space — i.e., all the sources of quantum fields — space still won't be empty. It will consist of virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles, whose existence and energy spectra can be calculated. Sending the right physical signal through that empty space should have consequences that are observable.

The best way to approach this concept is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle* is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a child’s swing. If you give it a shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always the same, no matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion of the swing. Now compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what would happen if you started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back and forth swings. Well, the swing would start jiggling around all over the place, in a very unnatural motion, and it would not swing smoothly at all. The poor child on the swing would be furious at you, as you’d be making his or her ride very uncomfortable. This unpleasant jiggling motion — this disturbance of the swing — is different from the swing’s natural and preferred back-and-forth regular motion just as a “virtual particle” disturbance is different from a real particle. If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

For example, an electron is a real particle, a ripple in the electron field; you can hold one in your hand, so to speak; you can make a beam of them and send them across a room or inside an 20th century television set (a cathode-ray tube). A photon, too, is a real particle of light, a ripple in the electromagnetic field, and you can make a beam of photons (as in a laser.)

View attachment 1683
Fig. 1: Two electrons approach each other; they generate a disturbance in the electromagnetic field (the photon field); this disturbance pushes them apart, and their paths are bent outward. One says they "exchange virtual photons", but this is just jargon.

But if two electrons pass near each other, as in Figure 1, they will, because of their electric charge, disturb the electromagnetic field, sometimes called the photon field because its ripples are photons. That disturbance, sketched whimsically in green in the figure, is not a photon. It isn’t a ripple moving at the speed of light; in general isn’t a ripple at all, and certainly it is under no obligation to move at any one speed. That said, it is not at all mysterious; it is something whose details, if we know the initial motions of the electrons, can be calculated easily. Exactly the same equations that tell us about photons also tell us about how these disturbances work; in fact, the equations of quantum fields guarantee that if nature can have photons, it can have these disturbances too. Perhaps unfortunately, this type of disturbance, whose details can vary widely, was given the name “virtual particle” for historical reasons, which makes it sound both more mysterious, and more particle-like, than is necessary.

View attachment 1684
Fig. 2: As in Figure 1, for a positron (an anti-electron) and an electron; now the slightly different disturbance causes the two particles to attract one another, and their paths are bent inward.

This disturbance is important, because the force that the two electrons exert on each other — the repulsive electric force between the two particles of the same electric charge — is generated by this disturbance. (The same is true if an electron and a positron pass near each other, as in Figure 2; the disturbance in this case is similar in type but different in its details, with the result that the oppositely charged electron and positron are attracted to each other.) Physicists often say, and laypersons’ books repeat, that the two electrons exchange virtual photons. But those are just words, and they lead to many confusions if you start imagining this word “exchange” as meaning that the electrons are tossing photons back and forth as two children might toss a ball. It’s not hard to imagine that throwing balls back and forth might generate a repulsion, but how could it generate an attractive force? The problem here is that the intuition that arises from the word “exchange” simply has too many flaws. To really understand this you need a small amount of math, but zero math is unfortunately not enough. It is better, I think, for the layperson to understand that the electromagnetic field is disturbed in some way, ignore the term “virtual photons” which actually is more confusing than enlightening, and trust that a calculation has to be done to figure out how the disturbance produced by the two electrons leads to their being repelled from one another, while the disturbance between an electron and a positron is different enough to cause attraction.

Now there are many other types of disturbances that fields can exhibit that are not particles. Another example, and scientifically one of the most important, shows up in the very nature of particles themselves. A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.

It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field. The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle. However, the combination of the two is just such as to be a nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and momentum, and with an electron’s mass. This is sketchily illustrated in Figure 3.

View attachment 1687
Figure 3: Feynman diagram needed to process Figure 2.

Fig. 3: An electron may naively be thought of as a ripple of minimum intensity --- the minimal ripple --- in an electron field. But the electron interacts with the photon field (i.e. the electromagnetic field) and can create a disturbance in it; in doing so it too ceases to be a normal particle and becomes a more general disturbance. The combination of the two disturbances (i.e. the two "virtual particles") remains a particle with the energy, momentum and mass of the incoming electron.

The language physicists use in describing this is the following: “The electron can turn into a virtual photon and a virtual electron, which then turn back into a real electron.” And they draw a Feynman diagram that looks like Figure 4. But what they really mean is what I have just described in the previous paragraph. The Feynman diagram is actually a calculational tool, not a picture of the physical phenomenon; if you want to calculate how big this effect is, you take that diagram , translate it into a mathematical expression according to Feynman’s rules, set to work for a little while with some paper and pen, and soon obtain the answer.

Another example involves the photon itself. It is not merely a ripple in the electromagnetic field, but spends some of its time as an electron field disturbance, such that the combination remains a massless particle. The language here is to say that a photon can turn into a virtual electron and a virtual positron, and back again; but again, what this really means is that the electron field is disturbed by the photon. But why are we seeing a positron — an anti-electron — and yet I am only referring to the electron field? The reason ties back to the very reason that there are anti-particles in the first place: every field, by its very nature, has particle ripples and anti-particle ripples. For some fields (such as the photon field and Z field) these particle and anti-particle ripples are actually the same thing; but for fields like electrons and quarks, the particles and anti-particles are quite different. So what happens when the electron field is disturbed by a passing photon is that a disturbance is set up that has some electron-like disturbance with net negative electric charge, and some positron-like disturbance with net positive charge, but the disturbance as a whole, like the photon itself, carries no net charge at all.

View attachment 1688
Fig. 4: The Feynman diagram needed to calculate the process in Fig. 3. One says "the electron emits and reabsorbs a virtual photon", but this is just shorthand for the physics shown in Fig. 3.

Our picture of an electron in Figure 3 was itself still too naive, because the photon disturbance around the electron itself disturbs the muon field, polarizing it in its turn. This is shown in the corresponding Feynman diagram is shown in Figure 5. This goes on and on, with a ripple in any field disturbing, to a greater or lesser degree, all of the fields with which it directly or even indirectly has an interaction.

* virtual particle - the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle allows for particle-antiparticle pairs to appear spontaneously out of empty space for very brief periods of time. These so-called virtual particles (or quantum vacuum fluctuations) are ubiquitous, and create measurable effects such as the Casimir-Polder force and the Lamb shift. Some physicists (most famously, Tryon 1973) even appeal to the same kind of mechanism to explain the origin of the entire universe from a background of empty spacetime.

The "vacuum energy" is a specific example of ZPE which has generated considerable doubt and confusion. In a completely empty flat universe, calculations of the vacuum energy yield infinite values of both positive and negative sign--something that obviously does not correspond to the nature of the real world.

Observation indicates that in our universe the grand total vacuum energy is extremely small and quite possibly exactly zero. Many theorists suspect that the total vacuum energy is exactly zero.

It definitely is possible to manipulate the vacuum energy. Any objects that change the vacuum energy (electrical conductors, dielectrics and gravitational fields, for instance) distort the quantum mechanical vacuum state. These changes in the vacuum energy are often easier to calculate than the total vacuum energy itself. Sometimes we can even measure these changes in the vacuum energy in laboratory experiments.
(See: https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/defenders-guide-to-science-and-creationism/big-bang-something-from-nothing/ ; See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/follow-up-what-is-the-zer/ )

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/12/yes-virtual-particles-can-have-real-observable-effects/?sh=50eae7ab357b

See: https://medium.com/nakshatra/the-nature-of-nothingness-understanding-the-vacuum-catastrophe-c04033e752f4

See: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

See: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/are-the-energy-fluctuations-in-space-real-or-virtual.937363/

Particles are just not simple objects, and although they are often described as simple ripples in a single field, that’s not exactly true. Only in a world with no forces — with no interactions among particles at all — are particles merely ripples in a single field! Sometimes these complications don’t matter, and we can ignore them. But sometimes these complications are central, so we always have to remember they are there.
These seemingly insignificant particles have made quite an impact on the universe we know today. Not only do they explain ‘particle-particle interaction’, but they can be traced back to the origin of the universe.
Hartmann352
You are still young so you probably never got to hear about what happened after World War Two. The governments of earth paid Universities to push the government curriculum designed to hide the atom bomb. When Universal Scientists called out the "neutron scientists" the ones trying to push the government agenda, for not demonstrating a force of attraction that could hold their neutron together as they hypothesized, most thought it was over. Because two neutron scientists had gotten up and made hugging gestures behind each other's back symbolizing some force pushing the neutron together. This didn't fly as it introduced yet another variable unexplained, and the government was taking heat. So the government paid colleges to remove the line in the scientific method that states you must demonstrate your hypothesis for a proposed experiment to your fellow scientists, your peers, before doing the experiment. They were trying to use the big plume cloud of the Hiroshima bomb as proof forces of cohesion or forces of attraction were broken to release the energy. But of course, they could never demonstrate such a force as attraction as no such force has ever existed or been seen in our universe. But with that line removed from the scientific method the government and its bought and paid for universities had free rain to do as they pleased. Proving or disproving the same thing with the now disabled scientific method.

Doing an experiment first by accident is ok if you can demonstrate your hypothesis for the experiment and to this day no one can demonstrate a force of attraction.

If our galaxy is going at 1.3 million miles an hour, a laser would skew 1.16 inches in fifty feet if light was traveling at C, since we do not see this skew, we are either stopped or light is instantaneous communication.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
 
Sep 19, 2020
22
0
530
Empty space holds perhaps the top spot when it comes to a phenomenon that defies our intuition. Even if you remove all the particles and radiation from a region of space — i.e., all the sources of quantum fields — space still won't be empty. It will consist of virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles, whose existence and energy spectra can be calculated. Sending the right physical signal through that empty space should have consequences that are observable.

The best way to approach this concept is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle* is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a child’s swing. If you give it a shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always the same, no matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion of the swing. Now compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what would happen if you started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back and forth swings. Well, the swing would start jiggling around all over the place, in a very unnatural motion, and it would not swing smoothly at all. The poor child on the swing would be furious at you, as you’d be making his or her ride very uncomfortable. This unpleasant jiggling motion — this disturbance of the swing — is different from the swing’s natural and preferred back-and-forth regular motion just as a “virtual particle” disturbance is different from a real particle. If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

For example, an electron is a real particle, a ripple in the electron field; you can hold one in your hand, so to speak; you can make a beam of them and send them across a room or inside an 20th century television set (a cathode-ray tube). A photon, too, is a real particle of light, a ripple in the electromagnetic field, and you can make a beam of photons (as in a laser.)

View attachment 1683
Fig. 1: Two electrons approach each other; they generate a disturbance in the electromagnetic field (the photon field); this disturbance pushes them apart, and their paths are bent outward. One says they "exchange virtual photons", but this is just jargon.

But if two electrons pass near each other, as in Figure 1, they will, because of their electric charge, disturb the electromagnetic field, sometimes called the photon field because its ripples are photons. That disturbance, sketched whimsically in green in the figure, is not a photon. It isn’t a ripple moving at the speed of light; in general isn’t a ripple at all, and certainly it is under no obligation to move at any one speed. That said, it is not at all mysterious; it is something whose details, if we know the initial motions of the electrons, can be calculated easily. Exactly the same equations that tell us about photons also tell us about how these disturbances work; in fact, the equations of quantum fields guarantee that if nature can have photons, it can have these disturbances too. Perhaps unfortunately, this type of disturbance, whose details can vary widely, was given the name “virtual particle” for historical reasons, which makes it sound both more mysterious, and more particle-like, than is necessary.

View attachment 1684
Fig. 2: As in Figure 1, for a positron (an anti-electron) and an electron; now the slightly different disturbance causes the two particles to attract one another, and their paths are bent inward.

This disturbance is important, because the force that the two electrons exert on each other — the repulsive electric force between the two particles of the same electric charge — is generated by this disturbance. (The same is true if an electron and a positron pass near each other, as in Figure 2; the disturbance in this case is similar in type but different in its details, with the result that the oppositely charged electron and positron are attracted to each other.) Physicists often say, and laypersons’ books repeat, that the two electrons exchange virtual photons. But those are just words, and they lead to many confusions if you start imagining this word “exchange” as meaning that the electrons are tossing photons back and forth as two children might toss a ball. It’s not hard to imagine that throwing balls back and forth might generate a repulsion, but how could it generate an attractive force? The problem here is that the intuition that arises from the word “exchange” simply has too many flaws. To really understand this you need a small amount of math, but zero math is unfortunately not enough. It is better, I think, for the layperson to understand that the electromagnetic field is disturbed in some way, ignore the term “virtual photons” which actually is more confusing than enlightening, and trust that a calculation has to be done to figure out how the disturbance produced by the two electrons leads to their being repelled from one another, while the disturbance between an electron and a positron is different enough to cause attraction.

Now there are many other types of disturbances that fields can exhibit that are not particles. Another example, and scientifically one of the most important, shows up in the very nature of particles themselves. A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.

It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field. The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle. However, the combination of the two is just such as to be a nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and momentum, and with an electron’s mass. This is sketchily illustrated in Figure 3.

View attachment 1687
Figure 3: Feynman diagram needed to process Figure 2.

Fig. 3: An electron may naively be thought of as a ripple of minimum intensity --- the minimal ripple --- in an electron field. But the electron interacts with the photon field (i.e. the electromagnetic field) and can create a disturbance in it; in doing so it too ceases to be a normal particle and becomes a more general disturbance. The combination of the two disturbances (i.e. the two "virtual particles") remains a particle with the energy, momentum and mass of the incoming electron.

The language physicists use in describing this is the following: “The electron can turn into a virtual photon and a virtual electron, which then turn back into a real electron.” And they draw a Feynman diagram that looks like Figure 4. But what they really mean is what I have just described in the previous paragraph. The Feynman diagram is actually a calculational tool, not a picture of the physical phenomenon; if you want to calculate how big this effect is, you take that diagram , translate it into a mathematical expression according to Feynman’s rules, set to work for a little while with some paper and pen, and soon obtain the answer.

Another example involves the photon itself. It is not merely a ripple in the electromagnetic field, but spends some of its time as an electron field disturbance, such that the combination remains a massless particle. The language here is to say that a photon can turn into a virtual electron and a virtual positron, and back again; but again, what this really means is that the electron field is disturbed by the photon. But why are we seeing a positron — an anti-electron — and yet I am only referring to the electron field? The reason ties back to the very reason that there are anti-particles in the first place: every field, by its very nature, has particle ripples and anti-particle ripples. For some fields (such as the photon field and Z field) these particle and anti-particle ripples are actually the same thing; but for fields like electrons and quarks, the particles and anti-particles are quite different. So what happens when the electron field is disturbed by a passing photon is that a disturbance is set up that has some electron-like disturbance with net negative electric charge, and some positron-like disturbance with net positive charge, but the disturbance as a whole, like the photon itself, carries no net charge at all.

View attachment 1688
Fig. 4: The Feynman diagram needed to calculate the process in Fig. 3. One says "the electron emits and reabsorbs a virtual photon", but this is just shorthand for the physics shown in Fig. 3.

Our picture of an electron in Figure 3 was itself still too naive, because the photon disturbance around the electron itself disturbs the muon field, polarizing it in its turn. This is shown in the corresponding Feynman diagram is shown in Figure 5. This goes on and on, with a ripple in any field disturbing, to a greater or lesser degree, all of the fields with which it directly or even indirectly has an interaction.

* virtual particle - the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle allows for particle-antiparticle pairs to appear spontaneously out of empty space for very brief periods of time. These so-called virtual particles (or quantum vacuum fluctuations) are ubiquitous, and create measurable effects such as the Casimir-Polder force and the Lamb shift. Some physicists (most famously, Tryon 1973) even appeal to the same kind of mechanism to explain the origin of the entire universe from a background of empty spacetime.

The "vacuum energy" is a specific example of ZPE which has generated considerable doubt and confusion. In a completely empty flat universe, calculations of the vacuum energy yield infinite values of both positive and negative sign--something that obviously does not correspond to the nature of the real world.

Observation indicates that in our universe the grand total vacuum energy is extremely small and quite possibly exactly zero. Many theorists suspect that the total vacuum energy is exactly zero.

It definitely is possible to manipulate the vacuum energy. Any objects that change the vacuum energy (electrical conductors, dielectrics and gravitational fields, for instance) distort the quantum mechanical vacuum state. These changes in the vacuum energy are often easier to calculate than the total vacuum energy itself. Sometimes we can even measure these changes in the vacuum energy in laboratory experiments.
(See: https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/defenders-guide-to-science-and-creationism/big-bang-something-from-nothing/ ; See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/follow-up-what-is-the-zer/ )

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/12/yes-virtual-particles-can-have-real-observable-effects/?sh=50eae7ab357b

See: https://medium.com/nakshatra/the-nature-of-nothingness-understanding-the-vacuum-catastrophe-c04033e752f4

See: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

See: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/are-the-energy-fluctuations-in-space-real-or-virtual.937363/

Particles are just not simple objects, and although they are often described as simple ripples in a single field, that’s not exactly true. Only in a world with no forces — with no interactions among particles at all — are particles merely ripples in a single field! Sometimes these complications don’t matter, and we can ignore them. But sometimes these complications are central, so we always have to remember they are there.
These seemingly insignificant particles have made quite an impact on the universe we know today. Not only do they explain ‘particle-particle interaction’, but they can be traced back to the origin of the universe.
Hartmann352
I think if you look at all the particles accelerators you will see that their premise is wrong. Matter is made of electricity, you can repel matter with particles of electricity just like you can repel particles of electricity with electricity. The particle of electricity is an atom of electricity, and a particle of electricity is the atom of a proton. Atom is the smallest part or component of something. So all the phony particles with their phony descriptions are just that, phony.

Particles of electricity cross the universe in the blink of an eye, if they did not light would not work as it does. You would never be able to see an object at sea if light had a speed limit. As ocean spray and mist blocks, let us say ten percent of an image, if that image moved at only C, as it passed through the changing mist and spray it would have that image superimposed on the original image and so and so on so that in a few miles the image might only be of mist and spray. But again we do not see any sign of that either, so light must be instantaneous.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS