Wednesday, May 10, 2023

Why does Viktor T. Toth insist virtual particles don't exist when lab experiments have already proven him wrong? John Pendry responds

 “Virtual particles” are called such because they are not real. They do not exist. They are pieces of mathematical fiction.

https://www.quora.com/Do-virtual-particles-in-a-vacuum-gravitate-https-www-scientificamerican-com-article-how-much-does-nothing-weigh?no_redirect=1

To: vttoth@vttoth.com <mailto:vttoth@vttoth.com>  <mailto:vttoth@vttoth.com
> <mailto:vttoth@vttoth.com> >
  Subject: Virtual particles are not just mathematical fiction

    "Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology have succeeded in creating light from vacuum
  –   observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago.Since their existence is so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles. Chalmers scientist, Christopher Wilson and his co-workers have succeeded in getting photons to leave their virtual state and become real photons, i.e. measurable light. ...“Relatively little energy is therefore required in order to excite them out of their virtual state. In principle, one could also create other particles from vacuum, such as electrons or protons, but that would require a lot more energy.”

Sir John Pendry:

Freed from constraints such as reciprocity and energy conservation, these systems can enable new and exotic wave behaviours.

Moving mirrors make light from nothing

Published: 22 February 2012 Turning point: Christopher Wilson Virginia Gewin Nature volume 482, page 559 (2012)Cite this article 174 Accesses 3 Altmetric Metrics details After finding virtual particles, a physicist turns to proteomics.
"Around 2007, we realized that the work could allow us to measure the virtual photons inside a vacuum. These virtual photons are generated and annihilated in pairs. About 40 years ago, it was suggested that a mirror moving near the speed of light could capture some of these photons. The effect had never been observed, because it is very hard to move a massive object that fast. We made an electronic 'mirror' that we could effectively move at one-quarter of the speed of light using magnetic fields. This allowed us to separate the pairs, stopping them from annihilating and turning them into real photons that we could observe (C. M. Wilson et al. Nature 479, 376–379; 2011)." 
Christopher Wilson, a physicist at Chalmers University of Technology  
 
 
 
 TOTH TO ME:
Well, they are, but there's a subtlety.

The mathematical fiction is the perturbative expansion of a theory in the weak field limit. And yes, electromagnetism is represented very well in that perturbative expansion. So when the field interacts with the instrument, the quantized interactions are well represented by the exchange of virtual photons.

But it is still true that if an accelerating observer flew by the experiment watching it, in his accelerating reference frame he would see a different photon content. Same field, but different photons. A consequence of the fact that in his reference frame, the field has a manifestly different Fourier decomposition, different elementary oscillators, different quanta.

Which observer's reality is more "real"? Well... Both observers see the same field. It's how they decompose that field into photons in their respective weak field approximations that differs.

I'd argue that "reality" is what observers agree on. The field. Anything observer-relative, anything that is different for two observers, is not reality but mathematical fiction. The subtlety is that "mathematical fiction" doesn't mean it's not there. The virtual photons "are" there, as observer-relative representations of the same reality. But they do not have an observer-independent existence. The field does.

Viktor
Therefore, the weak-field metric in gravity is given by(12) In GR, since h f = 0 and h 00 = − 2 ϕ / c 2 with ϕ being the Newtonian potential, we obtain [56](13) This is the well-known weak-field metric in the Newtonian gravity.Apr 10, 2022

Viktor T. Toth

11:51 AM (11 minutes ago)


to me
 
 
The result was a shower of microwave photons shaken loose from the vacuum, the team claims. The group's analysis shows that the frequency of the photons was roughly half the frequency at which they wiggled the mirror -- as was predicted by quantum theory.
anything that is different for two observers, is not reality but mathematical fiction.
Can you please explain to me how those microwave photons are "observer-relative"?
thanks,
drew
 
The same way Unruh radiation and even Hawking radiation are observer-relative. Accelerating observers see photons inertial observers don't and vice versa. Do a QFT in the context of general relativity and you'll see how there is no longer a unique Fourier-decomposition (no global inertial frame) and what we call "virtual particles" will depend upon the rest frame of these accelerating observers.

Granted, the difference may never be actually observable (we'll never see Hawking radiation; maybe, just maybe, we will be able to do experiments to see Unruh radiation) but so long as the theory is correct, this is what it says. I am not making it up. I have right here on my desk several books on QFT in curved spacetime (Wald, Padmanabhan, Parker & Toms, etc.)


Viktor

Thank you for your response "Dr." [he's self-taught] Toth. I was expecting you to address the specific SQUID mirror experiment I referred to - that turned virtual photons into real photons. Do you claim that specific result is "observer-relevant" and if so, specifically how? This experiment is discussed on youtube by someone who is on the Nobel Prize in Physics committee - he recreated the experiment also. I've never noticed anyone claiming the results were "observer-relative."
In regards to your "several books" on QFT that you mention being on your desk - Professor Jean Bricmont disagrees with those QFT textbook claims!  https://www.math.uni-tuebingen.de/de/forschung/maphy/lehre/ss-2019/statisticalphysics/dateien/9-bricmont.pdf  Professor Jean Bricmont: "All our intuitive notion of causality collapses, because this notion is based on the idea that causes precede effects in an absolute sense that does not depend on the reference frame. ... What about QFT or relativistic quantum mechanics ? In standard textbooks, the reduction or collapse of the quantum state is never discussed in relativistic terms−→the question raised by EPR and Bell is not even raised." 
and
you speak of relativity and you speak of relativistic quantum field theory then i challenge you 1:02:07 to find one book because i didn't check all of them of quantum filtering which where even in the index there is a 1:02:14 mention of words like reduction of the wave function collapse of the wave function and so on so all the quantum 1:02:20 states etc so when you learn quantum mechanics in the first course it's an axiom that you have reduction 1:02:26 when you measure blah blah blah and then when you do quantum Field Theory don't mention it anymore what you do 1:02:34 studying the indeed is scattering cross section on the end that's fine 1:02:39 and it's remarkable but where does the where is the control why is that the quantum theory where is the axiom of 1:02:46 collapse and why isn't there an axiom of collapse well that's simple because the collapse is 1:02:51 is again something happening at the distance instantaneously in EPR experiment 1:02:56 and it's very hard to deal with that in a relativistic way in fact i think it's impossible in the usual way 1:03:02 of thinking about relativity and therefore people don't mention it when they do relativistic quantum 1:03:08 filtering but their quantum Feld Theory is not really relativistic because it doesn't even account for the simple EPR experiment 1:03:17 so let's not put the cart in front of the hose 1:03:23 just tie down your control content gravity and then we'll see how to warn about it okay so uh"
Do you have a response to Professor Jean Bricmont's debunking of QFT?
thanks,
drew

Viktor T. Toth

1:13 PM (12 minutes ago)


to me
 
 
I was simply reacting to your statement in the subject line.

When a photon is detected, it is "real", not "virtual". "Turn virtual photons into real photons" is poetic language: When you write down the interaction in terms of a perturbative expansion, you can represent it using a Feynman diagram with internal lines (characterized by propagators, representing "virtual" photons, which are terms in an integral over all possible values of momentum) and external legs (representing observed momenta when the system interacts with the experimental apparatus). You do not "turn virtual into real" ever.

Causality is another matter altogether, and indeed, we have known for many decades that quantum physics is nonlocal. There is nothing new here, no revolutionary revelations, I am afraid. A lot of confusion exists because of the (in my opinion, badly misleading and dated) concept of "wavefunction collapse", which is trying to evade this nonlocality, but in reality creates a solution that is worse than the problem it intends to solve. Fact is, quantum field theory is nonlocal but causal, no "FTL" signaling or transmission of energy-momentum. This can be proven and it is stated as such in better textbooks (e.g., Peskin and Schroeder, for a modern treatment).


Viktor
 
 
Thank you for your reply Viktor T. Toth stating "you can represent it using a Feynman diagram with internal lines" but can you explain to me then why Professor Basil J. Hiley disagrees with Feynman and he says Hiley says "Feynman got into trouble" at 45 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl00BY8kopw
"it blows up but was Richard Feynman worried? not at all! What he said is you know how how do i where is this what about how can i get rid of this energy and then he said let me change the rest mass of the particle to the rest mass one plus delta where delta is a small chain for a short time say epsilon that's my epsilon so the major thing is why and he doesn't tell us he just says do it and nobody seems to say why but we now have a story about mass re-normalization blah blah blah but hold it this is a squared term and what we find look at the work of morris and myself what we find is that the quantum potential never appears until you go to order h squared so what he's missing here is the quantum potential and if you put the corner potential in you get the right result and now the interesting thing is de broglie remember chris was saying it's the de broglie bohm theory that that he was talking about"
thanks,
drew hempel

Viktor T. Toth

1:40 PM (2 minutes ago)


to me
 
 
 
Hi Viktor T. Toth: I searched  An Introduction To Quantum Field Theory 1st Edition by Michael E. Peskin (Author), Daniel V. Schroeder
No mention of Bell's Inequality that Jean Bricmont says debunks QFT.
Sorry to break the bad news but Bricmont stands correct still.
thanks,
drew
 
NO RESPONSE 

Hi Drew.

I am not sure how virtual particles are defined in this case. However I suppose that you could think of a moving electron in vacuum being surrounded by virtual photons. The electric field is in motion but does not radiate into the far field. If the electron approaches a grating, photons are stripped off and radiate. It is known as the 'Smith-Purcell effect'. You might try Googling it.

regards

John Pendry

Pendry, John B

2:14 AM (1 hour ago)


to me
 
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment