Sorry about the bolding. Preview. preview.
**
Sorry. Wrong answer.
**
Hmmm. Sorry again. Wrong answer.
**
Yeah, you’ve said that before. I find it ironic in that you haven’t particularly demonstrated accuracy and rigor yourself.
I stand behind my original statements. Virtual particles, both in the form of force carriers, and virtual pair matter have real physical detectable existence.
I think your confusion lies in the fact that virtual particles were originally used only as a convention for force carriers. Nobody thought that they actually did exist.
Can they be observed directly? Really nothing at that level can be. Can they be detected? Yep.
They’re real.
jmullaney:
I’m still trying to work on Salma Hayek for you.
So far I can say that it is definately possible that her nude image could appear before you and linger for 80 attoseconds (it would probably be tinted orange.)
don’t blink.
It is also remotely possible that she could appear before you in reality. Unfortunately you would be pretty much instantly anhiliated from the attendant anti-Salma.
However, it seems to me that if you happened to be hanging out at the edge of a black hole when Salma appeared, and anti-Salma fell in, then you two might live happily ever after.
Scylla:
Nothing in your quote supports the direct detection of virtual particles. They are labeld virtual for a reason. Detecting effects which can be accounted for by virtual particles is not synonymous with detecting virtual particles.
This, perhaps, is a case of confusion of terms. When I say that virtual particle “all cases is a label used to conceptualize a force-carrier or intermediate stage of a quantum process.” that does not preclude there actually being a “real” virtual particle. It simply means that the “real” existence of a virtual particle is not essential. There may be a “real” instantiation. Certainly some current theories call for such. But those same theories require in all cases that said “real existence” forever remain below the level of detection.
The effects are clear and observable. We label the cause of those effects “virtual particles”. We will never be able to know whether an actual particle pair has come into being and been annihilated.
What can I say. The Fermi Lab website is wrong. In fact, they have almost exactly reversed the case. Virtual particles do leave a trace of their “existence”. In fact, it is those very traces that drove the concept in the first place. They cannot be detected. sigh I must assume that this webpage was written by a “content provider” with only a minimal grasp of the subject. I can only point out that employing this same line of reasoning to the existence of abominable snowmen would lead us to say, “Yeti are real–they exist in that they can be detected and can interact.” After all, we have tracks which can certainly be accounted for by the Yeti model.[sub]note: I am not saying that virtual particles are on a par with abominable snowmen.[/sub]
Not by me. Please provide a direct cite that the Fermi Accelerator (or anyplace else) has directly observed a virtual particle pair.
That quote is mine, and it does need elaboration. By quoting “existence” I had hoped to imply my meaning, but I will be more explicit.
Virtual particles can achieve measurable existence only when in an extremely high energy environment (proximity to high energy photons, extremely intense gravitic field, hypothetically in an area of extremely rapidly expanding space). Under such condiitons, they can achieve a lasting physical manifestation. Of course, under such conditions thay become “real” particles.
Alternatively, virtual particles achieve a lasting physical manifestation only in the minute fluctuations in the energy of other particles. I such cases, there is no measurable material manifestation.
I believe I have, within the limits of a message board. Perhpas the clarification above will help you. Regardless, I have not: groosly misrepresented the Many Worlds quantum interpretation, claimed the direct detection of particles which by current theory will always be undetectable, misunderstood the quantum nature of space and time, dismissed questions of transmiting information (even matter!) between divergent Universes as “meaningless”.
“At that level”? At the level of virtual particles? Well, that pretty much is a set containing only virtual particles.
You seem to be trivializing a real difference, though, in the means used to detect virtual particles vs the means used to detect other particles. We have no means to detect a virtual particle through the effects of its physical manifestation. We can only detect the indirect effects of the energy released through its annihilation.
That is not the case with other particles.
Are you seriously arguing that a possibility exists that virtual particles could manifest in the form of a human being? Have you run across a model that proposes virtual neutrons? Have you found a model that allows for virtual particles to exist long enough for chemical bonds to be formed?
Or is this simply another manifestation of “quantum theory means anything can happen”?
Spoke to a particle physicist sentened to the education center for the day. Here’s what she said:
They detect virtual particles and bosuns “all the time.”
Once you detect a virtual particle it’s not virtual anymore.
They’ve detected virtual particles colliding.
They’ve occasionally been able manufacture a top quark which if I’ve wrote it down correctly means they gotta smash a gluon into a virtual antiquark.
They’ve detected virtual photons w and v bosuns and gluons.
When I asked her about the random actualization of objects that might linger, I was met with silence for a few moments.
“What I’m asking I said is can whole virtual things appear and just stay.”
She said that in order for a virtual particle to linger (and if I get this wrong it’s my fault,) its pair has to interact with another particle at sufficient energy to break the attraction between the two. She didn’t say “no,” but she was clearly uncormfortable with the scale necessary to produce a Salma Hayek. “You might get a proton that way,” she said.
Seeing as a proton and Salma Hayek are both “simple” particles I take this as vindication.
You can call the Fermilab Education center at 630 840 8258 if you like.
I’m not exactly waiting with baited breath, but it does seem extremely remotely possible.
You need the random actualization of a bunch of quarks and such with attendant cosmic rays to seperate them from their pairs just happen to go flying by. Then I guess you need those quarks to just happen to fall into configurations that would create protons, then those protons would just get lucky and combine into nuclei with electrons, then those atoms would have to just happen to combine into a combination of molecules (again, lots of energy in terms of random cosmic rays or whatever would be needed,) then those molecules would just have to happen to fall together into Salma Hayek.
I don’t understand why you have such a problem with this 
**
Yeah, you are right. They must be lying.
**
Nothing on the subatomic scale is directly observable. They detect virtual particles with particle detectors in exactly the same fashion they detect other particles.
**
You are referring to virtual particles as used in Feynman equations, I’m talking about them as seen in Hawking radiation (Which by the way they beleive they’ve observed.
**
Not by me. Please provide a direct cite that the Fermi Accelerator (or anyplace else) has directly observed a virtual particle pair.
**
I am speculating and having fun trying to stretch my understanding of Quantum Physics and MWI. I am not dodging any issues. As I’ve said my idea (which may have other flaws) for transmitting info between universes doesn’t work without infinite universes, which have been shown to be impossible. If you’d like to talk about it anyway, that’s fine. Do you?
**
How is it that you think we “directly observe” most subatomic particles?
A virtual error of mine must have actualized in that last post.
I think it’s interesting that when you found out the many-world theory accepts quantized time you suddenly thought your theory couldn’t work, when previously the fact that the many-world theory also does not allow for universes to affect each other or any breaking of natural laws or complete logical impossibility did not faze you at all. 
Gaudere:
I had a workaround. Quantized time destroys that too.
I think this has been worthwhile for the insights into omnipotence, anyway.
Plus, I think Spiritus is on the ropes.
For curiousity’s sake, what was your workaround? I bet I can find a flaw in it too.
Don’t count Spiritus out until you see his lifeless bones well bleached by the sun. And maybe not even then.
Gaudere:
There’s lots of flaws in it. But, it’s defensible.
Granted an infinity of alternate universes there is also an infinity of alternate yous that are exactly the same down to the subatomic level.
In fact they bare more resemblance to you, than the you you were just a second ago (kind of a step in the same river twice kind of deal.)
In fact there is no experiment or way in which you could prove that those other yous were not you. They are exactly the same down to thought.
Any of those is you.
One of these yous lifts a rock, another doesn’t.
Which one is you?
They both are.
In still another universe, another you remembers it both ways exactly as it happened.
If that you is you, you remember both lifting and not lifting a rock and both are true.
No actual communication of information is necessary between infinite universes. Infinite universes will provide the indistinguishable semblance of communication, which is just as good if not better than the real thing.
Trying to prove or disprove God is a waste of time, and annoying to people who are always being pushed into this debate. What’s so hard about realizing there are no proofs and will be none? God doesn’t exist because there are people who believe in Him. He was here long before people.
Where?
It seems to me that the only point you have not already abandoned is the direct detection of virtual particles.
I’m not dodging you on that one, either, just waiting for the folks at fermi to get back to me withthe answers to a couple of questions. For the record:
I never stated or insinuated that the people at Fermi were lying.
I have no particular desire to continue pointing out errors you have admitted. I only raised the issue after your post finding irony in my claim that your treatments of quantum theory have lacked rigor.
I explained before the difference between the detection of effects caused by the physical manifestation of a particle and the detection of trace effects accountable by the annihilation of a virtual particle. It is one level of indirection. No more, no less. How is it you think we discuss issues of electron spin and position meaningfully?
I have not accused you of dodging issues. You have accused me of not reading your links and posting disingenuous questions. I will note, now, that you have not answered several of the questions I have posed to you.
Your Salma Hayak response seems to have ignored the fact that I specified an environmental condiiton. After all, I was responding to someone who felt that all things had a non-zero probability of occurence
BTW – infinite Universes does not mean that all possibilities are realized. As a model, take the infinite set of positive integers. The set of real numbers **not found[/]b within that set is an order of (infinite) magnitude larger than the set of real numbers included. Simply positing an infinite number of Universes gains you nothing in proving the existence of God, the “semblance” of inter-Universal communication, or any number of other things.
I think I will also point out that your “proof of God” required the actuality of information transmission between Universes, not just the semblance. "All a being needs to do in order to become omnipotent is [select] its POV across the multiverse. "
In another world, a Spiritus Mundi exists who actually uses the preview button and (occassinally) proofs his posts.
If only I could communicate with him. . .
BTW – thanks for the vote of confidence, Gaudere. My lifeless bones are now back in my body where they belong. And they are all cleaned and pearly-white, too. 
No they’re not. If one did an action differently, or remembered something the other did not, they cannot be the same on a subatomic level. If they were exactly the same person, everything about them would be the same. If the “two people” differ in any way they are different people, therefore you cannot say they are the same person. For one thing, they are spatiotemporally separated in different universes; persons are not phsyically separate from themselves. No theory of personhood I know of purports to say that these two can literally be the same person; after all, if they are the same person, killing one would kill the other, and that doesn’t happen.
If you say that that slight difference of one performing the action and one not doing so and living in different universes does not make them separate people, how do you tell the difference between people? So there is a me who lifted a rock and one who didn’t, yet you claim they are still the same person.
Ok, what if we have a person who lifted the rock, and one who lifted it and dropped it on her toe, thus injuring her toe and still causing it to be amputaed. Still the same person?
Ok, what if we go back to my childhood, and one person fell out of a tree and was paralyzed from the neck and one me is fine. Still the same person?
Ok, we go back to my zygote days. a chemical fluxuation changes my sex to male. When the male me and female me are born, are we still the same person?
Ok, we go back even further. In one universe, a different sperm fertilized my mother’s egg. When this person is grown, is he/she still the same person as me?
I don’t think you can talk coherently about two persons not occupying the exact same space/time/universe being the “same person”.
They exist in different universes. Therefore they are not the me who exists in this universe.
It is a semblance of communication, not the real thing. It like me writing a story in this universe. In another universe, quantum effects spontaneously cause a story exactly like mine to exist. But did I communicate with the other universe? No.
Also, I thought your God was supposed to be able to do everything. God in universe A cannot affect universe B now?
**
I haven’t conceded nything on the nature of omnipotence, have I?
**
I know.
**
If you care to point out what I missed, I’ll be glad to respond with my apologies for having missed it.
**
Listen Bub, you want Salma, you better be willing to grant concessions.
**
A truly excellent point. I see know way of ascertaining which possibilities are integers and which are not, or even if the analogy is valid. One couldn’t prove that it’s not though.
I dunno. If you turn on the radio and random static forms itself into the phrase, “Bring an umbrella, it’s gonna rain,” this is every bit as good as if you’d actually been tuned to the station that said the same thing. If you still don’t like it, think of something with Quantum wormholes.
As for your accusation of playing fast and loose with QM and MWI. Guilty, with pride. This is how one comes up with new ideas and better understanding. Exrapolate like mad, ignore convention and see what you can come up with. Examine it with acritical eye, attempt to tear it apart, enlist others to help you, and see what’s left. Most of the time, it’s nothing, but every once in a while…
Fermi’s detectors use several layers of detection. I would guess that none or very few of these particles are directly detected. They are deducted from the energies of their collisions, by magnetic changes through a charged grid, by Cherenkov radiation, and by Particle Man. I don’t know if your distinction between the way a virtual particle is detected and others are is corect, or even valid.
I do know that there’s a Hubble picture, that is beleived to be a large black hole complete with Hawking radiation. It seems to me that visible Hawking radiation would be about as direct a detection of a virtual particle as you could want.
Gaudere:
I’m not gonna argue since it’s now moot, but consider also that there is no communication between you and the past you that existed a few moments ago. Is that you?
The illusion of continuity of youness is created as you move through time. Each individual you is like a frame on a motion picture. Play them in sequence, and that’s you. Prove to me that it’s not just as valid to take a sequence of frames from across the multiverse and call it you.
Of course infinity would mean that only possible things were possible, but I think it’s cerainly possible that one of the yous would memories that exactly correspond to any sequence of events you can think of.
If you don’t like that, I could go with an entity that incorporates quantum wormholes into it’s being and thus does communicate across the multiverse. Sagan and Crichton made use of these in fiction they wrote, but I’d rather be original even if my explanation doesn’t seem as satisfying.
Thanks for the phone number.
I spoke to Tom. I asked questions. He nicely called back with some answers. The gist:
It is not possible to detect virtual particles.
It is possible, even common, to detect many other particles including neutrinos (theoretically even the tau neutrino, though it hasn’t been done, muons, etc).
He has no idea why someone there told you that they detected virtual particles “all the time”.
It is possible for a virtual particle to interact with a very high energy environment in such a way that a persistent particle is formed. The result is a “real” particle, not a virtual one.
It is not possible for a virtual particle pair to result in a lasting material manifestation absent said very high-energy environment.
Tom is a really nice guy.
Well, you abandoned the topic after some of us pointed out that you were applying loic inconsistently to your concept of omnipotence. I took that for a tacit concession. If it was not, then please address those issues.
Frankly, it is easy to say “a being unbounded by logic”. It then beomes essentially impossible to discuss such a being in meaningful terms unless you have direct experience of it.
Beyond the omnipotence question, which I guess we might have to revisit, the questions you passed on were all designed to demonstrate that you were playing fast and loose with quantum theory. Since you have now (prooudly) admitted the same, I see no reason to ask them again.
I am ardently devoted to my pregnant wife an dused Salam as an example purely from intellectual considerations. I would not at all be interested in actually having her materialize in my living room. Really.
[sub]think she bought it?[/sub]
Thanks, but I think you missed a little of that point.
Stated another way, infinite Universes is not a sufficient condition to deduce “all possibilities happen someplace”. The integer → real mapping was simply an illustration demostrating the same thing (infinite does not mean containing all things) in another context.
To illustrate in the same context, picture a set of non-ending (necessary due to quantized time) Universes. The members of the set differ in one and only one way – the “rate” at which time progresses. The set is infinite – there is no upper bound to that “rate”, but noting happens in one Universe that does not happen in all others.
You keep missing the point.
Transmission of information between Universes is a major stumbling block. Saying that the same information might be available in Universe_A through other means does not address it. How about another analogy:
You have a theory which requires functional telepathy. I say it is not possible. You say, “well, what if you wrote down what you were thinking and I found the pice of paper.” It ain’t the same thing.
This all began because you posited that the ability to select frame of reverence among th Multiverse was a neccessary and sufficient condition for omnipotence. Static on a radio doesn’t cut it.
You would guess wrong. If you don’t believe me then call back Fermi and ask for Tom (but please be very polite – he’s a nice guy and probably doesn’t deserve to have his days consumed by our SDMB debate.)
That is incorrect. There is a great deal of communication between myself and my past self, it is simply uni-directional.
Possible but not necessary. And it still does not equate to transmission of information between Universes.
Are we hung up on semantics?
Would it be safe to say that the act of detecting a virtual particle makes it real, therefore you can’t detect it?
Did you ask about top quarks and the “virtual” particles my contact listed?
I am coming to the opinion that “virtual particles” gets used to mean more than one thing.
I too, am hesitant to call up and bother these people more, although it would be really fun to go down there during the Sunday afternoon “ask a scientist” open house and argue in front of a particle physicist as referree.
Would you consider Hawking radiation to be the detection of a virtual particle? (or a virtual particle become real?)
I’d rather not revisit omnipotence, as it leads to a very quick impasse, beyond which there can be no meaningful discussion.
**
No, but a phone implanted in your ear might be close enough for Government work.
It’s a moot point in more ways then one. I can steal Crichton’s wormholes (that he stole from Sagan) and get actual communication that way. I just find the other way more elegant.
I understand that infinity doesn’t mean “everything’s included,” but gives a lot of space for me to work with, and you would have to prove why something shouldn’t be included.
**
I disagree. It doesn’t matter how the info gets there, just that it’s correct. Your eyes don’t really see straight ahead. The optic nerve is in the way. Your brain interpolates and fills in the blind spot. It’s not real, but it works.
And one more time if you still don’t like it, then all we need is a being that incorporates quantum wormholes into itself they way you and I have a nervous system.
BTW what exactly do you mean by detected directly?
**
You’re a result of that person, but I don’t understand how you think you’re communicating.