I'm not sure we have the same definitions of 'confirmed'.
It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
11–20 of 29 posts
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
#12The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual. Oh god. This is what I get for reading new scientist...
Sometimes I wonder how much of quantum mechanics' notorious difficulty is that it is truly hard to understand, and how much is simply that it is hard to understand in English . People hear "virtual particle" and have no clue what that means and associate it with other "virtual" things. Or, more directly connected to the title of this story, hear that matter is "merely" "vacuum fluctuations", which, thanks in no small…
This pattern is called a Sylogism.
Everybody hates sylogisms as it's mostly used to manipulate.
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
#13Interesting Read. Though I have read that some equatins regarding sub atomic particles were "too difficult to solve" before, I never had read a good explanation why.
It will be a sad day when the supercomputers we build to solve these equations gain intelligence and use their knowledge against us. Maybe they'll invent some cool null ray.
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
#14Is it just me or there is really something amiss with this article? Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. So, if they have NOW confirmed this, why didn't the article cite the work that confirmed this? Also the article didn't mention anything on who confirmed and how. It talks about some computer simulations and concludes: Altho…
Hmm, I do see your point, to me, the article is about why the theory has been so difficult to prove.
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
#15Is it just me or there is really something amiss with this article? Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. So, if they have NOW confirmed this, why didn't the article cite the work that confirmed this? Also the article didn't mention anything on who confirmed and how. It talks about some computer simulations and concludes: Altho…
Hmm, I do see your point, to me, the article is about why the theory has been so difficult to prove.
the article is about why the theory has been so difficult to prove.
You mean the theoretical proof?
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, I do see your point, to me, the article is about why the theory has been so difficult to prove.
the article is about why the theory has been so difficult to prove. You mean the theoretical proof?
The computational resources required to crunch the numbers.
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
#17[deleted]
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes I wonder how much of quantum mechanics' notorious difficulty is that it is truly hard to understand, and how much is simply that it is hard to understand in English . People hear "virtual particle" and have no clue what that means and associate it with other "virtual" things. Or, more directly connected to the title of this story, hear that matter is "merely" "vacuum fluctuations", which, thanks in no small…
This pattern is called a Sylogism. Everybody hates sylogisms as it's mostly used to manipulate.
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
#19This article is grotesquely misleading. It misuses the word "virtual". Virtual reality meaning a simulation hasn't a thing to do with virtual particles in quantum field theory. In this case, the strength of the strong nuclear force field in a given point affects the probability amplitude of finding a gluon at that given point, which, in turn, will affect the mass of the area surrounding that point. In the case of the 3 quark proton, the strong nuclear force field has a high strength in the vicinity of the three quarks, therefore, the probability of finding gluons here is higher than outside the 3-quark bounded configuration. Since energy is equivalent to mass, that means the 3-quark bounded configuration will get a higher mass value than the surrounding vacuum, because of the higher prevalence of the strong nuclear force-field carrying gluons within it. This is ordinary, well understood, quantum chromodynamics, similar to quantum electrodynamics. There is nothing "virtual" about it in the sense of "less than real". A particle may be said to be "virtual" if is is transient (acts over a short distance or timespan). However its effects are as real as it gets. At the end of day, quantum field theory comes to down calculating probability amplitudes, in this case, the probability of finding gluons in the 3-quark configuration. There isn't anything "virtual" or "magical" or "hocus pocus" about it. And if somebody thinks there is, they shouldn't be writing for a science magazine.
Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes I wonder how much of quantum mechanics' notorious difficulty is that it is truly hard to understand, and how much is simply that it is hard to understand in English . People hear "virtual particle" and have no clue what that means and associate it with other "virtual" things. Or, more directly connected to the title of this story, hear that matter is "merely" "vacuum fluctuations", which, thanks in no small…
Not to turn this into a religious/philosophical argument, but I've yet to hear a good definition for the soul that's congruous with the symptoms of brain damage. I'd appreciate any insights you have, though.
Similarly how walking is what the feet does, conscience is what the brain does.