Claims require proof, otherwise they can be ignored. That's the rule in science. Nothing is ruled out in science; the demarcation line between science and speculation is the proof, not the disproof.It's one thing to say that "vacuum fluctuations" are an unsupported assertion, but it's another thing to be able tor rule them out, particularly by experimental means. How can this "unsupported assertion" be ruled out, experimentally?
Sometimes we would be happy to have a 10% accuracy...Compared to QED, QCD has the advantage that it is asymptotically free at large energies, with the consequence that – unlike QED – it can be studied in a lattice approximation, with enormous numerical effort ultimately rewarded by reasonable (few digit) accuracy.
I know. I was thinking of optimistic figures (low lying baryon spectrum to ##1-9##%), and deliberately used the vague expression ''few''.Nice article!Sometimes we would be happy to have a 10% accuracy...
The final results for the baryon masses in the infinite volume limit, together with their error margins, are given in Table 1 on p.38.Fodor and Hoelbling said:p.29: What one would ideally like to do then is to fix the N_f + 1 dimensionless bare parameters of the lattice theory, the bare quark masses and the gauge coupling, such that the N_f dimensionless observables on the lattice assume their physical values exactly and the lattice spacing a is of the desired size. One could then measure any observable on the lattice for a range of lattice spacings a and, with the appropriate functional form that is given by the discretization effects of the specific action used, extrapolate them into the continuum a = 0. [...]
p.31: The removal of the cutoff, also known as continuum extrapolation, is an unavoidable part of any lattice calculation that wants to make a statement about the underlying fundamental continuum theory. The severity of the continuum extrapolation however depends very strongly on both the action used and the combination of scale setting observable and measured observable. [...]
p.46: While ground state non-singlet hadron masses can be computed to a few percent accuracy today, reaching the same level of precision for excited states or singlet hadrons is still a challenging task.
We have another live thread on this misconception right now: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-does-hawking-radiation-work.904630/Hawking radiation relies on Maxwell's demon to ensure that the negative energy virtual particle always goes into the black hole and the positive energy virtual particle always escapes.
I don't think that this question has been answered fully.Sir, you write:
"what fluctuates in the experiment is the electro-optical signal detected, not the vacuum."
Sir, by what experimental/observational means can we discern that the fluctuations are not part of the Vacuum?
It's one thing to say that "vacuum fluctuations" are an unsupported assertion, but it's another thing to be able tor rule them out, particularly by experimental means. How can this "unsupported assertion" be ruled out, experimentally?
I did not understand exactly, I'm sorry, but the topic is very interesting. For all I knew, the Casimir experiment would prove the existence of "a quantum vacuum." In addition, other authors, such as Feynman and Hawking argue explicitly a state of vacuum in which particles and anti-particles "virtual" is created and destroyed. In the second quantization are introduced proper operators of "creation" and "destruction. "
You can make up those things to describe something in English, but the actual calculations don't have any virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations.It should be emphasized that these pictures of the mechanism responsible for the thermal emission and area decrease are heuristic only and should not be taken too literally.
And all of them treat virtual particles as a mathematical tool, not physical 'reality' (whatever that means). And that is the whole point A. Neumaier is bringing up.but there are many other, very technical, and not simply informative, for example on the vacuum polarization, or the effect Lamb-shift etc.
does not convince me. So whatever it is nothing more than a mathematical tool. Even quarks have no physical reality, are only mathematical tricks, but then whatever. Even the light, we have only the equations of Maxwell there is no other reality than the Maxwell equations. Has anyone ever seen a "photon"? or a "quark"? What is the reality of a photon? Only mathematical tool...And all of them treat virtual particles as a mathematical tool, not physical 'reality' (whatever that means). And that is the whole point A. Neumaier is bringing up.
Yes. We have detectors that can detect single photons (they're called photomultipliers). We ran experiments called deep inelastic scattering experiments in the 1960s where we shot high energy electrons into nuclei and watched them bounce off quarks; that's how the quark model was developed.Has anyone ever seen a "photon"? or a "quark"?
ok, then teach me the first law of Newton, or any other physical argument, without using a single word of "ordinary language", ie using only the language of mathematics. There is no discussion in physics, (and even math!) no matter how advanced, you do not use ordinary language, because, after all, mathematics, I think, is just a language:to really understand physics, you have to use math, not ordinary language.
You might be using words like "energy", "work", "force", etc., but those words do not refer to ordinary language concepts. They refer to particular parts of the math.There is no discussion in physics, (and even math!) no matter how advanced, you do not use ordinary language
But not the same kind of language as ordinary language, because mathematical terms have precise referents.mathematics, I think, is just a language
The intensity of the current is the output of the photomultiplier, not the input. "Photon" is the name we give to whatever-it-is that goes into the photomultiplier and causes the current to be output.The photomultiplier detects only the intensity of the current