@Danu : no. I just looked up a question I recalled from a week or so ago and referred to it. To reiterate, John Rennie said, "these virtual particles are really just a mathematical device and they don't really exist" Anna v previously said "thus virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model".
@ACuriousMind : I think "hydrogen atoms don't twinkle" nicely ridicules the nonsense notion that virtual particles are short-lived real particles that pop into existence spontaneously, like worms from mud.
@Danu : when people believe in something for which there is no evidence, and when they've believed it for years, they cling to that belief. They invent all sort of excuses not to face facts. It's difficult to get them to see reason. Breaking a conviction is like shifting a tooth. You need to apply pressure, and keep it applied.
@JohnDuffield I really wish I could engage you in a real discussion, but you've shown that you're not interested. I'm bummed. I went through this with CuriousOne and after hours he finally actually listened and found that he was wrong about a similar issue to what you're talking about now (virtual particles). That was rewarding for me because there was a real exchange of information. Too bad.
@Danu No, I meant what I said. I had a long session with CuriousOne. For the first 60% of it, he just kept making useless statements about the fairy tales in which I believe. He was more interested in saying that I'm wrong than he was in discussing the actual physics.
@DanielSank : you're running away because you can't face up to a challenge to your conviction. You don't have anything to counter "virtual particles are really just a mathematical device and they don't really exist".
I'll try one more time: @JohnDuffield You can't measure electric field. You can't even measure force. You can measure displacement of a spring scale. So by this reasoning not even electric field is "real". By the same extension of the term "real" that we use to allow ourselves to think of electric field as "real", also virtual particles and many other things (i.e. temperature) are "real". I guess that's all I have to say.
@DanielSank : Beh, all you can offer is some handwaving little story about CuriousOne. As if that's at all relevant. Again, you just don't have anything to counter "virtual particles are really just a mathematical device and they don't really exist".
@DanielSank : the field is the electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic field interactions result in linear force and/or rotational force. When we only see the former we talk of an electric field, when we only see the latter we talk of a magnetic field.
@JohnDuffield Can we perhaps reach some agreement about avoiding further discussions of you vs. [whoever you are agreeing with at that given time] if it involves "the usual" topics that have been discussed ad nauseam (including e.g. virtual particles, "spacetime" etc) in this chat to no effect?
I think perhaps the best solution is to make a separate chat room for such discussions
At this point I think most of the regulars are just tired of it
@DanielSank : it's relevant because we're talking about ontology, and what exists and what doesn't. You will be aware that there are no "electric" waves, they're electromagnetic waves. In similar vein the electron has an electromagnetic field rather than an electric field per se.
user116211
6:33 PM
@JohnDuffield: You disagreed on this with Timaeus, also. He tried to explain you but... hmmm.
@Danu : if somebody doesn't want to talk physics with me that's not a problem. But may I remind you that this is a chatroom, on a physics website. I rather thought the general idea was to chat about things, including physics.
@user36790 : please show me where Timaeus tried to explain.
@JohnDuffield Sure, but I also think that there is room for some discussion (ha-ha) on which topics are appreciated by the majority of those who spend their time in this chat room.
actually recent kanye gyrations seem vaguely reminiscent of ... martin sheen ... fully anticipate kanye will soon announce hes been diagnosed with bipolar or something ... yikes
@user36790 : do you mean this one? I can't see any explaining from Timaeus, just assertions. By the way a moving charge doesn't create a magnetic field. You can work this out in a heartbeat by saying it's you moving instead of the electron. You don't create a magnetic field for the electron just because you moved.
I'm trying to approximate the grating spacing of a cd, but am a bit lost.
Given a density of information on a cd, I think I can find the linear density of pits $\lambda$ (a ring segment) by equating the total number of bits to the integral $\int^{r_1}_{r_2} \lambda 2 \pi r dr$
how can I then use this to find the number of concentric rings that make up a cd? (I know it's a spiral)
Any ideas?
I'm thinking of using the linear density to find how long a line would be to contain all the bits, and then see how many circumferences of the average radius fit inside, but that doesn't seem very elegant
@JohnRennie : the important point is that we start gamma-gamma pair production with two 511keV photons, and we end up with an electron and a positron. The wave nature of matter is scientific fact. We can diffract electrons. This wave is not moving linearly, and the Einstein-de Haas effect is scientific fact too. It "demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".
There is a formula Coxide = OxideEpsilon * ε0 / Oxide_Thikness. You divide ε0, which is supposedly vacuum electric permiability, measured in F/m by capacitor thickness? Shouldn't you muliply them to cancel meters out?
a ball rolls up the a hill that makes an incline with the floor theta = 36. the coefficient of kinetic and static friction is .45 and .65 respectively. The ball approaches the base of the hill with a velocity of 12 m/s. I want to find the acceleration of the ball up the hill.
I have set up F_acceleration = F_normal sin(theta) + F_friction
Is this correct?
Or should it be F_acceleration = F_normal sin (theta) - F_friction
cool, so how does this work? As the ball slides up the hill, friction acts against the ball's motion and so does the parallel component of the normal force. right?
@Pallas "parallel component of the normal force" What? Do you mean "horizontal component of the normal force"? Because "normal" is perpendicular and there is no parallel component.
@ACuriousMind : yes, I have an urge to urge to roll my eyes when I hear "arrow of time". IMHO there's a lot of popscience nonsense concerning time, and not enough people look at what clocks do.
