Why is this account shown as suspended until the nonsensical date of “Mar 18 '92 at 16:28“? I am not asking why the account is suspended, but why the “until” date is 27 years in the past.
@JohnRennie I don't exactly remember. But we were talking about the old saying of 1 gauss equals 1 photon per unit area. Then went onto the tesla part.
Then we went a little further than that but not by much.
I literally remembered it just a few seconds ago. But I just can't remember.
Oh yes we were talking about virtual photons and I asked what they were.
This assumes there is a field for every type of particle. The articles are excitations of this field. For example there is an electron field that describes electrons. Add energy to this field and you can excite it, and that excited state appears as an electron.
Alternatively take energy out to de-excite the field and an electron disappears.
This approach makes a lot of weird things immediately obvious. For example it explains why all electrons are identical, because they are all just excitations of the same field.
Also it neatly explains how particles are created in colliders like the LHC. The kinetic energy of the incoming particles gets transferred into the quantum field where it appears as new particles.
It also explains how particles and antiparticles annihilate. For example when an electron and positron meet the energy in the electron/positron field is transferred to the photon field so the electron and positron disappear and two photons appear.
That's a good question and the answer is that no-one knows what a quantum field actually represents physically. The maths works i.e. when we use QFT to do calculations we get the correct answers.
But it isn't clear what the reality of quantum fields is, and indeed it isn't even clear if it makes sense to ask what the reality of quantum fields is.
@ScientistSmithYT physicists and philosophers have been arguing about this for decades. The fact no firm conclusions have been reached suggests that either it's a very hard question or that the question doesn't make sense.
Anyhow, the point of all this was to try and explain what virtual particles are ...
This seems like a very hard task that wont be solved anytime soon. But yet I think the magnetic field properties are hiding something of greatness from us. I have been studying this particular stuff all of my life pretty much and I know a lot but not enough to even come close to solving it.
OK. Quantum fields can have many different types of excitation. The excitations that represent the particles are the states called Fock states. These basically look like infinite plane waves.
If you remember back to when you learned the Schrodinger equation you found the wavefunction of a free particle was an infinite plane wave.
Well the Fock states are the QFT equivalent of this.
But ...
Quantum fields can have states that aren't Fock states and don't look like particles.
@ScientistSmithYT quite the opposite. The vast majority of states in interacting QFTs are not Fock states.
These don't have any simple interpretation, but we can approximate them as a combination of Fock states i.e. we can describe them as if they were made up from a sum of particles.
I don't think it's possible to say much more at this level. The magnetic field is one of the phenomena we get when we quantise the electromagnetic four-vector. It turns out to be a far more complicated object than we all learned about as undergrads.
But the bottom line is IT ISN'T MADE OF PHOTONS :-)
Hey guys, would an arbitrary macrostate of the universe have a Poincaré recurrence time or some analog of it? Could it be proven that such a term would need to be finite or infinite?
So in that metric would the recurrence time be infinity, or would the concept of a recurrence time not exist (some kind of true divide by zero unrenormalizable /undefined error)
Reading about photons I hear different explanations like "elementary particle", "probability cloud", "energy quanta" and so forth. Since probably no one has ever seen a photon (if "seen" it supposedly - and rather conveniently - ceases to exist) but many experiments seem to verify its properties ...
I understand that a black hole bends the fabric of space time to a point that no object can escape.
I understand that light travels in a straight line along spacetime unless distorted by gravity. If spacetime is being curved by gravity then light should follow that bend in spacetime.
In Newton...
Light is clearly affected by gravity, just think about a black hole, but light supposedly has no mass and gravity only affects objects with mass.
On the other hand, if light does have mass then doesn't mass become infinitely larger the closer to the speed of light an object travels. So this woul...
@JohnRennie hi can you define what is difference between enthalpy and heat
When we discuss about gibbs free energy enthalpy given us -surround enthalpy which equal to gibbs free energy this enthalpy is energy,and heat is also a energy than what is difference between them
Some long time ago in the past, I was reading some newspaper and saw a figure that my friends next to me think it is a face But I don't want to see it as a face, thus I focus on specific features of that figure and shortly after, I ceased to see it as a face It's actually pretty hard because consciously speaking, it tries so hard to snap back into seeing a face
and with that, a proposal to win The Game:
Whenever you realise you thought of The Game, use the above procedures to non think The Game, then The Game ends up never thought of, and you can avoid losing The Game
Take this figure as an example, I see it as a meh emoticon But I do not want to see it as a meh emoticon, thus I tried to think of something that is similar in appearance but not whatever I think I am seeing right now (a meh emoticon), At this point in time, I should be not thinking the meh emoticon, since I am only focus on not seeing what I am currently seeing, but not directly the meh emoticon impression The think I thought of is a power socket. Then slowly, the three horizontal lines become identified with the concept of the holes in the power socket, and the meh emoticon perception bec…
Now the joke thought:
> 0. There is a game (consequence of zeroth law of thermodynamics) 1. You can't win. (consequence of first law of thermodynamics) 2. You can't break even. (consequence of second law of thermodynamics) 3. You can't even get out of the game. (consequence of third law of thermodynamics)
If I can somehow replicate this non thinking strategy somehow at the physical level, it should allow me to break the 1st law of thermodynamics
(obviously a joke since you cannot break the 1st law of thermodynamics, except in GR where global energy is not well defined)
it perks my curiousity because 1) it's hilbert space applied to stats, which i'm interested in lately, and 2) the reproducing condition is the same one you see in QM for the feynman propagator
@Student404Mus The $-E_{\vec{p}} c_{\vec{p}}^{s \dagger} c_{\vec{p}}^s$ term means the more particles created by $c_{\vec{p}}^{s \dagger}$ in the theory there are, the lower the energy of the system gets, i.e. negative energy potentially even going to minus $\infty$ negative energy, which is nonsense
Why is this account shown as suspended until the nonsensical date of “Mar 18 '92 at 16:28“? I am not asking why the account is suspended, but why the “until” date is 27 years in the past.
