[Halc]

It’s that “total/net” dichotomy again.

With food, a can of beans might say "Net wt. 430g" meaning it is the weight of the food, not including the can, and total weight would be perhaps 500g.  So the net is <not including the parts that don't matter (the can)>. When computing the mass of the universe or the mass of virtual partcles, everything matters, so there is no can, so the net and total are the same.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Archangel; I have, so far, only skimmed through your posts, but I plan to return for a better look.  I suspect that much of what you say would fit well with Bohm’s implicate/explicate orders.  If so, is that intentional?

That was my own conclusion a while ago (if you look at my theory). Contrary to Bohm's interpretation, consciousness, if produced by entanglement, would not be outside the brain but it would be the spatial complement to the space-time causal connections. This would be a synthetic image resulting from the brain of our perception which would include our current memory feed backs.

The idea comes from the current interpretation of entanglement mixed with a hidden variables theory. All classical forces decrease with the distance. The current interpretation of entanglement does not follow that law.

The problem is the detector is included in the wave function parameters but the mechanism of the particle being entangled with it is not explicit. As long as we don't have a good description of the mechanism, it is difficult to draw a conclusion. Some experimental setups may induce non-causal correlations while being interpreted as entangled states. I still think there are real entanglement relations though. There are quantum computers and encryption processes using entanglement. If it is useful, there is a reality to it. I doubt that electricity and gravity have entanglement relations which break the law of distance but magnetism could. Entanglement comes from the quantization of energy. In my theory, there are only space and time, and its dynamics.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Halc, the proponents of the MWI don't see it as a causal set but that is truly what they are thriving for. The use of the Schrödinger equation doesn't change anything for that matter. The problem with the MWI is that it replaces our own world relations with inter-worlds relations, moreover, with an exponential growth of new worlds created.

Concerning superposition, you are basically right that it is a matter of belief. Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo: it is a belief. But not all beliefs have equal value. Superposition is all the possible results given by a probability distribution (the square of the function). But only one result is measured. Show me an example in real life where the probability distribution is real in regards to a single possibility that was measured as real. The probability distribution may be made of facts but they are never the properties of a single elements. For example, you may make a distribution by asking blindly the age of each student in a class and then try to guess the age of a specific student. But each student has only a single age.

Superposition being real is not a small leap of faith...

[Bill S]

No energy is needed for virtual pair production since…….they don't really exist….

That makes sense. 

Matt Strassler says  “A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle.”

What causes the disturbance?

Is there a difference?  If I have objects with -3, -2, 1, 4 energy respectively, that's a net of zero and a total of zero, no?  Perhaps I'm missing the difference here.

You could be, but if so, you are in good company.  John Barrow says: “Mathematical ‘existence’ meant only logical self-consistency and this neither required nor needed physical existence to complete it.  If a mathematician could write down a set of non-contradictory axioms and rules for deducing true statements from them, then those statements would be said to ‘exist’.” 

I'm reaching for logic more than say physics.

Let’s look at “If I have objects with -3, -2, 1, 4 energy respectively”.
 They are objects; an object is not nothing, whether you choose to place a minus or plus sign in front of the number you assign to it. 
(-3)+(-2) = -5 = a quantity of energy = something.
(+1)+(+4) = +5 = a quantity of energy = something.
Neither is “nothing”. Only if you claim that one is “less than nothing” can this begin to make logical sense, and what can be less than nothing?  Vernacular expressions notwithstanding.

[Halc]

Matt Strassler says  “A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle.”

What causes the disturbance?

The disturbance is a valid solution to the field equations.  I don't think that it can be said to have a cause.  QM is full of uncaused events.

Is there a difference?  If I have objects with -3, -2, 1, 4 energy respectively, that's a net of zero and a total of zero, no?  Perhaps I'm missing the difference here.

I was not talking about the difference between existence or not here. I was talking about the difference between net and total.

John Barrow says: “Mathematical ‘existence’ meant only logical self-consistency and this neither required nor needed physical existence to complete it.

That is an amazingly good summary of my personal philosophy.

If a mathematician could write down a set of non-contradictory axioms and rules for deducing true statements from them, then those statements would be said to ‘exist’.”

Writing them down seems to give them physical existence.  According to Barrow above, that is an unnecessary step.

Let’s look at “If I have objects with -3, -2, 1, 4 energy respectively”.
 They are objects; an object is not nothing, whether you choose to place a minus or plus sign in front of the number you assign to it. 
(-3)+(-2) = -5 = a quantity of energy = something.

Yes, something.  So I have a basket of 5 apples, and I drop an negative apple of mass -1apple (something) into it, and now I have a basket of 4 apples (fewer somethings).  Objects of negative mass are mathematically possible, but no known stable instance of it has been found, but the prevailing theory is that's how you get rid of the apples from a basket (black holes) from which nothing can be removed.  I don't understand the theory behind it.  To me, it would seem that given a particle pair which manage to acquire positive and negative mass respectively, it would be the positive one that would fall in, not the negative one.  But I'm not a quantum physicist, so my understanding doesn't count.  Black holes spewing negative mass would be interesting indeed.  It would be a way of sucking in all the matter without having to wait for it to fall in.

Neither is “nothing”.

Not claiming that zero is nothing.  I can have zero angular momentum, but that's quite different from not having an angular momentum.

Only if you claim that one is “less than nothing” can this begin to make logical sense".

Eww, no.  -1 is less than 0, but no number is less than not-a-number.  That relation makes no sense.

[Halc]

Halc, the proponents of the MWI don't see it as a causal set but that is truly what they are thriving for. The use of the Schrödinger equation doesn't change anything for that matter. The problem with the MWI is that it replaces our own world relations with inter-worlds relations, moreover, with an exponential growth of new worlds created.

Concerning superposition, you are basically right that it is a matter of belief. Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo: it is a belief. But not all beliefs have equal value. Superposition is all the possible results given by a probability distribution (the square of the function). But only one result is measured. Show me an example in real life where the probability distribution is real in regards to a single possibility that was measured as real. The probability distribution may be made of facts but they are never the properties of a single elements. For example, you may make a distribution by asking blindly the age of each student in a class and then try to guess the age of a specific student. But each student has only a single age.

Superposition being real is not a small leap of faith...

What parts of this I can parse seem to be personal assertions and things that are just plain wrong.  The rest just needs some vinaigrette. Thank you for your time, but I'm bailing out on this particular track.

[Bill S]

How is the dimensionless point at x=3, y=4 not have a location?  3, 4 (relative to the origin) is its location.

Of course, we’ve been here before.  The dimensionless point has a mathematical “location” which you identified, but, physically, what would you find at that location?  How could this dimensionless “concept” have any physical substance?  Perhaps it could be reasoned that whatever this is, is pure energy. Would that require dimensions in which to “exist”?  Possibly it could be claimed that it would not, but location “3,4” still has no dimensions, so it is “there” only in principle.

[Halc]

How is the dimensionless point at x=3, y=4 not have a location?  3, 4 (relative to the origin) is its location.

Of course, we’ve been here before.  The dimensionless point has a mathematical “location” which you identified, but, physically, what would you find at that location?  How could this dimensionless “concept” have any physical substance?  Perhaps it could be reasoned that whatever this is, is pure energy. Would that require dimensions in which to “exist”?  Possibly it could be claimed that it would not, but location “3,4” still has no dimensions, so it is “there” only in principle.

Well, you're not going to find a macroscopic object there since they're not dimensionless. So how about an electron? It's not like any fundamental thing has ever been found with actual volume. That fact is strong evidence that matter is fundamentally mathematics, without any classic physicality that otherwise seems so intuitive.

I can't go so far as to say an electron is 'there' but it might be measured (to arbitrary precision) at that location.  If it is thus accurately measured, it certainly wouldn't be found there when you measured a second time.

[Bill S]

Well, you're not going to find a macroscopic object there since they're not dimensionless.

My point exactly.  You can assign a location, in principle, to a dimensionless “object” or location, but you will not find it in the physical world. 

So how about an electron?

My understanding is that the electron has a rest energy of about 0.511 MeV, so it is not a dimensionless point; in fact, it is not a point at all.

When an electron is detected, what is seen is a small but fuzzy spot on a phosphorescent screen. Looked at with a high enough resolution, this spot becomes a diffraction pattern. Thus, empirically, it is a ‘bunched’ wave rather than a discrete particle.  Even this “wave packet” has dimensions, otherwise it would not be observable. 
How do you equate observing an electron with finding a measurable object in a dimensionless “location”? 
Possibly such was not your intention, but in that case, how is your response relevant to the questions in #206?

That fact is strong evidence that matter is fundamentally mathematics,

I see that as an unwarranted assumption.  Undoubtedly, mathematics is the best tool we have devised for the study and understanding of our Universe, but assigning fundamentally to mathematics is tantamount to claiming intelligent causality.

[Halc]

My understanding is that the electron has a rest energy of about 0.511 MeV, so it is not a dimensionless point; in fact, it is not a point at all.

How is a property of rest energy in any way an expression of nonzero volume?  And I didn't say an electron was at a point, but I said it could be measured at one.  It is at a point under certain interpretations, but not others.

When an electron is detected, what is seen is a small but fuzzy spot on a phosphorescent screen.

A fuzzy spot doesn't sound like a very accurate measurement.  Sounds like a measurement of the average field generated by electrons tied to say an atom, a very low precision measurement of an atom, not an electron.  Atoms definitely are not points and appear as fuzzy spots.  A high precision measurement (of of the electron's location) would impart immense momentum to the electron sending it off to parts unknown.  It would not be represented as a fuzzy spot, but rather as numeric coordinates.
Measuring its dimensions isn't possible because no known model gives it any.

Does any of this matter to the point in question?  I mean, if you want to think of an electron as a spherical object or 'bunched wave' with volume, does that change some critical part of the question of how existence exists?  I'm fine with you modelling them that way, despite lack of it making an empirical difference.

[Halc]

I googled "dimensions of an electron" and got some very contradictory answers.

alternativephysics: 2.82e-15, about 2.5x the dimensions of a proton, "based on an assumption that the mass-energy potential of an electron is fully contained within a certain radius, by equating E=mc² to E=ke²/r"  Except the latter r seems to be the radius from the center of an atom, not the radius of the electron.

I see this figure in wiki as well, and says this value is just a useful figure that "characterizes electron interactions in atomic-scale problems".  It says just above that "According to modern understanding, the electron is a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent."

hypertextbook : Lists several sources:

• Worldbook encyclopedia: 10e-18m.
  
• Mac Gregor, Malcolm H : ~5e-13m, but also: "The electron is a point-like particle"
• Pauling, Linus: Known to be under 1e-15

https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/how-big-is-an-electron/ gives a thorough discussion on the subject :

There is no concept of an electron size other than the spatial extent of the electron wavefunction.  The size of the electron wavefunction is the electron size.
This opinion essentially amounts to telling someone that they need to stop trying to think about a quantum electron as a physical object that you could hold in your hand like a baseball if only it was enlarged 10^{10} times.  People who profess this opinion are presumably also the ones who get annoyed by the popular declaration that “matter is 99.999% empty space.

That's one answer.  The next one models the electron as a ball of spatially separated material (not as a point) and calculates the minimum radius below which the energy needed to push the repelling parts together into an object would exceed the mass of the electron, which would be something around 10e-15m.

I encourage the reading of the whole thing, but my point in the prior post stands: I don't see the relevance to the discussion at hand.

[Colin2B]

When an electron is detected, what is seen is a small but fuzzy spot on a phosphorescent screen. Looked at with a high enough resolution, this spot becomes a diffraction pattern. Thus, empirically, it is a ‘bunched’ wave rather than a discrete particle.  Even this “wave packet” has dimensions, otherwise it would not be observable. 

What you are seeing here is not a picture of an electron. The high energy electron beam hitting the phosphor ejects electrons from the atom from the conduction band and the exciton band and it is these recombining with other atoms in the lattice which give the scintillations we see and hence the fuzzyness. We are not directly viewing an image of an electron or any sort of ‘bunched wave’.
Any claimed image of an electron needs to be examined carefully to determine just what was imaged and how as they are often not what is headlined in the popsci article. Can you provide link to what you are quoting, I would be interested to see it.

I agree with @Halc as I can’t see what electron rest energy has to do with its size. What is sometimes quoted as size is the probability ‘cloud’ or orbital around the nucleus.

[Bill S]

How is a property of rest energy in any way an expression of nonzero volume?

Because the electron volt is also a measure of mass.  I think mass usually involves volume.

Does any of this matter to the point in question?

Probably not, but I am loath to miss a learning opportunity.

[Bill S]

Can you provide link to what you are quoting, I would be interested to see it.

I’ve been hunting for it, without success.  I wanted to reread it myself.  On reflection, I think it must have come from a book or article, rather than online.  My original note is all I can find, and I’m fairly sure I was waiting for my son in Hosp. when I wrote it; so no online access.  This is all I have.  I quote it in case anyone recognises it, or can trace it.

12.02.15.    It should be mentioned that  when the electron is claimed to be seen as a particle, as in J. J. Thomson’s cathode ray experiment, it is not really seen as a truly discrete (point) particle — this is impossible. What is seen is a small but fuzzy spot on the phosphorescent screen. If one should look into this spot with a high enough resolution, a diffraction pattern would be seen inside of it. Thus, this is, empirically, a ‘bunched’ wave and not a discrete particle in the first place.

[Halc]

How is a property of rest energy in any way an expression of nonzero volume?

Because the electron volt is also a measure of mass.  I think mass usually involves volume.

A measure of mass, yes, but mass does not necessarily involve volume. A finite density would be required, and a point mass has no meaningful density.

Does any of this matter to the point in question?

Probably not, but I am loath to miss a learning opportunity.

Let's go with a proof then.

P1 X is a fundamental particle
P2 X occupies volume (or space in at least one dimension)
C1 The material of X on one side is spatially separated from the material of X on the other side.
C2 X is comprised of the two chunks of material on one side and the other (X is made of parts)
C3 X is not fundamental.

P1 and C3 are contradictory, thus at least one of the premises is false.

it is not really seen as a truly discrete (point) particle — this is impossible

It is impossible for a classic object made of parts, yes, but classic intuitions don't apply at this scale. He hasn't exactly demonstrated why it is impossible for something fundamental.  He seems to be describing its effect on said screen, and not the electron itself.

[alancalverd]

Because the electron volt is also a measure of mass.  I think mass usually involves volume.

A photon has eVs of energy but no mass. E certainly = mc^2 but you can't have your cake and eat it!

[alancalverd]

The notion that "fundamental" particles are composed of quarks is a good model but until someone actually observes a quark, the proton and electron remain fundamental.

[Bill S]

A measure of mass, yes, but mass does not necessarily involve volume. A finite density would be required, and a point mass has no meaningful density.

It has no meaningful density, because that is how it is defined in principle, and this definition has value in the appropriate context. Only if you differentiate, clearly, between “meaningful density” and “density” can it have any physical significance.

What is the difference between “density” and “meaningful density”?

P1 X is a fundamental particle
P2 X occupies volume (or space in at least one dimension)
C1 The material of X on one side is spatially separated from the material of X on the other side.
C2 X is comprised of the two chunks of material on one side and the other (X is made of parts)
C3 X is not fundamental.

P1 and C3 are contradictory, thus at least one of the premises is false.

The logic is good, as it stands, but if a fundamental particle is (as far as current knowledge accepts) one that cannot be divided into lesser parts, this does not preclude its having mass.  Indeed, The Higgs field gives mass to fundamental particles.  So some refinement might be needed to guarantee that C3 was an accurate conclusion.

Mass is the amount of matter an object contains, and volume is the space it takes up.  Only if you can provide a physical example of a volumeless mass is your reasoning anything other than hypothetical.

Chris Baird has a relevant comment at:  https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/02/07/what-is-the-shape-of-an-electron/

If you find the concept of a fixed amount of mass being contained in the infinitely small volume of a single point illogical, then you should. But you have to realize that the electron is not literally a solid ball. This means that the electron's mass is not literally squeezed into an infinitely small volume. Rather, in certain cases where the electron looks somewhat like a particle, it interacts as if it were completely located at a single point.

 

[Bill S]

Sorry, Alan; we crossed over, there.

you can't have your cake and eat it!

By now, you should realise that won't stop me from trying.

BTW, my mother used that expression, and I always thought it should have been "...eat your cake and have it".
I guess I must have been a pedantic kid.

Duty calls, and your comments need some thought before trying a more serious reply.

[Halc]

A photon has eVs of energy but no mass.

A photon very much has mass (and inertia, and everything that goes with mass). It only lacks proper mass, but it also lacks proper energy, so it's still consistent.