that's because there are like I said, not real and merely part of mathematical modeling, and yes, that's what the EXPERTS say. — universeness

Exactly what I meant. Parroting the experts. It's exactly the point of disagreement though. There are so-called experts who say virtual particles are real, and the mathematical expressions a mere woowoo fantasy, which is unjustified given real existence It is stated that a particle is an excitation. But then a fluctuation is just as real. Only the fluctuations are not directly observed. Only indirectly.

So, it's parroting, and your comparison to Trump is made to elevate yourself to a height you don't have. Like I said, there are physicists who consider the virtuals real. The math has to describe something. Particles! Not on mass-shell.

It's not a matter of majority votes if they are real or not...

Was that how you created your gods? — universeness

That's how they created the universe.

that's because there are like I said, — universeness

That's so annoying to me! I proofread twice and that still got past me (now corrected!)

There are so-called experts who say virtual particles are real — Hillary

I accept that many 'experts' assign a form of 'existence' to virtual particles but I dont think many of them would use the term REAL for VIRTUAL particles as used in perturbation theory.
From wiki:

A virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. A process involving virtual particles can be described by a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.

Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles, the longer the virtual particle exists. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, forces such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges can be thought of as due to the exchange of virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction.

The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles". It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.] Although widely used, they are by no means a necessary feature of QFT, but rather are mathematical conveniences - as demonstrated by lattice field theory, which avoids using the concept altogether

That's how they created the universe — Hillary

:roll:

Repeating what the experts say is a more reliable path to follow than repeating what you say about gods. — universeness

Let''s keep the gods out of it. Concentrate on the science. What you suggest is that because I posit gods, my physics is not to be trusted. Think about it! :down:

You think that's not the case, apart from gods, the quantum vacuum is filled with fluctuations?

Let''s keep the gods out of it. Concentrate on the science. What you suggest is that because I posit gods, my physics is not to be trusted. Think about it! — Hillary

All that you are influences all that you do and say! You will not escape that, ever!

accept that many 'experts' assign a form of 'existence' to virtual particles but I dont think many of them would use the term REAL for VIRTUAL particles as used in perturbation theory — universeness

Yes, loops are used in perturbation theory. The vacuum contains no real particles but virtual particles are there! The quantum bubbles. Closed isolated loops, which interact with other virtuals (higher order Feynman diagrams). What do you mean if you say the fluctuation is real? Isn't that even weirder? Virtual, in this context and in my humble opinion, just means not on mass-shell. You know what on mass-shell means? It's pretty unreal!

All that you are influences all that you do and say! You will not escape that, ever! — universeness

But my physics is inspired by them. Not a bad thing, as far as I can see... :wink:

the quantum vacuum is filled with fluctuations? — Hillary

I know, we have descriptions such as:
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons, W and Z fields which carry the weak force, and gluon fields which carry the strong force. Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs. Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. This is theoretically allowable because the particles annihilate each other within a time limit determined by the uncertainty principle so they are not directly observable

But this is a MODEL of what is going on within the 'broiling' vacuum of space.
It's certainly true, that it is completely wrong, to try to suggest there is a point of spacial existence where absolutely nothing is happening, no activity at all.

Science currently has very very very little knowledge of what is actually going on in the vacuum of space. Particles probably don't exist in the traditional point particle or small free, disconnected spherical forms we have envisaged in the past. They probably are field excitations and 'Virtual particles' are just some form of field excitation we really don't understand. Just like we don't understand phenomena such as quantum tunneling.
Our understanding of quantum physics is still at an infantile stage.
Your claim that you have solved the greatest mystery we have is just that, an individual's claim.
One can believe in it if one chooses to ignore experts who dissent against it.

All that you are influences all that you do and say! You will not escape that, ever! — universeness

Or take the approach to all of life. What about locking up animals in a cage to see what happens if an A-bomb explodes? Suits the scientist well, not to think evil truly exists. Atheism is a freepass to investigate without the ethics proposed by theism, say torturing animals. Life is not considered sacred anymore, i.e., having evolved on a substrate-reality, made by the gods

You consider the many worlds in the MWI real?

One can believe in it if one chooses to ignore experts who dissent against it. — universeness

Exactly!

What do you mean if you say the fluctuation is real? Isn't that even weirder? Virtual, in this context and in my humble opinion, just means not on mass-shell. You know what on mass-shell means? It's pretty unreal! — Hillary

No, at this point, I don't know what on mass-shell means but from wiki:

In physics, particularly in quantum field theory, configurations of a physical system that satisfy classical equations of motion are called "on the mass shell" or simply more often on shell; while those that do not are called "off the mass shell", or off shell.

I am aware of the classical equations of motion such as speed=distance/time etc

In quantum field theory, virtual particles are termed off shell because they do not satisfy the energy–momentum relation; real exchange particles do satisfy this relation and are termed on shell (mass shell).
In classical mechanics for instance, in the action formulation, extremal solutions to the variational principle are on shell and the Euler–Lagrange equations give the on-shell equations. Noether's theorem regarding differentiable symmetries of physical action and conservation laws is another on-shell theorem

I am not familiar with 'the action formulation,' 'the variational principle,' 'the Euler-Lagrange equations,' 'Noether's theorem' etc but I have often suggested that you look to qualified physicists to debate your more detailed academic physics musings with.
I don't accept your physics viewpoints because many physicists disagree with you as has been demonstrated on quora.

Science currently has very very very little knowledge of what is actually going on in the vacuum of space. Particles probably don't exist in the traditional point particle or small free, disconnected spherical forms we have envisaged in the past — universeness

But J do know. Particles are no points, but tiny higher dimensional spheres, filled with charge or transporting energy and momentum, like photons. Or carrying metric of spacetime metric. Or carrying energy and momentum and color or electric charge. Or supercolor charge There are 7 basic charges and all couple to the virtual fields, the quantum vacuum, ti interact. Space is made of virtual particles, in a sense. Real particles couple to it to interact. Coupling to the virtual graviton field causes spacetime to curve (graviton condensate).

Or take the approach to all of life. What about locking up animals in a cage to see what happens if an A-bomb explosion? Suits the scientist well, not to think evil truly exists. Atheism is a freepass to investigate without the ethics proposed by theism, say torturing animals. Life is not considered sacred anymore, i.e., having evolved on a substrate-reality, made by the gods — Hillary

:rofl: Yeah, in history, theists have treated animals very well, in-between sacrificing them and looking at their entrails to figure out what your gods want them to do next :rofl:
I find most atheists more ethical than most theists. The bible supports slavery and sees women as of less value to men and on and on it goes. All religious texts contain morally reprehensible suggestions.

↪universeness

You consider the many worlds in the MWI real? — Hillary

I have answered this a few times now. I refer you back to those answers.

One can believe in it if one chooses to ignore experts who dissent against it.
— universeness

Exactly — Hillary

I for one choose absolutely not to!

But J do know. Particles are no points, but tiny higher dimensional spheres, filled with charge or transporting energy and momentum, like photons. Or carrying metric of spacetime metric. Or carrying energy and momentum and color or electric charge. Or supercolor charge There are 7 basic charges and all couple to the virtual fields, the quantum vacuum, ti interact. Space is made of virtual particles, in a sense. Real particles couple to it to interact. Coupling to the virtual graviton field causes spacetime to curve (graviton condensate) — Hillary

I think many physicists can shoot so many holes in your above arguments that there is little left of any value.

I don't accept your physics viewpoints because many physicists disagree with you as has been demonstrated on quo — universeness

Many do agree. There are upvotes from two acknowledged physics professors. Book writers. And what about Harari? The problem with experts is that the ones who trust them dint know much about it.. Only when you know what they think you can truly attack them. The layman, like you, just has to trust... which never has been a good base, lemme tellya.

And of course experts might not agree. But thats not falsifying. Of course they disagree. The status quo offers them food and status. And the taxpayer pays. Easy job. Doing nothing of importance and getting free lunch! :rofl:

I think many physicists can shoot so many holes in your above arguments that there is little left of any value. — universeness

Why dont you start learning actual physics? Someone who doesn't know what on mass in particle physics means telling that virtual particles are not real because the majority says so...? :lol:

I think many physicists can shoot so many holes in your above arguments — universeness

Untill now, they havent succeeded! :lol: Note even one! :lol:

Loose bullets, only. Only softly touching.

And approval from the expert! Look here

And don't say, "that's only one!"...

"Is all of space one big excitation of fields?" :lol:

Many do agree. There are upvotes from two acknowledged physics professors. Book writers. And what about Harari? The problem with experts is that the ones who trust them dint know much about it.. Only when you know what they think you can truly attack them. The layman, like you, just has to trust... which never has been a good base, lemme tellya. — Hillary

Two people and a nice note from Harari is not 'many.'
There are levels of laypeople. I am not a physicist. I got an A at higher grade but failed the physics exam at the end of my 1st year Uni course. I also failed the resit and had to carry a different Ist year uni subject into 2nd year but I aced that so well, that I got an exemption from the final exam at the end of 2nd year. I have progressed my physics since then based on my own studies and some online courses I have completed on edx.org since retiring.

Why dont you start learning actual physics? — Hillary

I am quite happy with my current grasp of physics, if my life direction means I need a better grasp then I will get a better grasp.

"Is all of space one big excitation of fields?" :lol: — Hillary

'Photons are not absorbed' :rofl: and you are supposed to understand physics much better than I do.
'Dino gods!, every extinct species has a surviving god!, people gods and insect gods!' :lol: :rofl: and you are suppose to be a logician with a good grasp of physics!!

"Is all of space one big excitation of fields?" :lol: — Hillary

Again, just to try again, to encourage you to be more accurate!
I actually asked 'is all of space one big field of excitations?' :razz:

Untill now, they havent succeeded! :lol: Note even one! :lol:

Loose bullets, only. Only softly touching.

And approval from the expert! Look here

And don't say, "that's only one!".. — Hillary

I think they have succeeded very well.
I looked at your link. You merely provided your answer to the question:
Is string theory only the stuff of speculation and hypothesis?

I would have broadly answered yes to that question myself but I would have added that it has a lot more credibility than the suggestion that gods made the Universe.
Where was your answer approved by an expert?
I would suggest most 'experts' and most physics laypeople would broadly answer yes to that question.
I also think most would answer 'yes' to 'can photons be absorbed?'
How many physics experts answered no to that question?

Two people and a nice note from Harari is not 'many.' — universeness

I knew you would say this! No, but thats because most stick to the mass haucination. Because not being very enlightened or because of lost esteem, or even career. Money!

Im not bound to any community. A free spirit. No need for money, no career at stake, no standard to conform to. Standing on the outside, looking in. Looking through the madness.

I would have broadly answered yes to that question myself but I would have added that it has a lot more credibility than the suggestion that gods made the Universe. — universeness

Now again you bring the gods in. Leave them! You just use that to discredit. I have a complete theory for the cosmos. That should suffice.

I knew you would say this! — Hillary

I try not to dissappoint!

but thats because most stick to the mass haucination — Hillary

Or in other words 'that which is much more credible and more likely to be correct.'

Because not being very enlightened or because of lost esteem, or even career. Money! — Hillary

People in glass houses should not throw stones! Are you suggesting that all those on the fringes of physics have no interest in status, esteem, career, money etc. :roll:
If you want to judge others then expect to be judged by others, that's only fair!

also think most would answer 'yes' to 'can photons be absorbed?'
How many physics experts answered no to that question? — universeness

How can it be absorbed? Are there photons in electrons. No.

How can it be absorbed? Are there photons in electrons. No — Hillary

What happens when an infrared photon from the sun hits your skin? Does your skin absorb the photon as heat energy?

How can it be absorbed? Are there photons in electrons. No. — Hillary

From quora:
It happens as follows :

Photons from the Sun strike your skin .
In this process, they may collide with the electron .
The electron gains energy from the photon and gets promoted to a higher energy state .
The electron then stabilizes itself by releasing energy .
This energy is nothing but the warmth or heat energy that the sun makes us feel .