Just left some context out... :smile:

Physics, metaphysics, ontology, religion, etc, they all belonged to philosophy.

When a really intelligent scientists such as Sean Carroll or Carlo Rovelli and many of their contemporaries cannot prove exactly how the Universe works, — universeness

They would be out of a job!

Let me say this. In a Feynman diagram there is a virtual photon between two charged particles. A wiggly line taking care of both changes in momenta of the charged particles. The vertex is where the coupling happens. The virtual photon gives both particles a push or pull. Then it returns to its solitary timeless state, a closed wiggly line (representing a sole virtual photon, uncoupled). — EugeneW

This 'virtual photo' is emitted by one particle and absorbed by the other yes?
The process of emission changes the momentum of one particle and absorption changes the momentum of the other, yes?
Momentum is movement in a direction, yes? so the overall affect of this system is that the particles change direction and speed, yes?
This 'wiggly line' would be the new path (direction) of the particle(s), yes?
Vertex, (a joining point between two straight lines). I take this to be where the paths of the two approaching particles meet.
So the two particles don't actually touch or 'interact' as the virtual photon prevents this.
Perhaps we can accept that by 'returns to its solitary timeless state,' you mean it 'leaves our 3D space'.
I assume your closed wiggly line would just be something akin to:

https://creativepro.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/IDS_20140520_scallop6.png

The charge of a particle is a measure of the coupling strength and it's a generator to induce local phase transformations of both electrons. This is how the EM field is introduced, but the electron doesn't generate an EM field, that's misleading. The EM field is always there in virtual form and charge couples to it and can even cause real photons to exist (say during the fall to a lower orbital in hydrogen; during inflation, real photons can be pulled out of their virtual state without charge). — EugeneW

Ok in Computing the term 'coupled' can be used as a measure of how two sub-programs or subroutines are dependant on each other. If 'Global variables' or 'the same' variables are used by two subroutines then they are 'coupled' so an error can cause both subroutines to fail. The more independent subroutines are from each other, the less chance there will be of a total program failure.
So, I take it that when two particles become coupled, they become 'interdependent.'
I take it then that 'coupling strength means the level of interdependence two particular particles might have, varies.

I am just trying to demonstrate my attempts to follow the logic of your physics but we are still quite a distance away from some of my previous questions, such as:

So are you saying that the structures that you are calling particles, exist 'outside' of the known 3D of space.

or

Do You mean 'Perpendicular' to 3D space as in 90 degrees to it? So your 4th spatial dimension is not 'wrapped around' every point of 3D space but is 'perpendicular' to every point in 3D space.
Would this be mathematically represented as a 90 degree direction away from a set of three spatial coordinates (so, dimensionless) and one instant/coordinate of time?
So a position in your space would be (x,y,z,t,90)?

It could be that you think that the only reason for me asking such questions is due to my lack of knowledge of the detailed physics involved in your hypothesis and it would take too long for you to explain it to me. If that's the case then say so. I will accept that such could well be the case.

Physics, metaphysics, — EugeneW

Well, I consider physics to be in the purview of science and metaphysics is 'after' physics.

They would be out of a job! — EugeneW

Not at all, many questions are still to be answered in cosmology. Currently, all that exists are theories regarding the quantum structure and workings of the Universe.

When a really intelligent scientists such as Sean Carroll or Carlo Rovelli and many of their contemporaries cannot prove exactly how the Universe works, they turn to their imagination to try to make progress. — universeness

OK, but as physicists, their imagination would still wander around protons, electrons, quanta and that sort of things. And they most probably are using their imagination --as others scientists-- with the purpose of finding solutions, explanations, etc., about the nature of these things and how they work. In the same way as I use my imagination as a computer programmer to find programming solutions to various problems ...

Just left some context out — EugeneW

Exactly. This is what journalists do! :smile:

This 'virtual photo' is emitted by one particle and absorbed by the other yes? — universeness

That's the popular image yes. But you can consider it like this:
Your image of the closed wiggly line is right. An uncoupled virtual photon. They are omnipresent, not moving forward or backwards in time. A real electron couples to it (also virtual electrons, also closed lines, can). This causes a potential around the electron (called a photon condensate). Another electron can couple too and this transforms the closed propagator (or in time oscillating, propagating virtual photon) into one between two interacting, say, electrons. A first order Feynman diagram. A second order diagram includes an extra virtual electron or photon (two extra verices). A third order two extra of them (four extra vertices), and so on. These are thought math tricks in qft, according to most (but not all) physicists. I consider them real. A non-zero particle size expels the need for renormalization. Indeed, by means of tiny curled up extra dimensions, like a tiny cylinder on a thin tube.

Not at all, many questions are still to be answered in cosmology. — universeness

The only thing I haven't figured out is why the universe doesn't run backwards....

It could be that you think that the only reason for me asking such questions is due to my lack of knowledge of the detailed physics involved in your hypothesis and it would take too long for you to explain it to me. If that's the case then say so. I will accept that such could well be the case. — universeness

Einstein said that if you can't explain your physical theory to a six year old, your theory is wrong. Which is something else than Feynman said. I agree with Einstein.

OK, but as physicists, their imagination would still wander around protons, electrons, quanta and that sort of things. And they most probably are using their imagination --as others scientists-- with the purpose of finding solutions, explanations, etc., about the nature of these things and how they work. In the same way as I use my imagination as a computer programmer to find programming solutions to various problems — Alkis Piskas

Yes but I am asking you about the persistence/gnawing aspect of imagination. Philosophically, where do you think this tendency of imagination to gnaw at you, come from? Or is a gnawing imagination just my personal experience alone?
Why do humans wish to know their origin story? Why willingly submit ourselves to stressful thinking. I can understand doing so, to satisfy our basic needs, food,shelter, health etc but why give such priority to Where do we come from? and why are we here? and what is our ultimate fate?
Why are so many rich people so f*****up? Why do even they, who can take all their physical needs for granted not have more contented lives?
Just my attempt at pushing some philosophical buttons related to this thread, even though the relationship might be rather tenuous.

Einstein said that if you can't explain your physical theory to a six year old, your theory is wrong. Which is something else than Feynman said. I agree with Einstein — EugeneW

Well, I try my best to follow the logic of your typings as best I can but I don't blame you for my lack of physics study. I still very much enjoy our exchanges, you have been a conduit towards my improved understanding of the issues involved.

is a gnawing imagination just my personal experience alone? — universeness

I couldn't know that. I personally use my imagination for pleasure or creative purposes ... And it doesn't gnaw at me. I'm the one who gnaws at it! :smile:

Why do humans wish to know their origin story? — universeness

For various reasons, I guess.

Why willingly submit ourselves to stressful thinking — universeness

I personally don't. I have control when it comes to thinking voluntarily, esp. rationally. Thinking coming from the subconscious, feelings, etc., however, can be stressful.

Einstein said that if you can't explain your physical theory to a six year old, your theory is wrong. — EugeneW

The exact quote is: “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself”.
It's one of my favorite quotes! I don't miss the opportunity to bring it up when the circumstances arise ...

And it doesn't gnaw at me. I'm the one who gnaws at it! — Alkis Piskas

I think you are imagining that is true!

I think you are imagining that is true! — universeness

:down: Please don't tell me what I'm imagining!

You just killed this exchange.

Well if so, then that's down to your, in my opinion, too high a setting of sensitivity.
I take a 'such is life' approach to such and move on.

Einstein said that if you can't explain your physical theory to a six year old, your theory is wrong. Which is something else than Feynman said. I agree with Einstein. — EugeneW

A question on Quora was:

If photon and electron are point-like, how can they collide at all?

An answer was offered by: Masroor Bukhari
Ph.D. in Particle Physics, University of Houston.

"Thank you for asking me this question, which is a great question indeed.

When we refer to a photon or electron as point-like, it is in fact an approximation to simplify our calculations. You have to remember that they both are in reality quantum fields, which have both particle-wave properties by the virtue of their momenta and the usual or de Broglie wavelength "

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html

"What is really important here are two variables, one, energy (which has in it both the rest energy and a momentum) and the wave function.

Once these or any such particles collide, what is really happening that their center of mass are colliding which is at its earnest an interaction between their probability amplitudes and energies. This is what a collision of elementary particles is and its probability is known as a cross section, unlike the macroscopic collisions, such as of a car and a van, which are deterministic and two actual bodies collide.

For instance, when an electron interacts with a positron, it seems like a collision in the lab frame, but in reality it is an electromagnetic interaction (mediated by an exchange of a virtual photon) between the two particles in their COM frame, resulting into emission of two anti-parallel (real) photons. Find appended below a figure of the interaction shown with the help of a Feynman diagram."




I used the link above provided by Mr Bukhari and this link led to other links etc which explained a little more detail about many of the physics points you were trying to make to me. Overall, I think that to fully understand the details of your hypothesis, I would need a much higher grasp of the fundamentals of Quantum physics than I currently have.

I think that to fully understand the details of your hypothesis, I would need a much higher grasp of the fundamentals of Quantum physics than I currently have. — universeness

The basics is easy. Particles do not behave like macroscopic objects but they are the same nonetheless. They hop between an infinity of possible paths. That's the different behavior. But they are just like a rock, concentrated pieces of mass, which are concentrated piece of three massless pieces pure kinetic energy, loaded with three kinds of charge, which give you massive particles like quarks, leptons, and Higgs particles. The three massless preons have to be different from pointlike structures to interact. QFT can assume them pointlike and still get interaction (coupling to the virtual field, as in the Feynman diagram) but it needs renormalisation to do so. The particles themselves are assigned unobservable and unphysical infinities to accomplish this. Give them a small geometrically induced extension and they can hit one another, keep the Planck length Lorenz invariant (same in each inertial frame), and won't need renormalization. Three hits in one!

So, what is a quantum? It's just a bunch, a bundle of particle trajectories and the wavefunction is the temporary crossection. If the wavefunction evolves in time, the particle hops between all these paths constantly, with a speed such that it seems smeared out. If the wavefunction is stationary (like in the ground state of hydrogen), the particle hops around without velocity.

The professor in your example, gave a wrong explanation for the Feynman diagram shown. I doubt the good man is a professor! There is no virtual photon involved. Only a virtual electron. The real electron and positron turn back to a virtual electron and a virtual photon gets real (two photons,)

Look what he writes:

but in reality it is an electromagnetic interaction (mediated by an exchange of a virtual photon

Not true.

Look at the diagram the "professor" has shown. The electron and positron can be connected on the downside. This represents a virtual electron that is long-lived (a real electron and positron). Connect the two curly photon lines: a virtual photon that is long lived! Stimulated by the long lived virtual electron.

So, what is a quantum? — EugeneW

At the moment, I am most attracted to the posit that it's a multidimensional string vibration.
If I was going to bet, I would bet on some future version of string theory as being the correct one for the fundamental quanta of the Universe.

At the moment, I am most attracted to the posit that it's a multidimensional string vibration.
If I was going to bet, I would bet on some future version of string theory as being the correct one for the fundamental quanta of the Universe. — universeness

The problem with string vibration is that no mechanism for the vibrating string is given. It just states the string vibrates.

The professor in your example, gave a wrong explanation for the Feynman diagram shown — EugeneW

He's a Ph.D. who got his doctorate from Huston Uni, not a professor!
Maybe he was just 'summarising.' According to wikipedia, a lot happens during an electron-positron 'collision':

Electron–positron annihilation occurs when an electron (e−) and a positron (e+, the electron's antiparticle) collide. At low energies, the result of the collision is the annihilation of the electron and positron, and the creation of energetic photons:
e− + e+ → γ + γ
At high energies, other particles, such as B mesons or the W and Z bosons, can be created. All processes must satisfy a number of conservation laws, including:

Conservation of electric charge. The net charge before and after is zero.
Conservation of linear momentum and total energy. This forbids the creation of a single photon. However, in quantum field theory this process is allowed; see examples of annihilation.
Conservation of angular momentum.
Conservation of total (i.e. net) lepton number, which is the number of leptons (such as the electron) minus the number of antileptons (such as the positron); this can be described as a conservation of (net) matter law.

The problem with string vibration is that no mechanism for the vibrating string is given. It just states the string vibrates — EugeneW

I thought it was the existence of the extra dimensions that caused the 'vibrations.' but if I am wrong then
my bet lies with the musings of Ed Witten, Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku and Leonard Susskind to eventually figure it out before I disassemble.

But he writes:

"For instance, when an electron interacts with a positron, it seems like a collision in the lab frame, but in reality it is an electromagnetic interaction (mediated by an exchange of a virtual photon) between the two particles in their COM frame, resulting into emission of two anti-parallel (real) photons. Find appended below a figure of the interaction shown with the help of a Feynman diagram."

This is not happening.

But he writes — EugeneW

Well, if you want, I can provide you with the link to his answer on Quora. You can respond to his answer if you wish.

I think I have figured it out already. There are no strings. Only closed geometric structures to contain the three basic charges. How does a string vibrate? It easier than they make you think universeness!

Can't you see from the diagram no virtual photon is involved? Virtual particles are the horizontal lines in the diagram, representing two time ordered states. A wiggly line is a photon (like the two externals) and a straight line an electron. In the middle, betwe4the two vertices, there is an electron. The electron goes round in a circle in spacetime.