[Phys-L] Re: quantum of action

[Seth T Miller <stmiller@GOETHEANSTUDIES.ORG>]

John-

I appreciate that this is not a metaphysics list, and I do not mean my
questions to come across as metaphysical, and if they do it is because I
don't know enough to phrase them in the language that you would satisfy
whatever your definition of a properly phrased physics question might be in
this area.  I hope I didn't offend you with my questions either, because I
know that you and others on this list have much insight that you could
offer.  Perhaps you could take it as a challenge to see if you can explain
complicated concepts in a way that a layperson can understand while not
watering it down to the point of ridiculousness?  See my comments inserted
below.

> Seth T Miller wrote:
>
> > Is it true that we can think of the vacuum energy as giving rise to
> _any_
> > particle recognized by the standard model, including the force carrier
> > bosons such as the photon and gluon?
>
> That doesn't sound like a physics question.
>   -- The verb "gives rise" is too vague and too broad.
>   -- The noun "energy" is too narrow;  there's a lot more
>    involved than just the energy.

Seth: I agree that this is a badly phrased question - can you indicate to me
how you might phrase it?  And if the word energy is too narrow, can you
explain what more is involved?

> > What is the relationship between the
> > force carrier particles and the vacuum energy?  I guess my question has
> to
> > do with how to think about _energy_...
>
> That's not the right question.
>
> One does not start with "the vacuum energy" and deduce the laws
> of physics.  One starts with the laws of physics and then learns
> from them something about the vacuum and something about energy.

Seth: This sounds good - So what can we learn about the vacuum and energy?
Isn't it something like: a vacuum doesn't look empty over short enough
periods of time because of the energy/time uncertainty relation?  And that
this uncertainty allows for the creation of virtual particles which we use
to explain things like the electromagnetic force?

> > is it right to think that energy can
> > take the 'form' of particles; particles with mass like quarks, or
> particles
> > without mass like photons and gluons?  And that it is the energy (or the
> > uncertainty of it!) that is primary, and what we call particles
> (everything
> > listed on the standard model) are more like particular forms of
> 'condensed'
> > or 'constrained' energy?
>
> No, that's not right.

Seth: This is why I am asking the question, not to be told that my
understanding is not right, which I already knew to begin with, but to be
led towards truth by those who know more in this area than I!

> > And that in this sense of the primacy of energy,
> > we can imagine that the most fundamental 'thing' in the universe is
> actually
> > the quantum of action, energy x time, which follows the uncertainty
> relation
> > energy x time > h/2pi?  In other words, is it possible to think of the
> > quantum of action as primary, and all manifest particles, including
> photons
> > and gluons, as expressions of this relation?
>
> No.
>
> > Please help alleviate my confusion!

Seth: I reiterate - please help me by at least giving me some indication of
the way in which most physicists would understand the relation between the
vacuum, the uncertainty relation between energy/time, and the particles of
the standard model.

> Please note: this is a physics list, not a metaphysics list.
>
> If you want to learn physics, do it the way everybody else does.
> Learn the basics before worrying about abstruse things like the
> physics of the vacuum.

Seth: On an educational side note: much of what lights the enthusiasm of a
student's mind, in a way that can lead them deep into the study of science,
are exactly the abstruse and _interesting_ aspects which require the most
effort to understand.  The work of a good educator is in part to keep that
fire going while giving them a foundation upon which they can see more
thoroughly into their questions and the assumptions that surround them.

> Sign up for a physics course at a level
> you can handle, and work you way up to the point where you can
> understand quantum mechanics at the level of Cohen-Tannoudji or
> Baym.  Then you will be in a position to ask questions that make
> sense, and to make sense of the answers.

Seth: Of course if I desired to become an expert in this area, so I could
ask the proper questions in the proper way, I would do just what you
indicate.  But this doesn't mean I am not keenly interested and do not wish
to continue learning - on the contrary that is why I am posting to this
list!  If you (or anyone else!) would like to address any of my responses
above, I would love to hear it.

Thanks in advance-
-Seth
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l