Ziaedin Shafiei You make very good point about the lack of direct observational evidence for virtual particles. There is further theoretical evidence that virtual particles and vacuum energy are a false conclusion from quantum theory.

If you take the Einstein equations of General Relativity which equate mass/energy distribution to curved Spacetime, if the mass/energy tensor is exactly zero then the space curvature tensor must be exactly zero and space must be perfectly flat with no quantum fluctuations.

I also read the excellent article linked from your question. It poses important issue about the existence of the universe.

I think there is increasing evidence from the JWST and other observations that the Big Bang theory must be wrong. Whatever model we chose for the evolution of the universe there will always be the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

I have been able to show that we can explain the current observed universe starting from a finite region of empty space with a space boundary. This model taken forward in time results in matter formation from energy released from the expanding fabric of curved space. This model taken backwards in time leads to a finite region with ever smaller radius. The question of whether or not there was a beginning then is an unresolved question.

So although I can explain the existence of matter, I can’t explain the existence of Spacetime.

Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

Where they’re supposed to be. And their effects have been measured. It wouod be useful to actually study quantum mechanics and quantum field theory and how calculations wihin the Standard Model are done and compared to the experiments done at CERN and elsewhere.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei

in simple words, Virtual particles are particles that exists but we can't detect or observe it. these virtual particles are create and destroy by it self.

.

Dear Ritik Bhardwaj

It is claimed that these particles are detectable in a phenomenon called Casmir effect. But there are a few issues with this claim which I have tried to cover them in the article.

For its calculation it is also assumed that 1+ 2 +3 + ,,, = -1/12.

Dear Stam Nicolis

Calculation is different from reality. There are several theories for the genesis of the world, and surely, they are all based on some calculations by distinguished mathematicians and physicists. But we do not believe all of them to be correct, such as steady state model which was backed by countless scientists.

My question is simple. We are told that mighty black holes do vanish by virtual particles. Accordingly, I am asking why there is no such concern regarding particle accelerators as outlined in my initial comment under the question. Please show me a report of study done in CERN or other particle accelerators that discuss about the negative effect of this phenomenon throughout the travel path of the particles.

Dear Ritik Bhardwaj

Please see the following question and presentation material for some details related to 1+2+3+4+ ... = -1/12.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_we_need_tricks_in_mathematics?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions&_sg=HUT8E6m9ynDKriwjDjssz_tEPxjAX2L_wcc6Dt6oCyWdw3MphlidfV6q7NJlk3iIE8LwYWU-sX4q8coM

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ziaedin-Shafiei/post/Why_do_we_need_tricks_in_mathematics/attachment/5b036ab64cde260d15e01a34/AS%3A628890477289472%401526950582117/download/Tricks+in+Mathematics-ZS-V5.pdf

Just to be clear, the reason why the sum of all the natural numbers is not equal to -1/12 is because you cannot do arithmetic operations on infinite series that do not converge and expect to get a valid answer.

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

I noticed that you are well versed with relativistic physics. May I interest you in a challenge I offered back in 2109, for your peace cause. Please respond to my challenge under the following question as I do not want to mix that issue with this question.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_physicist_help_a_charity_with_1000_by_defending_special_relativity?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions&_sg=WU93oTraqWxAHiI0lhD2ArO24NS0JdEverT8tssARJaVE3j6q9LZfJm4qU1Jk6egHY3Y5rhaAc_lqwRn

Ziaedin Shafiei,

I too have been arguing that there are lots of irrational tricks in the virtual universes, virtual particles, virtual fields, and virtual energies theories. The more such theories abound the worse for physics, science in general and also for the philosophy of science. Who would suggest a plan of solving this state of affairs? All the centuries before us have had their own problems of this kind. But the earlier cleaner theories appear the better.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Ziaedin Shafiei I have responded following the link as requested. Richard

Raphael Neelamkavil My plan for resolving this state of affairs is Open World.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Open-World

Richard

Thanks, Richard Lewis! I too am of the same opinion as you said: "Open World:

The project comprises a series of five topics. The evolution of the universe, the unification of physics, the conscious brain, the global economic system, world peace."

Thanks.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil

Thank you for your comment. We have no option but to find all the cracks in those theories and be patient as nobody wants to hear our arguments or even our valid questions.

We should try to expose the theories directly. For example, we need to forcefully refute any experiment free science. This type of activity is now done under the name of thought experiment.

I have also tried to show the similarity of those theories with past metaphysical activities. Two articles under the title of “Science in the shadow of metaphysics” are the results of my humble effort.

We should also expose the tricks some scientists use in their argument. I did not want to use the word cheating, out of respect, but this is what Feynman said and recently Turok has used. Please see Neil Turok: The Rules of Reality - YouTube

about 59:10. This is the most difficult issue to deal with. If scientific establishment is openly committed itself to this kind of practice it is hard to convince them not to do so. They do it for a justified reason.

Ziaedin Shafiei, thanks. I have attempted to do exactly this in my two books:

(1) Causal Ubuqity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Scientific Ontology, 2014, and (2) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 2018.

Raphael Neelamkavil

The LEP already answered you question. There are no virtual particles!

So all theories using that concept are wrong.

JES

It pleases me to see this discussion, realising there are more critical thinkers out there. Let me try to add a simply phrased contribution.

In my opinion, Physics has gone down the rabbit hole of sub-atomic particles and that part of physics has become what some call “phantasy physics”. Complex maths is used as smoke and mirrors to silence critical physicists who are convinced that theory must be founded in reality and that empirical evidence is necessary.

Concepts such as ”Big bang”, black holes, dark matter etc are actually hypotheses that try to explain why the outcomes of measurements are not in accordance with the calculations made on the basis of Einsteins theories of relativity. Unfortunately, and perhaps through the journalistic popularisation of science, these concepts have been taken as reality, such as “scientists have discovered dark matter, or anti-matter”. No, they have not. What they discovered was that the measured light or matter in the universe or a part of the universe was not as much as had been predicted by calculations based on a theory. Usually in science, that would lead to a refining of the theory. Here it did not, perhaps because Einstein has been placed on such a high pedestal that his theories are seen as the alpha and omega of physics that may not be questioned or touched, as that is considered sacrilege.

The solution was the hypothesis of Cookie Monsters, things out there that ate light or matter = black holes and dark matter. Anyone who dares questions these methodological steps is intimidated and attacked with complicated terminology and complex mathematics. Most physicists are afraid of looking stupid and therefore shut up. Decades ago the physics professor who was my head supervisor (experimental physics) said to his students that if you could not explain your work in ordinary household language, then you did not really understand it yourself. He considered complicated language and naming theories and authors as a cover up for not grasping the essentials.

A reason for looking at yet another species of virtual particles is that research proposals in this field receive funding because physicists all over the world are doing it. It is the reigning paradigm and it will take a ground swell of opposition to move on to the next phase in science after the 50-odd years of the present, now stagnant, paradigm.

Dear Lilian Hupkens ,

I agree completely with your comment!

JES

Dear Lilian Hupkens

Unfortunately, “phantasy physics” is here to stay. CERN disproved a lot of those theories as it only proved Higgs Boson. If the outcome of CERN and other particle colliders did not shift theoretical physics a bit what can budge it?

I have tried to show that some of those concepts such as virtual particles, multiverse, inflaton and extra dimensions are nothing but gods-of-the-gaps, with enough examples in part 1 of the article.

It was not only primitive societies that could create various gods and be proud of it.

Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?

A new generation of physicists. People learn the newest theories at university between the ages of 18 and 25. Most stick with that throughout their life. They refine it, fiddle with it, tweak it around a bit, find novel ways of saying the same things.

Not many people are able to really change their views and learn something completely new. And physicists are very proud of always “being the smartest person in the room”, very vain about their intellect. And most are men, ofcourse. They will find it very difficult if not impossible to admit to not being right or not having been right. It is very difficult for all kinds of scientists to see that what they have spent their whole life on was a very promising looking dead end road.

Only when the old generation dies and a new one comes, will there be space for a new paradigm.

Lilian Hupkens, your comments on the virtual particles story is very good. Thanks. I have been moving in this direction, but indirectly, in my works in the philosophy of physics.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear all

I do not want to divert from the pointed question in this forum. We really need to press for a response from proponents of virtual particles here. But remember what Max Planck wrote sometimes before his death in 1947 - published in 1948 (1949 in English). “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Did not we celebrate 100th anniversary of General Relativity in 2015. The reason is that they have now learned how to stifle their opponents and any critical review. A while ago, I tried to communicate with one of the nicest physicists, Gerard’t Hooft, by email and hoped he would correct my possible misunderstandings of relativistic physics. When he realised that I might have a point he refused to carry on any further.

Please also note that strong critics of religion have been around for centuries. We have also observed much misery and scandals religious establishments have collectively created. But look around you and see how many educated people are still affiliated to the religion of their ancestors1 and how much hate and misinformation those religions still generate.

In short, we should not wish for funerals but commit ourselves to experiment based scientific endeavour.

1 - Preprint Religion-The Triumph of Deceit

Dear all

There has been no answer in defence of virtual particles yet. Is not this a serious question in quantum physics?

“.Where are all the virtual particles?”

In mainstream physics “virtual particles” are “excitations” of always existing “virtual fields”, where the “fields” are not only real fields of fundamental Nature 3 standard in Standard particle Model Weak, Electric, and Strong forces;

[Gravity Force, which, however, doesn’t exist in SM/QFTs, since in mainstream physics the GR Gravity theory, where it is postulated that observed interactions in gravitationally coupled systems of bodies are interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass” is the standard theory, whereas at interactions in Matter by 3 Forces above no spacetime impacts are observed, and – what is quite correct in SM/QFTs,

- really fundamentally is a Force, while the GR postulate above is fundamentally wrong, Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), which fundamentally cannot impact/be impacted on/by anything in Matter].

In the mainstream SM the Forces above act at interactions between “real” particles as some exchanging by the Forces’ “virtual” mediators - “virtual photons” in QED, “virtual gluons” in QCD, “virtual Z-bosons” in Weak Force and “virtual π-mesons” in Nuclear Force theories,

- at that in QFTs it is postulated that the mediators are some “virtual” versions of real particles – real photons, π-mesons, and Z-bosons, say, when Z-basins were experimentally detected, that was claimed in SM as confirmation of Weak Force theory, etc.

All that above in the SM looks as rather, if too, strange. Say, at interactions of electric charges at statics evidently no any real photons are observed – and no real “mediators” of all other Forces are observed as well; say, no real Z-bosons at a neutron decay;

- so really there are no ay experimental evidence that the assigned as the mediators real particles have some relations to real Forces’ interactions;

- in all QFTs the “virtual mediators”, which constantly and always are radiated by particles [flows of the radiated mediators compose “Forces’ fields”], carry some concrete energies/momentums that they transmit to other particles, what really is possible only every particle has some mystic source of infinite energy,

- etc., the number of really fantastic properties of Forces, that are postulated in SM/QFTs [and essentially in classic physics, though] is well > 1.

These really transcendent/mystic/ fantastic things in the mainstream physics completely logically inevitably follow from the fact, that in mainstream philosophy and sciences all really fundamental phenomena/notions, , first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- and any really scientific consideration of any fundamental physical problem – first of all at formulating really scientific postulates of corresponding theories, fundamentally is possible only if the phenomena/onions above are scientifically defined.

What is possible, and is done, only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s indeed philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and more concretely at application in physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s initial Planck scale informational physical model , 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Including in the model it is rigorously scientifically explained – what are Forces, Forces’ mediators/fields, etc.; including that the mediators are, of course, real objects in Matter, but they fundamentally don’t carry energy, etc.

More see the linked papers, recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics#view=642b89716f2a73457707a995/260/259/260/259/260/260/260/261/262/263/263/264/263/264/263/264/264/264/265/265/266/267/269/270/270/271/271/270/273/272/273/273/274/274/274/274/275/275/276/277/276/277/276/279/279/279/280/280/281/281/282/282/282/284/284/283/284/284/285/284/284/285/285/286/287 , page 287, is relevant in this case also.

Cheers