There you go. Anytime someone insists on HN that virtual particles are real, you can just tell them that Arkani-Hamed disagrees with you and that he is also smarter than you.
There you go. Anytime someone insists on HN that virtual particles are real, you can just tell them that Arkani-Hamed disagrees with you and that he is also smarter than you.
If elements of the universe have probabilistic distributions until observed, you have also a dualism there: 1) the observable element 2) the probabilistic structure surrounding it. Both are mystical and interdependent.
Maybe the particle and observation seems more real, but they both adhere to structure that surrounds and shapes them fully too. What we observe though is not particles themselves, but after-effects of the fleeting mirage. So everything is a copy, thus holographic nature.
So, argument from authority then?
Are all experts in agreement on virtual particles? If not, which are we meant to 'follow'?
And BTW, I have no position on virtual particles.
> Are all experts in agreement on virtual particles? If not, which are we meant to 'follow'?
?
the person I was responding to picked out one particular expert's view
"you can just tell them that Arkani-Hamed disagrees with you and that he is also smarter than you."
aside from the silly "he is also smarter than you", just because one expert holds a view doesn't make it right.
If all the experts were unanimous, and the particular point had been well tested, then a point like yours would hold.
Also, the comment I was responding to was assuming that no-one on HN has a relevant background for having a solid opinion on virtual particles. I certainly don't, but I would not make that assumption about everyone on this forum. I don't agree with the notion that just because someone has a high status in a field that this automatically makes their opinions superior to other people in that field.
Although people usually do not get hung up on the virtual particles. Rather people get annoyed when we say that the definition of a "particle" is "excitation of a quantum field".
I believe mind is a particular form of process on information, but that doesn’t mean all processes on information are minds. This IMHO is the fundamental error at the heart of panpsychism.
You have an apple in one hand. Since
1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + ... + 1/2^n + ...
you therefore have an infinite collection of apple pieces in your hand? Whether that's a useful description, depends on context. Virtual particles are sort of like this decomposition.I think that a lot of confusion arises because of the innocuous seeming equal sign. Explicitly replace the equals by approprate (algebraic) maps, and at least for me, the relationship becomes a lot clearer.
Maybe more familiar to HN, maybe it helps to do "typed" math? E.g. counting numbers have a different type than equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences. From a set theory perspective, it makes sense to ask the question whether the number 3 (as a set) equals the collection of triangles in R^3 (as a set). Of course, the two aren't equal, but it seems weird to even ask this question.
Maybe it should be just as incongruous to say that some vacuum state equals it's decomposition into virtual particles. The two things are just differently-typed. You need some computation to convert between them.