I never said it did. I argued quite the opposite. They cannot be experimentally verified. Not because they can't be observed directly, but because the theory in which they exist does not actually postulate their existence.
But an experiment can determine whether an electron exists or not...
You can say whatever you want. Actual philosophers of physics don't seem to agree with your position, since they've discussed http://www.springerlink.com/content/51r27u20u354mh5n/" quite a bit on whether "virtual particles are real", and neither side seems to agree with your idea that it's just...
You quote this, why? Is it because you don't think anyone who's actually a particle physicist would agree with what I'm saying? Because they certainly http://arnold-neumaier.at/physfaq/topics/virtual1" .
The full quotes is: "The contributions of virtual particles (particles that are...
I'm not a particle physicist, but I'm pretty sure you're still not measuring any virtual particles. You're measuring a scattering process, and you are visualizing the outcome of that scattering process in terms of the virtual-particle contributions used to describe the interaction.
In my...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/nature10561.html" the actual Nature paper.
As far as the debate on the 'reality' of virtual particles goes, this does not change anything. It's just yet another correct QED result. Nobody seriously disputes that QED works, or that the...
Well, the conclusion is the same. But it seems to me that he's more describing the ordinary double-slit experiment.
One key difference between that and what's being described in the paper, is that the states of the double-slit/half-silvered mirror paths aren't created independently of each...
I'll try again..
The way I read it, what they mean by "all the properties" is some set of hidden variables or similar that are sufficient to determine the outcome of any measurement. The "real" state is represented by lambda, and the quantum state is just a classical statistical distribution...
Huh? It appears to say quite the opposite: "If the quantum state is statistical in nature (the second view), then a full specification of λ need not determine the quantum state uniquely."
Yes, since λ does not uniquely determine the state vector. If the quantum state is a (non-unique)...
Okay, what's your evidence that something's going on in the human brain that's not reconcilable with the general framework of known chemistry/biochemistry? I'd like to know more about this fundamentally new physical phenomenon you've apparently discovered.
Writing a popular scientific book is a great way to present far-fetched ideas without having to face scrutiny. And it's easy to come up with far-fetched ideas outside of your own field, where you don't have the knowledge necessary to find fault with them. Roger Penrose is not an expert on...
I don't see why you'd think QIT has any relevance to describing how neurons work; ions diffusing across a membrane, driven by an action potential, is a quite classical process, not a quantum mechanical system.
Welcome to PF, Jiadong. Just a heads-up, though - you might want to check the date (upper-left corner of the post) before responding; you've answered a few that are a bit old.
No, you seem to miss the point entirely. Quantum chemistry is not 'like' quantum physics. It's an application of quantum physics to molecules, just as solid-state physics modelling is to crystals, and nuclear physics is to nucleons, and so forth.
You have to study quantum physics before you...
That's not what quantum chemistry is at all. Seriously, if you don't know what the field is, don't make up a guess.
There exists no distinct area of chemistry that requires understanding quantum mechanics to understand. It all requires quantum mechanics to understand. Without QM, there would be...