1 hour ago, joigus said:

Your ignorance of physics is Mariana-Trench deep. Perhaps only comparable to your hubris.

"Virtual particles" is just a fancy name for fluctuations of quantum relativistic fields that can go off-shell for fleeting times. The number operator in QFT for virtual particles gives zero for the expectation value, as it should. Suggesting there are something in the ballpark of 10³⁴ virtual particles (per what?, per unit volume?, in the whole universe?) just because the value of Planck's constant suggests you so strikes me as a feverish hallucination.

Oh, and Planck's constant can be said to to go to 0 in a certain sense (although that's not exactly what we mean when we say that)*. But it makes absolutely no sense to say that it tends to 1. You see, it's not a variable:

IT'S A CONSTANT!!!

Never mind.

You might not read a lot from me on any of your threads from now on.

And please do correct your syntax and spelling, it seriously interferes with your clarity.

Good luck.

---

*What we mean when we say that is that every characteristic quantity with the dimensions of action in the problem under consideration is huge in comparison to \( \hbar \).

I even lack words to describe your situation....How many times have I told you to not jump the gun?

Particles that go off shell for fleeting times,what intuition description do you have about that?

Am yet to account for that, infact with more clarity and according to me, with more intuition,I mean,the origin of that phenomenon that ends up demystifying phenomenon of quantum fluctuation.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Perhaps only comparable to your hubris

It pains me to see someone becoming personal coz of lack of comprehension of someone else understanding?...the irony is that it might be your own description you are doing... don't reflect yourself on someone else then come into weird conclusions about them.

We are discussing science and of course new ideas in science....you are privileged to be witnessing new development in science in real time...How many science forums in the world are having such discussion concerning what am putting across at this particular in time?

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Oh, and Planck's constant can be said to to go to 0 in a certain sense (although that's not exactly what we mean when we say that)*.

In you brackets when you say...that's not exactly what we mean...My question you and who? Is there any caveat of how someone is supposed to think or reason?

2 hours ago, joigus said:

But it makes absolutely no sense to say that it tends to 1

It's a constant and there is more than enough reason that infact suite my arguments...tending to one,you can't see any sense at these juncture of my arguments....I don't want to jump the gun....I will stick to myself and let the discussion have a natural flow to that point that it will make sense.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

IT'S A CONSTANT!!!

Yes it's a constant..there is an explanation atleast in my arguments that outline the importance of it being a constant...am not near that point of illustrating the importance of that.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

And please do correct your syntax and spelling, it seriously interferes with your clarity.

The device am using and autosuggestions...and my way of putting facts across...hope don't change the essence of the ideas am having.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Good luck.

Let me hope the intention was not to make others gag me prematurely before the consistency of what am putting across comes clear.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But your claim is that polarization and momentum are equal

I have not made any such claim...either you are misunderstanding me or you are making wrong conclusion...am just using polarization to give us position operator or rather to give us direction of the vector...surely polarization is not momentum.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Well, no. That’s the point. There is no way to get from one to the other. They are not equal.

Just replace equals sign with equivalency sign...thanks for noting that...in my device of communication getting the equivalency symbol is a headache..given the heated conversation prevailing at the moment...I was clearly a ware of that.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why not? You don’t have to detect angular momentum. We’ve detected particles with zero angular momentum — the Higgs boson

In terms of energy...Higgs boson energy is far off that that mark.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

h=1 Is there any evidence of h having a value other than what we currently understand it to be?

6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1 which is equivalent to Planck's constant....where is h=1 coming from in this case?

When in my arguments you see this ℏ→1 what should come across your mind is normalization.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

— Emerson

Being consistent doesn’t matter if you’re wrong. But it’s not even clear what you’re being consistent with.

You need to have the evidence of it being foolish,and funny enough in this case, even before it has been consistent.

35 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

you are privileged to be witnessing new development in science in real time.

And that’s the hubris. The fact that you resist correction makes this soapboxing, which is against the rules.

47 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Let me hope the intention was not to make others gag me prematurely before the consistency of what am putting across comes clear.

We’re 8 pages and 11 months into this thread. I’d say you’ve had your opportunity to make your point.