Electrons in and ot existence

I saw a show quite a while ago and i believe one part of the show stated that electrons can just pop into existence. Has anyone heard of this??? If so is it true???

According to quantum physics, particles appear and disappear all the time. Plus, the electron cloud is based on randomness and probability as to where the electrons are, not something that looks like a solar system with electrons in nice smooth orbits.

Ah yes, but they arent electrons, and they are not even real photons, but rather "virtual" photons that defy the law of conservation of energy and exist for sort periods of time, like 10^-35 second. They are supposibly the cause of the electromagnetic fields that cause protons to hold electrons in orbit, and magnets, etc.

That is the gist of quantum theory.

Virtual Particles FAQ

Maybe the electrons disappear from our dimension and reappear in another....

or perhaps the electrons appear to disappear because they merely reach speeds that humans can't measure...

Checkers, read above or click the link, they aren't electrons.

Another explanation would be that they're everywhere all at once, and don't actually gain a fixed position in space and time until they're observed by someone. It's related to the particle-wave duality of electrons, and for all matter.

Here's an explanation by Feynman - that master of physics - that explains it very well:

www.anselm.edu...

Nice lil' brain twist to physics. Must be why I like it!

If you REALLY want to twist your brain, look up non-locality.

www.objectivescience.com...

Yea, I was about to say, those are virtual particles. Particle physics is strange...

Isnt the theory that the popping in and out of existence is what would allow there to potentially be a zero point energy field that could provide infinite power if we could figure out how to tap into it?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
According to quantum physics...

Quantum mechanics was foisted on physics by disinformation artists like Werner Heisenberg, Hitler's bomb project chief, who successfully used numbers, smoke and mirrors to confuse Hitler out of the Bomb in a blindingly successful idiocy campaign worthy of Fabius Cunctator himself. After the War, this campaign continued to obfuscate anyone who was not in the Inner Circle into physical and mental submission.

I precisely predict the velocity and position of a particle every time I blow a duck out of the sky, thus proving QM fallacious, deceptive, and useless.

If you believe that 'virtual' particles pop in and out of existance, I suggest you spit in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets wet first.

Quantum mechanics has set public physics back 100 years.

The math looks right on the surface. But so does (3+3-1)\2=2.7

Please tell me that you're joking with that whole duck analogy. I would hardly consider a flying duck to equate to a quantum particle...

So if you believe that the whole of quantum mechanics is a product of disinformation, then is it also true that you believe every piece of technology that interacts with matter on a quantum level is also part of some kind of massive disinformation project? That would really make the operation of a nuclear reactor pretty difficult, wouldn't it? For that matter, CRT monitors must also not really exist because they use electric fields to direct electrons...which clearly we can have no comprehension of if our only view into the sub-atomic world is based on a massive piece of disinformation.

Quantum mechanics has set public physics back 100 years.

I guess that means we were better off without televisions, optical storage, solid state electronics, photoelectric technology, and to name just one more item...nuclear medicine which not only helps to save cancer patients but also can be used as a diagnostic tool to detect medical issues before they become too severe. That doesn't really make all too much sense to me.

Well, nothing else can explain what Feynman was seeing except virtual particles. Without virtual particles, we also can't explain the EM-force. If they're not correct - at least it's a start. It's better than having nothing at all, like you suggest they should have.