Virtual Particles

>>8969893
>physicists

"Does A belong to set B or C or both" is your question. Nothing imteresting here.

>>8969897
What?

>>8969893
Virtual particles aren't directly observable in the first place. That's why they are virtual.

>>8969916
Makes sense.

So say when one "falls" onto the event horizon and its partner flies off, and they "become real" (excuse my layman quotes)... Its charge could be known then right?

I guess what I'm getting at is... Does the separation count as some kind of Measurement like in the classic double-slit experiment, or measuring spin?

>>8969900
>huh?? I dont understand? U said A not positron?? Wtf man?? Where is my buzzwords?? I cant understand that my most difficult concepts can actually be expressed in math language??

Physicians

>>8969923
There's no need to be an autistic cunt.

>>8969922
>physician word play

"Element A is embedded the property B after leaving the set C by function D to set E, and the property is unembedded from A as it reaches set E."

I don't know if you can say you "measure" a virtual particle. If you measure a particle in the end, that's the result of a scattering experiment, such that you provide 'in' and 'out' states. The out state gives you the real particles, and the in state is the one you provided for the experiment (with other real particles).
Virtual particles are the ones inside Feynman diagrams, they are off-shell (do not obey the relativistic dispersion relation) and an artifact of perturbative expansion of your interaction. By definition if you "try to measure a virtual particle", it is not a virtual particle anymore, you stop the process by disturbing the system (that is the scattering experiment).
I would not advise giving reality to them.

>>8969934
Thanks, that makes sense.

But giving reality to them is exactly what's happening when one gets snatched by the event horizon, right? The surviving particle remains in existence. I guess that's what I mean by "does it count as being measured" since it's forced into a real state.

>>8969942
if you are close to the event horizon, you are in a region permeated by a gravitational field, in terms of particles that would be an ensemble of many gravitons (or something like this, whatever quantum gravity tells us). Then, I imagine, you are scattering gravitons with other particles. The black hole provides the in state (gravitons), and you measure your choice of out state, which was created and did not exist beforehand (so it's not in a superposition).

I'm thinking here of things such as the Klein paradox/superradiance. Maybe someone who knows more of things such as the Unruh effect can be more clear. I'm not entirely sure of everything I tell you

>>8969971
Thanks for the writeup though. It was just an interesting idea I wanted to pass to you guys.

>>8969916
99% of our mass is virtual particles, I'd say that is pretty observable.

>>8969923
>Physicians
>being this literally lost