Register to reply 
What the term virtual particles referred to 
Share this thread: 
#19
Nov2906, 11:33 PM

P: 1,667

10^{54} in SI units. Moreover, the Lorentz Dirac equation comes from conservation of total energy momentum (and angular momentum if one includes magnetic dipole degrees of freedom). In the classical theory, there are no vacuum fluctuations, so that invalidates your argument below We call them virtual because they are useless to include in the state description for the scattering matrix where we ideally measure and prepare free particles. Careful 


#20
Nov3006, 07:25 AM

P: 154




#21
Nov3006, 02:52 PM

P: 306




#22
Dec106, 03:13 AM

P: 1,667




#23
Dec106, 10:15 AM

Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147

Yeah; back when I was even more ignorant than I am now I used to say that the photon is like a beautiful woman of a certain age. We don't know, and it's not important, what she looks like at home, it only matters what she looks like when she comes to visit us. 


#24
Dec106, 10:26 AM

P: 1,667




#25
Dec106, 01:46 PM

Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147

The experienced and loving heart finds no problem with this. The morning can and should be a time of affection, not clinical inspecdtion! 


#26
Dec206, 02:52 AM

P: 1,667

Careful 


#27
Dec206, 08:43 AM

Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147

But if I was going out on a risky limb for the sake of local action, I'd go by way of Einstein's and Schroedinger's unsymmetrical theory: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~jashiff...hrodinger.html, which is better than the rap the quantum consensus gives it. Especially look for Hlavaty's book Geometry of Einstein's Unified FIeld Theory. He gives a derivation of a spinor bundle over spacetime arising from the geometry. Reading this as a young man I was somewhat inoculated against quantum mysticism and its syntactic inverse, classical reductionism. A plague on both their houses. 


#28
Dec206, 12:34 PM

P: 1,667

Anyway, reading over this thread again, I noticed I should have said something about the Coulomb force. There is nothing which suggests that the latter needs to be of ``quantum mechanical origin'' and (therefore) neither needs to be associated to some timeenergy uncertainty. Actually, the total ``mass'' of the (infinite) Coulomb field equals the rest mass of the particle assuming it has the classical radius R (at least when the particle is not accelerating and energy is measured in the local Lorentz frame associated to the particle); it seems clear to me that there is no such thing needed as constant particle production out of nothing. But it is certainly interesting to contemplate the inner workings of the Coulomb force. Careful 


#29
Dec306, 06:59 AM

P: 302

I just noticed that I wrote in my previous 'Feynmann diagramm' which gives me five points on the crackpot list, I believe.
I have further realized that taking virtual particles too literal is also seen as crackpotterish by knowledgeable physicsts. But I like to point out that I was refering to conservative force fields and not those virtual particles coming from scattering. I admit that my billard ball thinking is pretty crappy, but still I like to know more about conservative force and its quantum treatment. So there is none. That's intersting. Could you please expand on it? By the way a great FAQ by a guy called Arnold Neumaier. Check S3, especially S3e in it. 


#30
Dec306, 07:40 AM

P: 1,667

I quickly read a part of Arnold Neumaier : pretty much the standard story, if he would apply the scattering matrix approach to the universe, he would speak of virtual planets and by no means would he be able to say whether the universe contains black holes or not (pretty much the Hawking story), the only information he considers real are (special relativistic) free field states (so he works with states on some conformal past and future boundary). Of course this is as unphysical as one can only get, you can expect this kind of nonsense when people forget that a very useful approximation (in the laboratory) is not to be taken as a fundamental axiom. He makes a valid point though when he says that the virtual particle content depends upon the quantization method (which is a pretty obvious thing), but I disagree that it would lead to a strange picture of reality. It merely tells me that the quantization method cannot give a complete description of reality as it stands. But yeah, if you take the latter as ``forbidden territory'' then you are pretty much forced to state what this (clever) man says. Careful 


#31
Dec306, 03:27 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,082

Yes indeed. Follows from the standard solution. Regards, Reilly Atkinson 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
UVA Virtual Lab  Chemistry  0  
Virtual particles  Quantum Physics  27  
A Virtual Challenge  Quantum Physics  2  
Virtual era  Astronomy & Astrophysics  1  
Virtual CD on HDD  Computing & Technology  14 