- #1
fox26
- 40
- 2
I know little about QED, QCD, and whatever the corresponding theory for the
weak force is, and of course virtually nothing about the quantized theory of the
gravitational force, which mostly doesn’t exist, so the following arguments and
questions may be somewhat wrongly based where they refer to such theories.
I will talk specifically about the quantized theory of the electromagnetic field, but
the considerations may generalize to the other three forces. A stationary,
non-time-varying electrostatic field was said, in my classical E&M course, to have
an energy of its own which was calculated, in the case of the field between the
plates of a capacitor, by determining the energy required to charge the capacitor
to create the field and assuming conservation of energy. The energy density at
each point turned out to be proportional to the square of the magnitude of the
field there. In the quantized theory of the E-M field, as I understand, there is
nothing similar to the continuous E-M field in classical theory. What is observed
macroscopically as a stationary electrostatic field, such as that of a stationary
electron, is popularly said according to QED to be due to photons, real or virtual.
My question is: How is this possible?
Julian Schwinger asked why people insist on the existence of theoretical objects,
such as atoms, electrons, and E-M fields or photons, and are not satisfied with
just the mathematics of physical theories, and the observable predictions it
makes, as a description of nature. Whatever the reason, most people, including
most physicists and myself, want a description that includes physical entities of
some sort. Quantum Field Theory provides this for such things as electrons, in a
way that is at least semi-satisfactory, as excitations of some quantum field. Is
there a corresponding description by Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) of the
electromagnetic field?
If, according to QED, an electrostatic field is somehow composed of photons,
are these real or virtual, or is this supposed question, according to QED,
meaningless? Even in QED, energy expectation value is conserved, so the
energy used in charging a capacitor must go somewhere, and would that not be
into the E field between the plates of the capacitor, or QED’s substitute for that?
Surely the E(r) field of a stationary electron must, as in the case of the field in a
capacitor, have an energy density expectation value at a point r proportional to
|E(r)|2 (with E(r) being the classical field). The problem is, why don’t the photons
comprising the field, whether they are real or virtual, for an electron in otherwise
empty space, fly off to infinity? Even virtual photons, which some people writing
in PF or elsewhere, such as Arnold Neumaier in his PF article “The Physics of
Virtual Particles”, claim are unobservable (or nonexistent), surely (?) would fly
off to ∞. The electron couldn’t renew its supply of energetic photons, real or
virtual, which in this view its E field must be composed of, all of which would be
going to ∞, since that would cause its own mass to decrease.
It may be that the claim that a quantized E-M field is composed of photons, real
or virtual, is another case of misrepresentation by popularizers. If that is so, what
is a quantized (supposedly all are) E-M field composed of? Must we, according
to present theory, give up the picture of such a field as being made up of physical
entities?
weak force is, and of course virtually nothing about the quantized theory of the
gravitational force, which mostly doesn’t exist, so the following arguments and
questions may be somewhat wrongly based where they refer to such theories.
I will talk specifically about the quantized theory of the electromagnetic field, but
the considerations may generalize to the other three forces. A stationary,
non-time-varying electrostatic field was said, in my classical E&M course, to have
an energy of its own which was calculated, in the case of the field between the
plates of a capacitor, by determining the energy required to charge the capacitor
to create the field and assuming conservation of energy. The energy density at
each point turned out to be proportional to the square of the magnitude of the
field there. In the quantized theory of the E-M field, as I understand, there is
nothing similar to the continuous E-M field in classical theory. What is observed
macroscopically as a stationary electrostatic field, such as that of a stationary
electron, is popularly said according to QED to be due to photons, real or virtual.
My question is: How is this possible?
Julian Schwinger asked why people insist on the existence of theoretical objects,
such as atoms, electrons, and E-M fields or photons, and are not satisfied with
just the mathematics of physical theories, and the observable predictions it
makes, as a description of nature. Whatever the reason, most people, including
most physicists and myself, want a description that includes physical entities of
some sort. Quantum Field Theory provides this for such things as electrons, in a
way that is at least semi-satisfactory, as excitations of some quantum field. Is
there a corresponding description by Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) of the
electromagnetic field?
If, according to QED, an electrostatic field is somehow composed of photons,
are these real or virtual, or is this supposed question, according to QED,
meaningless? Even in QED, energy expectation value is conserved, so the
energy used in charging a capacitor must go somewhere, and would that not be
into the E field between the plates of the capacitor, or QED’s substitute for that?
Surely the E(r) field of a stationary electron must, as in the case of the field in a
capacitor, have an energy density expectation value at a point r proportional to
|E(r)|2 (with E(r) being the classical field). The problem is, why don’t the photons
comprising the field, whether they are real or virtual, for an electron in otherwise
empty space, fly off to infinity? Even virtual photons, which some people writing
in PF or elsewhere, such as Arnold Neumaier in his PF article “The Physics of
Virtual Particles”, claim are unobservable (or nonexistent), surely (?) would fly
off to ∞. The electron couldn’t renew its supply of energetic photons, real or
virtual, which in this view its E field must be composed of, all of which would be
going to ∞, since that would cause its own mass to decrease.
It may be that the claim that a quantized E-M field is composed of photons, real
or virtual, is another case of misrepresentation by popularizers. If that is so, what
is a quantized (supposedly all are) E-M field composed of? Must we, according
to present theory, give up the picture of such a field as being made up of physical
entities?