- #1
Rouge72
- 8
- 0
i've been scrolling through the archives and can't get an answer if virtual particle exist or not or are real,I get different answers looking on websites.
Demystifier said:It does not exist. (This is perhaps the most frequent question on this forum and I am tired of explaining it each time.)
ansgar said:you should have the answer saved in a textfile somewhere and just paste it here :)
jtbell said:
Rouge72 said:i get different answers in the thread.
jtbell said:You really expect everyone to agree about something on an Internet forum?
If you can't decide whose answers you trust more, then you'll just have to pick up a copy of Weinberg's or whosever textbook and learn quantum field theory for yourself. Then you can decide for yourself whether virtual particles meet your definition of "real."
Rouge72 said:if they don't exist,how come they have real effects?
What that really means is just that when you calculate the probability amplitude you're interested in, you have to integrate the functions of the four-momenta that you're dealing with, over all of [itex]\mathbb R^4[/itex] rather than over the "mass shell" (the subset defined by [itex](p^0)^2-(p^1)^2-(p^2)^2-(p^3)^2=m^2[/itex]).Rouge72 said:another thing that blew my mind is that they are allowed to travel faster than light?
Maybe the following analogy can help. Suppose that you have 1$ (one dollar) in your pocket. It is real. However, mathematically, you can writeRouge72 said:if they don't exist,how come they have real effects?
Demystifier said:Maybe the following analogy can help. Suppose that you have 1$ (one dollar) in your pocket. It is real. However, mathematically, you can write
1$=1.243$+(-0.243$)
So one can use this identity to say that you actually have 1.243$ and -0.243$. Of course, you really have neither 1.243$ nor -0.243$. You have them only in a virtual sense. Yet, their virtual existence has a real effect. Their real effect is that you have 1$.
Does it help?
By the way, virtual money may have not only multi-decimal values and negative values (which probably can be comprehended at some extent), but even complex values:
1$=(1+3i)$+(1-3i)$
Fredrik said:What that really means is just that when you calculate the probability amplitude you're interested in, you have to integrate the functions of the four-momenta that you're dealing with, over all of [itex]\mathbb R^4[/itex] rather than over the "mass shell" (the subset defined by [itex](p^0)^2-(p^1)^2-(p^2)^2-(p^3)^2=m^2[/itex]).
There's no good reason to think that these mathematical operations describe what "actually happens" during an interaction. QFTs (where we encounter the virtual particles) are theories of matter and interactions in the framework of QM, and virtual particles appear when you express a certain function as a series and interpret the individual terms as a description of what actually happens. Why would it be the terms that describe what actually happens and not, say, their sum? It seems even less likely that they do when we consider the fact that QM itself may not be a description of the world out there. It could be just an algorithm that tells us how to calculate probabilities of possibilities.
So to think of virtual particles as "what's actually happening" is a bit of a stretch. (It certainly could be what's actually happening, but experiments can't confirm or deny that it is).
Rouge72 said:are virtual particle's physics for math?
I would put it this way. The same physics can be represented by several different maths. It does not seem reasonable to believe that these different maths describe different realities.ansgar said:math only, we can represent physics with math - but not all math can represent physics.
Fredrik said:Not sure I understand the question, but virtual particles appear in perturbation theory calculations of probability amplitudes. You use those amplitudes to calculate the probabilities of the different possible results of your experiments. It's conceivable that there exists a better way of doing the calculations which wouldn't include virtual particles at all, but I don't think anyone knows any other way to do them.
You won't get a much better answer than what I already gave you in #15. FTL speeds are definitely included in the calculation, but there's no good reason to think that something is actually traveling along the paths in spacetime that contribute to the final result.Rouge72 said:what I am trying to find out is if they can travel FTL?
inempty said:Can we get a physics understanding of interations without the notion of virtual particle?
I'm not sure what do you think by "understanding", but we can certainly do a calculation without them.inempty said:Can we get a physics understanding of interations without the notion of virtual particle?
Demystifier said:I'm not sure what do you think by "understanding", but we can certainly do a calculation without them.
That's not quite correct. In some cases we can get numbers as well.ansgar said:yes but we cannot (as today) calculate anything to get numbers.
Here are counterexamples:ansgar said:can we? I have only heard and learned about perturbation methods in QFT
Fredrik said:You won't get a much better answer than what I already gave you in #15. FTL speeds are definitely included in the calculation, but there's no good reason to think that something is actually traveling along the paths in spacetime that contribute to the final result.
Rouge72 said:is there evidence or proof for the existence of virtual particles?