Do Virtual Particles Travel Faster Than Light and Violate Causality?

Dynamic Sauce
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi Everyone I was wondering if virtual particles travel faster than light,i ask this because i saw a video where it talks about virtual particles traveling faster than light but if that is so would that imply they travel backwards in time and causality is violated? I also ask this because there are a lot of forums on virtual particle's on this site at the moment.
EDIT:Ive been looking at other posts on here and it says that virtual particles are not real,that they don't exist,is this true?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi Dynamic Sauce! Welcome to PF! :smile:

I can't believe everyone missed this thread at the time! :rolleyes:

Sorry! :redface:
Dynamic Sauce said:
I was wondering if virtual particles travel faster than light,i ask this because i saw a video where it talks about virtual particles traveling faster than light but if that is so would that imply they travel backwards in time and causality is violated?

Virtual particles appear in the maths in a long complicated multiple integral.

The variables of integration are the 4-momentums of the virtual particles.

Every integral is from -∞ to ∞ (in four dimensions).

4-momentum is the 4-vector (energy, 3-momentum), or (E,p).

The speed of that 4-momentum is |p|/|E|.

So the integral is over all values of p, and over all values of p/|E|, ie over all speeds from 0 to ∞ (and also over both positive and negative values of E, see below :wink:).

So, yes, virtual particles (in the maths) have all possible speeds, including faster than c. :smile:
Dynamic Sauce said:
What Does it mean when virtual particles travel "Backwards in time" does it mean literally?

Ah, here we're talking about anti-particles.

An anti-particle behaves exactly the same as a particle, provided you "run the film backwards"

eg take a film of an electron being created at 2 o'clock and destroyed at 3 o'clock, then run the film backwards: it looks exactly like a film of a positron being created at 3 o'clock and destroyed at 2 o'clock.

In the integrals I mentioned above, negative values of E are included, and an particle of energy -E is interpreted as an anti-particle of energy E; and also, in the three-dimensional integrals which are a little further back in the calculation (I didn't mention them, but they're there), the particle's creation and annihilation operators are swapped over.

For example, if the virtual particle is a virtual electron, a negative value of E (but with the same 3-momentum, p) means a virtual positron with the same velocity, but being annihilated before it is created, ie "living backwards". :smile:

This is just maths of course!
 
Dynamic Sauce said:
Hi Everyone I was wondering if virtual particles travel faster than light,i ask this because i saw a video where it talks about virtual particles traveling faster than light but if that is so would that imply they travel backwards in time and causality is violated? I also ask this because there are a lot of forums on virtual particle's on this site at the moment.
EDIT:Ive been looking at other posts on here and it says that virtual particles are not real,that they don't exist,is this true?

More than enough has been said in the threads
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=75307
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=460685
in the PhysicsForums Library at
https://www.physicsforums.com/library.php?do=view_item&itemid=287
and in Chapter A7: Virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations
http://arnold-neumaier.at/physfaq/physics-faq.html#A7
of my theoretical physics FAQ.

If after reading all that you still can't make up your mind whose arguments you want to believe, no amount of discussion here can help you.
 
I see that DynamicSauce has already posted during the last week or so in the second thread mentioned in the preceding post, so I see no point in continuing this one.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Back
Top