Virtual Particles And Hidden Dimensions

mjacobsca
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
This may be way off base, but is there any support for the notion that virtual particles seem to appear and disappear because they move into and out of dimensions that we can't see? I kind of envision them appearing on arcs similar to solar prominences, where plasma follows the magnetic field lines to create a loop. Could such prominences come from other dimensions, could the virtual particles be attached along these prominences such that they always meet along them, and is it possible that the virtual particles are not created from nothing, but rather just jump into and out of our 3 dimensions?

Another similar thought I had was whether quantum particles that are entangled are actually connected via hidden dimensional constructs such that even when far apart in our 3 dimensions, they may be closely connected in others.

I know these ideas are out there, but I wanted to see what others thought. Please be gentle!

Mike
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mjacobsca said:
This may be way off base, but is there any support for the notion that virtual particles seem to appear and disappear because they move into and out of dimensions that we can't see? I kind of envision them appearing on arcs similar to solar prominences, where plasma follows the magnetic field lines to create a loop. Could such prominences come from other dimensions, could the virtual particles be attached along these prominences such that they always meet along them, and is it possible that the virtual particles are not created from nothing, but rather just jump into and out of our 3 dimensions?

Another similar thought I had was whether quantum particles that are entangled are actually connected via hidden dimensional constructs such that even when far apart in our 3 dimensions, they may be closely connected in others.

I know these ideas are out there, but I wanted to see what others thought. Please be gentle!

Mike

No. To say Virtual Particles are popping in and out of existence is really a flawed perspective on things for a number of reasons. Firstly, in Quantum Field Theory particles aren't really things, they're just labels for disturbances of quantum fields (which are a thing), thus their coming and going is really not amazingly different than a rolling sea with wave forming and going and clashing, etc. where the water is like the quantum field and the wave peaks are like particles. Secondly, I don't think many physicists take the concept of Virtual Particles to be a real thing. Virtual Particles really just come about because we can't solve certain integrals (math equations) exactly and thus need to solve them in this scheme of infinite approximations (called perturbation theory). It's only here that the notion of Virtual Particles pops up so really it's just a mathematical abstraction, if we could actually solve the integrals themselves there'd be no need for a description with them (that's why we call them "virtual").

In other words Virtual Particles are a CALCULATION TECHNIQUE rather than a concrete description of reality.
 
Good Lord, not again.

There are at least six different threads on this. Unfortunately popularizations in particular seem to misunderstand that the reason we distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles is that virtual particles are not real. The Casimir effect is often invoked as evidence that virtual particles having a real, physical existence, but Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to virtual particles or even zero point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents.

This refuses to die. I suspect it is because there are many fewer people who have done the calculation that those who have read something in a popularization. The former group then finds itself drowned out by the latter group.
 
mathman said:
There is a real effect due to virtual particles - its called the Casimir effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

At the end of the day the only time (to my knowledge) the concept of virtual particles needs to come into anything (including the casimir effect) is if you need to calculate some propagator with a small potential V and since you can't solve it exactly (if we could do that things would be peachy and you'd never have heard of virtual particles) so you need to use a Dyson series which can be interpreted as an infinite sum of particle interactions above the vacuum/ground state. However, this is just a mathematical trick to get around solving integrals we can't solve, it's not real physics.
 
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...
Back
Top