Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Are virtual particles real or just math filler

  1. Jan 4, 2016 #1
    Hello,
    My question on virtual particles is quiet simple but i cannot find an answer. Are virtual particles just a filler for math or do they actually come into existence?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 4, 2016 #2

    Mentz114

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  4. Jan 4, 2016 #3

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to PhysicsForums, J-eastwood!

    The generally accepted answer is: Virtual particles are artifacts of the math of Quantum Field Theory. Many find them convenient for discussion purposes. Whether they are "real" or not is something of a matter of philosophy. There is no known physical test that would further answer this question.
     
  5. Jan 4, 2016 #4

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I wrote here a thorough answer (see the subsection on virtual particles). Virtual particles are not more than a useful visual aid for displaying technical mathematical details without using complicated formulas. Popular claims about their alleged temporal behavior are completely unfounded.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2016
  6. Jan 4, 2016 #5
    Ok thank you for the responses it helped a lot!
     
  7. Jan 4, 2016 #6
    Isn't it that electric field is an exchange of virtual particles. If virtual particles are just artifacts of mathematical procedure that is not there when you use other procedure. Then what is an electric field composed of? Maybe we need to go back to Faradays where electric field are really flux lines?
     
  8. Jan 4, 2016 #7

    Mentz114

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is covered in the link in post #4. Please read it.
     
  9. Jan 4, 2016 #8
    Arnold Neumaier answer in the link is very complicated. His answer is "Observable particles. In QFT, observable (hence real) particles of mass m'>m m are conventionally defined as being associated with poles of the S-matrix at energy E=mc2'>E=mc 2 E=mc2 in the rest frame of the system (Peskin/Schroeder, An introduction to QFT, p.236). If the pole is at a real energy, the mass is real and the particle is stable; if the pole is at a complex energy (in the analytic continuation of the S-matrix to the second sheet), the mass is complex and the particle is unstable."

    I'm asking about the electric field. The link is about W and Z bosons of the electroweak field. I can't relate electric field to the S-Matrix or whatever.

    So what are electric field specifically? just virtual photons? Note it has no mass so can't relate this to the link that has mass. Just need a direct answer to this question. Thanks.
     
  10. Jan 4, 2016 #9

    Mentz114

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is a quote from the linked document which does apply to the virtual particles you ask about
     
  11. Jan 4, 2016 #10
    so what is the lattice gauge theory of electric field that doesnt use the concept of virtual photons?
     
  12. Jan 4, 2016 #11

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    QFT starts with a field, divides it into a lot of blobs, treats each blob using standard QM, then lets the blob size go to zero. Taking the blob size to zero means you are assuming the theory is valid for all scales - even below the Plank scale where we are pretty sure our current physics breaks down. Ok - so instead of taking the blob size to zero we can make it very small and solve the resulting theory on a computer - that's lattice theory. Wonder of wonders - when you do that no virtual particles. This suggests they are simply an artefact of the methods normally used by pushing them too far.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  13. Jan 4, 2016 #12
    ok so what does an electric field detector detect? if its not virtual photons then what is the terms of it? lattice blob interchange?
     
  14. Jan 4, 2016 #13

    bhobba

    Staff: Mentor

    The quantised EM field it couples to just like classical EM where the coupling is modelled with a coupling constant in the Lagrangian.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2016
  15. Jan 5, 2016 #14

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    It depends on the electric-field detector. If it's something like a CCD, it detects photons. A classical electromagnetic (wave) field from the point of view of QFT is a coherent state, i.e., the superposition of all photon-number Fock states in a specific way that describes the details of this wave field. The probability to detect a photon is given as usual by Born's rule.
     
  16. Jan 5, 2016 #15

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It detects the electric field. In quantum electrodynamics the basic entities are an electromagnetic field operator ##A(x)## and an electon/positron field operator ##\psi(x)##. The expectation of ##dA(x)## (where ##d## denotes exterior differentiation) is the classically measurable field at any space-time point ##x##, with three electric and three magnetic components. Similarly, the expectation of ##e\psi(x)^*\psi(x)## is the classically measurable charge density.

    Conceptually, this is very simple, just as the quantum-classical correspondence in the Ehrenfest theorem of quantum mechanics.
    Introducing virtual particles only obfuscates the picture.
     
  17. Jan 5, 2016 #16
    If virtual particles are ONLY a tool for visualizing math procedures, then why is it not fair to use them to develop math for subjects like the Casimir effect, Hawking and Unruh radiation, screening effect on a bare point charge, etc? I don't think anyone ever mentions them as being something measurable. They always seem to be used for visualization purposes. Why (or when) is that not a fair approach for development?
     
  18. Jan 5, 2016 #17

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is appropriate to use them as visual aids.
    But they are treated in much of the world of nonphysicists (including many wikipedia articles) as something dynamical, which is pure science fiction.
     
  19. Jan 5, 2016 #18
    Are there some guidelines for how to use virtual particles in theory development? For example, I'm thinking of how two charged particles might interact in terms of the screen of virtual particles that surround each. It is said that the virtual particles (vacuum fluctuations) are polarized by the presence of a bare charge. Can the theory describing the force between the particles be developed in terms of how the virtual particles are polarized by both charges together? Or would such a theory depend on some dynamics which you say does not exit for virtual particles? Yet, wouldn't polarizing the vacuum (virtual particles) be a type of dynamics? Or would polarizing the vacuum only be a way of taking into account some potential without relying on the dynamics of how each of the virtual particle pairs actually propagate through space? Is it fair to use virtual particle only in terms of the probable effect of a potential on the virtual pairs?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2016
  20. Jan 5, 2016 #19

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You use them to illustrate whatever you do on the mathematical level. The decisions what to do there must come from your mathematical and physical understanding.
     
  21. Jan 5, 2016 #20

    anorlunda

    Staff: Mentor

    Wow. I just read your answer here . It was very educational, and not too difficult to read. Here is my suggestion. Add a couple of pictures and make it a PF insights article. I thinks it would be much appreciated. Also, a link to an article is presumably more permanent than a link to a post, and therefore can be cited when editing those many incorrect Wikipedia articles that you mentioned.
     
  22. Jan 5, 2016 #21

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    For me, making figures is quite time-consuming. But if you'd make figures for me, I'd convert the article (with a few changes) to an insight article.
     
  23. Jan 5, 2016 #22
    As opposed to what? When has anyone ever used them otherwise?
     
  24. Jan 5, 2016 #23

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No opposite needed. I was only saying the obvious.
     
  25. Jan 5, 2016 #24

    anorlunda

    Staff: Mentor

    I would be honored to assist you with graphics for an article. But first step, I need you to change your PF settings to allow me to start a private conversation with you so that we can collaborate without publishing our emails on a public forum.

    Edit: alternatively, you could start a private conversation with me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2016
  26. Jan 5, 2016 #25
    Does this mean virtual particles do indeed have properties that can be use to develop theory? What would those properties be? Do the virtual particles have all the properties of a real particle, except they only last an undetermined short period of time? I know of some physicists that are considering the entanglement of virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) to "stitch" spacetime together, Leonard Susskind, for example.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Loading...