Are virtual particles really there?

[kexue]

Surely this was known to Feynman and others around 1948; nevertheless, they coined the name virtual particles to distinguish them from real particles. Why should someone want to call real particles virtual? They had very good reasons to call them virtual and not real.

But those who can't hear will never be healed from their illusions.

Have you ever read Feynman's QED Theory of light? Especially chapter 3?

 

[nismaratwork]

Have you ever read Feynman's QED Theory of light? Especially chapter 3?

You resurrected this thread to say THAT?! Shouldn't you be re-reading a LOT of material, and trying to get it right this time before you worry about the curriculum of others?

 

[kexue]

virtual particles

A month ago, I sent emails to Frank Wilczek, Ed Witten, Gerad t'Hooft, David Pollitzer, Steven Weinberg, Leonard Susskind, Michael Peskin and Curtis Callan. I asked them if they think that 'virtual' particles are 'really out there' or just a mathematical artefact of perturbation theory.

Over the last weeks I asked the same question Philip Anderson, Roy Glauber, Shelly Glasow, Joe Polchinski, Howard Georgi, John Preskill, Mark Srednicki, Warren Siegel, Steve Carlip, Helen Quinn, Roman Jackiw, Juan Maldacena, Jogish Pati, Cumrun Vafra, Steven Gubser, Daniel Bjorken, Nathan Seiberg and a lot of others. Again, very kindly they all replied.

I received a wide range of beautiful answers! Are people in this forum interested that I post them all here?

 

[martinbn]

Yes, I for one am interested. Of course you should ask them for permission before posting any personal correspondence.

p.s. Since I am very cynical I cannot stop myself asking: how do we know you are not making this up?

 

[phyzguy]

I'd be interested. Please post them.

 

[kexue]

Yes, I for one am interested. Of course you should ask them for permission before posting any personal correspondence.

p.s. Since I am very cynical I cannot stop myself asking: how do we know you are not making this up?

Well, that would have been a lot of work. But as a proof I could redirect you their emails. But you are right, I should ask them for permission before posting any personal correspondence. That again looks like a lot of trouble.

I'm not sure if it is worth it, since most of these guys have views that muddying the waters rather than clarifying anything. It would curious people coming to this forum to learn about the concept of virtual particles derail perhaps from a true understanding.

I do not think that is helpful.

 

[Deric Boyle]

You shouldn't have fear.Take permission(which you'll surely get).Verify& post them. what will we people do - comment, we can't eat u up.But it might happen that people like it so much that you'll get motivation to bring up your own theory.

 

[Meir Achuz]

Just tell us if anyone thinks a VP is not
a mathematical artifact of perturbation theory

 

[kexue]

Many!

Some of the replies you find in this (now merged) thread. I decided to leave it on that.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, that would have been a lot of work. But as a proof I could redirect you their emails. But you are right, I should ask them for permission before posting any personal correspondence. That again looks like a lot of trouble.

I'm not sure if it is worth it, since most of these guys have views that muddying the waters rather than clarifying anything. It would curious people coming to this forum to learn about the concept of virtual particles derail perhaps from a true understanding.

I do not think that is helpful.

Look at this way... if you can't produce them and verify your claims, don't bother talking about them. Is that helpful?

Meir Achuz: You'd be talking about kexue then... his virtual particles are so real... I don't have a punchline for that.

 

[ZapperZ]

This thread is going nowhere.

You are all reminded that discussion in the physics forums should have actual physics content, not gossip or hearsay.

Zz.