Undergrad Can matter come into existence in empty space?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the generation of matter-antimatter pairs in what is perceived as empty space, particularly within cosmic voids. The original poster claims this phenomenon is verified but admits uncertainty about its experimental validation. Participants emphasize the importance of relying on peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than popular science sources, which may misrepresent complex concepts. They clarify that while quantum fields can exhibit behaviors resembling virtual particles, these descriptions are often misleading. Ultimately, the consensus is that the spontaneous generation of particle-antiparticle pairs in empty space is not supported by current scientific understanding.
Neil Condon
A question arose over a simplification I wrote on another subject. My i information say's that matters antimatter pairs are generated in what is known to be very empty space such as the voids within the cosmic web. When I read about this it was considered anomalous but definitely verified.

Now empty space I admit is definitely not empty despite its vacant look. Within the voids is definitely the place I would point to as example of empty space. Has anyone else heard of this matter - antimatter pairs in empty space, because I was being told it does not happen.

Personally I always thought it was an impossibility of the second kind (see Impossible physics), the chances of it occurring is so tiny that you may as well say it is impossible, yet we do from time to time see it occurring on the largest scale.

Can anyone tell me more about these findings.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not sure if spontaneous generation of particle and antiparticle pairs has been experimentally verified.
However the math behind the standard model does allow it to be possible
 
Neil Condon said:
My i information

Your information from where? Please give a specific reference.
 
I read it in numerous scientific magazines and books that was published mid nineties, when this phenomena was put around as a piece of common knowledge like the sort on trivia cards. Reporting may be different here in Australia, but it seemed to me at the time to be in just about everything i picked up. Sorry I can't give you the origin reference, "popular science" tends to lag way behind the discoveries made.
 
Neil Condon said:
I read it in numerous scientific magazines and books

Were any of them textbooks or peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals? I'm going to guess that the answer to that is no.

Neil Condon said:
"popular science" tends to lag way behind the discoveries made.

More than that, "popular science" tends to not correctly report the actual science. That's why we don't accept pop science sources for discussion here at PF.

If you want to discuss this issue, you first need to consult an actual textbook or peer-reviewed paper and learn what the actual science says. The short answer to the question you pose in the title of this thread is still "no". There are phenomena involving quantum fields in the vacuum that are sometimes, in pop science sources, described as "virtual particle pairs coming into existence and then annihilating each other" or something similar, but those descriptions are misleading and you should not try to reason about the actual science based on them.
 
And with that, since no valid sources have been given, this thread is closed.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K