Can virtual particles have an imaginary mass?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of virtual particles and the idea of them possessing an imaginary mass. Participants explore the implications of this notion, particularly regarding their movement and interactions, as well as the relationship to phenomena like the Casimir effect. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects of quantum field theory and the interpretation of virtual particles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant mentions a physicist's claim that virtual particles can have a mass represented by a constant multiplied by i (the imaginary unit), raising questions about the implications for their Lorentz factor and potential faster-than-light movement.
  • Another participant asserts that virtual particles do not move at all since they are not real, suggesting that they should read articles for further clarification.
  • A participant references the Casimir effect as being related to virtual particles, questioning their interaction with physical entities.
  • It is argued that the Casimir effect can be described without invoking virtual particles, emphasizing that "virtual particles" are merely a term used in mathematical formalism within quantum field theory.
  • Several participants express skepticism regarding anecdotal references to physicists, indicating that such claims should not be taken as credible without proper context or evidence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the existence and implications of virtual particles, particularly in relation to their mass and movement. Some argue that virtual particles are a useful mathematical concept, while others question their physical reality and interactions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding virtual particles, including the dependence on mathematical formalism and the potential for misinterpretation of informal references to expert opinions. There is also an unresolved debate about the necessity of virtual particles in explaining certain physical phenomena.

Lunct
Messages
133
Reaction score
16
I was talking to a physicist who said to me that virtual particles can have a mass of a constant times by i ,as in the root of -1. I have been thinking about this more and it intrigues me. I have done some research into this and can't find further details.
If they have an imaginary mass does this mean their Lorentz factor can't be calculated? And if so, can they move faster than light?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lunct said:
I have read that the casimir effect happens due to virtual particles, so then surely they must interact with something.

Casimir effect can be perfectly described without virtual particles. This has been discussed here multiple times, use "search" function. And also, again, I suggest reading links that I gave you. "Virtual particles" is just a name for a certain mathematical formulas that appear in perturbative quantum field theory. They don't exist outside the formalism.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lunct
Lunct said:
I was talking to a physicist who said to me

You've been here long enough to know this is not an acceptable reference.

Lunct said:
I have read that

Nor is this.

We can spend a lifetime dealing with misheard and misunderstood comments from "I know a guy who knows a guy". But that doesn't mean we should.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lunct
Vanadium 50 said:
You've been here long enough to know this is not an acceptable reference.
Nor is this.

We can spend a lifetime dealing with misheard and misunderstood comments from "I know a guy who knows a guy". But that doesn't mean we should.
weirdoguy said:
Casimir effect can be perfectly described without virtual particles. This has been discussed here multiple times, use "search" function. And also, again, I suggest reading links that I gave you. "Virtual particles" is just a name for a certain mathematical formulas that appear in perturbative quantum field theory. They don't exist outside the formalism.
fair enough
 
Especially post #2 includes all that can be said to this subject, so I close this thread now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K