Undergrad Are Virtual Exchange Particles a Valid Concept in Understanding Remote Forces?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of virtual exchange particles in explaining remote forces, particularly in the context of quantum field theory. Participants argue that while virtual particles are a foundational concept in perturbation theory, they may not provide the best framework for understanding interactions, especially attractive forces. Instead, the field theory approach is recommended as a more intuitive and accurate method for describing these phenomena. Key resources include insights on virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations from the Physics Forums and a foundational article by John Baez.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory concepts
  • Familiarity with perturbation theory
  • Knowledge of Feynman diagrams and their applications
  • Basic grasp of vacuum fluctuations and their implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Quantum Field Theory and Perturbation Theory" for deeper insights
  • Study "Feynman Diagrams and S-Matrix Elements" to understand their role in calculations
  • Explore "Field Theory vs. Particle Exchange" to compare different conceptual frameworks
  • Read "Insights on Vacuum Fluctuations" from Physics Forums for critical perspectives
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum field theorists, and students seeking to deepen their understanding of particle interactions and the conceptual frameworks used in modern physics.

planet-75
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
What is the concept or idea of this term?
Such particles are virtual, but it should be possible to associate a basic idea with them, as this is the foundation of calculation methods.

I think the concept of vacuum fluctuations in the form of virtual, fluctuating pairs of particles is something else. Is the idea of virtual exchange particles, which allegedly fly back and forth between real particles in order to be able to justify remote forces by impulses, a serious and useful idea, or are there better descriptions for it? That would work, if at all, only for repulsive forces. How, for example, a virtual photon could be used to create an attraction is beyond me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The concept is perturbation theory and it's just slang of quantum field theorists. It's better to think in terms of fields to describe interactions than to picture the interaction as the "exchange of virtual particles". The Feynman diagrams are just an ingenious mathematical notation for the formulae that enable you to calculate S-matrix elements via perturbation theory for a given quantum field theory (like the standard model of elementary particles). You find very valuable Insights articles about the use and abuse of "virtual particles" and "vacuum fluctuations" in the Insights Blogs of this forum

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-are-virtual-particles-intro/
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/
 
Another simple answer is that you don't need virtual photons at all. The field picture is much more intuitive and even formally more appropriate.
 
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 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K