Does Space Possess Mass Through Virtual Particles?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Nano-Passion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether space possesses mass through the lens of virtual particles and quantum fields. Participants explore the implications of virtual particles, the vacuum state of quantum fields, and the relationship between energy and mass as described by the equation e=mc². The conversation touches on theoretical aspects, misconceptions in popular media, and the need for a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether space itself has mass or if mass is merely associated with virtual particles that come in and out of existence.
  • There is a suggestion that the equation s = ec², where s represents space, could be relevant, though this is speculative.
  • One participant clarifies that the vacuum state of a quantum field can have nonzero energy, which is linked to the Casimir effect, and challenges the notion of virtual particles as misleading.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about quantum fields and the concept of virtual particles, indicating a lack of understanding of the topic due to their current study level in classical mechanics.
  • Participants discuss the mathematical nature of virtual particles, suggesting they do not exist as measurable entities but are useful in theoretical frameworks.
  • There is a recognition that discussing complex physical problems requires a solid theoretical background, and speculation without such knowledge may not lead to productive discourse.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and agreement regarding the existence and implications of virtual particles and the nature of the vacuum state. Some agree on the misleading nature of virtual particles, while others remain uncertain about the concepts discussed, indicating that the discussion is not fully resolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of quantum mechanics and the implications of virtual particles, suggesting that further study is necessary to engage meaningfully with the topic.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals studying quantum mechanics, those curious about the nature of space and energy, and anyone exploring the intersection of theoretical physics and popular science narratives.

Nano-Passion
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
0
I've heard that virtual particles can come out of the nothingness of space. Since e=mc^2 does space have mass in essence? Or is the mass simply go in and out of existence as the virtual particles do?

I know I probably got something wrong over here so forgive my ignorance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nano-Passion said:
I've heard that virtual particles can come out of the nothingness of space. Since e=mc^2 does space have mass in essence? Or is the mass simply go in and out of existence as the virtual particles do?

I know I probably got something wrong over here so forgive my ignorance.

maybe we are allowed to borrow...

we don't fully understand dark enery, anti-matter...

maybe the below equation works...;)

s = ec^2

where s = space
maybe its a cube

maybe one day some scientist, like you, will tie all this together...
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call it space, but the vacuum state of a quantum field (which corresponds to the absence of particles) in general can have nonzero energy. This is the origin of the so-called Casimir effect. Virtual particles are just a misleading description of this.
 
Polyrhythmic said:
I wouldn't call it space, but the vacuum state of a quantum field (which corresponds to the absence of particles) in general can have nonzero energy. This is the origin of the so-called Casimir effect. Virtual particles are just a misleading description of this.

I don't really understand the concept of a quantum field much. I'm only in classical mechanics thus far. =/

Wow, so there are no virtual particles? If so then curse the media.

granpa said:

Thank you, it was an interesting read.
 
Nano-Passion said:
I don't really understand the concept of a quantum field much. I'm only in classical mechanics thus far. =/

Wow, so there are no virtual particles? If so then curse the media.

A quantum field is an entity which spans all space. It can be excited at each point, and we call such an excited state a particle. The absence of excited states is called the vacuum. This vacuum can have energy, that's what is sometimes called zero-point energy in this context.

Virtual particles only show up mathematically, there is no reason to assume that they actually exist in the form of measurable physical objects.
 
Polyrhythmic said:
A quantum field is an entity which spans all space. It can be excited at each point, and we call such an excited state a particle. The absence of excited states is called the vacuum. This vacuum can have energy, that's what is sometimes called zero-point energy in this context.

Virtual particles only show up mathematically, there is no reason to assume that they actually exist in the form of measurable physical objects.

Wow, its interesting that the vacuum of space can have energy. I can't wait till I learn of quantum field theory, I don't think I can just sit here and have an intellectual conversation/reasoning simply with the English language. I need mathematics behind it.

Thanks for your time.
 
Nano-Passion said:
Wow, its interesting that the vacuum of space can have energy. I can't wait till I learn of quantum field theory, I don't think I can just sit here and have an intellectual conversation/reasoning simply with the English language. I need mathematics behind it.

Thanks for your time.

I think you just realized something very important. Seriously discussing physical problems only makes sense if you have the theoretical background, everything else can only be regarded as unguided speculation (as often encountered in a broad range of topics, for example "reality of virtual particles","black holes" and so on). People need to learn to admit when they have no clue regarding a certain subject.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K