How Real Are Virtual Particles?

Click For Summary
Virtual particles are a contentious topic in quantum mechanics, with ongoing debates about their reality and role in particle interactions. They are often described as mathematical constructs that aid in calculations, particularly in perturbation theory and Feynman diagrams, but their physical existence remains questionable. Evidence of virtual particles can be inferred from phenomena like the Lamb shift and the Casimir effect, yet they are not directly observable. Critics argue that they complicate the understanding of quantum interactions rather than clarify them, suggesting a shift towards field interaction models. Ultimately, virtual particles serve as useful tools in theoretical physics, but their status as "real" entities is still under scrutiny.
  • #61


Again, if you believe in Unruh effect and hawkings radiation then virtual particles are as real as real ones because for some (accelerating) observers virtual particles look perfectly real.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62


Dmitry67 said:
Again, if you believe in Unruh effect and hawkings radiation then virtual particles are as real as real ones because for some (accelerating) observers virtual particles look perfectly real.
This is very interesting. Can you expand this idea?
 
  • #63


Dmitry67 said:
Again, if you believe in Unruh effect and hawkings radiation then virtual particles are as real as real ones because for some (accelerating) observers virtual particles look perfectly real.
The same would also imply that real particles are as virtual as virtual ones. Also, note that Fock particle states (eigenstates of the number operator in Fock space) are not necessarily identical to observed local particles, so that we must also be extremely cautious there. The point is that, "real" is an inherently classical concept. We should learn to move on to more sophisticated, fine-grained ontologies when dealing with a quantum world.
 
Last edited:
  • #64


lightarrow said:
This is very interesting. Can you expand this idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect

An accelerating observer will perceive an apparent event horizon forming (see Rindler spacetime). The existence of Unruh radiation could be linked to this apparent event horizon, putting it in the same conceptual framework as Hawking radiation. On the other hand, the theory of the Unruh effect explains that the definition of what constitutes a "particle" depends on the state of motion of the observer.

The (free) field needs to be decomposed into positive and negative frequency components before defining the creation and annihilation operators. This can only be done in spacetimes with a timelike Killing vector field. This decomposition happens to be different in Cartesian and Rindler coordinates (although the two are related by a Bogoliubov transformation). This explains why the "particle numbers", which are defined in terms of the creation and annihilation operators, are different in both coordinates.
 
  • #65


Dmitry67 said:
Again, if you believe in Unruh effect and hawkings radiation then virtual particles are as real as real ones because for some (accelerating) observers virtual particles look perfectly real.
This is wrong. Unruh effect has nothing to do with virtual particles. This is because the vacuum does NOT contain virtual particles. The vacuum is an eigenstate of the operator of the number of particles, so there are no particle fluctuations in the vacuum. What fluctuates in the vacuum is the field, not particles.
 
  • #66


This your BM view

Put a particle detector in front of a spaceship
Accelerate (with the unrealisticly high acceleration)
Check the tracks of the Unruh particles.
Still believe they are 'virtual'? :)
 
  • #67


experiment has been performed?
 
  • #68


malawi_glenn said:
experiment has been performed?
No. ..
 
  • #69


so why is this guy still referring to things we don't even know exists?
 
  • #70


Dmitry67 said:
This your BM view

Put a particle detector in front of a spaceship
Accelerate (with the unrealisticly high acceleration)
Check the tracks of the Unruh particles.
Still believe they are 'virtual'? :)
You don't read what I write. First, I didn't mention BM in the post above. Second, I did not say that they are virtual.
 
  • #71


malawi_glenn said:
so why is this guy still referring to things we don't even know exists?
Because there are good theoretical reasons to believe that they exist. Still, what he does not want to admit, there are also some serious problems with the theoretical arguments that lead to these results.

But my point is: Even if the Unruh effect exists and if the standard theoretical description of this effect is correct, it has still nothing to do with virtual particles.
 
  • #72

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K