Interpretation of QED in the Standard Model

Naty1
Messages
5,605
Reaction score
40
Three related questions on which I could use some help:

a] In another thread, Bill_k posted something like:

"Electrons, being charged, could exchange energy by exchanging a virtual photon."

ok, yet I thought electrons usually interacted via the EM field ['real' photons]...

So how do we distinguish between when virtual photon versus and real photon exchange occurs? I started reading Wikipedia to see if I could find out and decided to post here because I got confused:

b] Wikipedia in the QED introduction says

...QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction. ...

Does this mean the exchange of virtual photons lies outside QED?

A few sentences later in Wikipedia:

c]
...In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum.

Is that correct?

I thought the the Standard Model involves quantum field theory of NON-perturbative behavior; That is, where the vacuum has a non zero vacuum expectation value...For example I have read Higgs and QCD are a/w NON perturbative vacuums...QED is different??

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Regarding my own question [c]..Wikipedia sez...

Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

apparently I am more confused than I suspected!?? but they all seem to be treated on the same basis...
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top