Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is Matter Created continuously?

  1. Jan 2, 2016 #1
    I've studied in many books, from which I learnt that a vacuum is not truly a vacuum, that is, virtual particles are created every time. And I had also learnt that the universe is left handed, that is a small non obeying in parity symmetry(individually), resulted in production of around one in a billion matter particles in matter-antimatter decays, while everything other decayed, during the early stages of universe. And now we're here, in a universe that is like it is. And my point point is, are there any left handedness in the virtual particle interactions(like the one above), if so shouldn't it constantly produce matter particle? Am I misunderstood?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 2, 2016 #2
    Just a warning. A mentor is gonna come along and tell you that virtual particles don't actually exist. Just to save you the trouble, they'll explain that virtual particles are just extrapolations from equations, and that mainstream media has over-glorified their existence.

    Personally, I think your question is really interesting, and to me seems like you'd be correct in this assumption. But i know nothing on the subject of VP, so I'll wait till a mentor or science adviser answers the question, hopefully it'll be more interesting then what i think they'll say.
  4. Jan 2, 2016 #3
    But, casimir effect, which is based on the interaction of VPs, has been already proved and hence, existence of VPs are also proved! And today, many scientific theories(including the famous Hawking Radiation), are based on this interaction. Therefore, if VPs don't exist, then many theories are going to fail...

    Thank You! Waiting for a mentor....:)
  5. Jan 2, 2016 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    I'm afraid that you are. The only sentence you wrote that is correct is "And now we're here, in a universe that is like it is."
  6. Jan 2, 2016 #5
    Oops!Can You Enlighten me...
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2016
  7. Jan 2, 2016 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Also totally false.

    Trying to learn by posting one false statement after another is inefficient and not very effective. It also makes the people you are communicating with cross - probably because the implicit assumption in the conversation is that it's their responsibility to do the work that you aren't doing. This is completely backwards - if you want to learn, you need to put some work into it. I suggest you start by reading the myriad other threads that are here on this topic before posting further. Lots of good stuff there.
  8. Jan 2, 2016 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Just as one comment, Hawking himself has explained that "virtual particles" are NOT the actual explanation of Hawking radiation, they are simply the only thing he could think of to explain in English what really can only be explained in the math.
  9. Jan 2, 2016 #8


    Staff: Mentor


    Virtual particles aren't really what the name suggests. They are a pictorial representation of something called a Dyson Series:

    And the Casmir Effect is now known not to depend on it:
    'In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidence that the zero point energies of quantum fields are "real''. On the contrary, Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as \alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of \alpha, corresponds to the \alpha\to\infty limit.'

    Unfortunately its one of a number of QM myths that are quite common:
    'The calculational tool represented by Feynman diagrams suggests an often abused picture according to which “real particles interact by exchanging virtual particles”. Many physicists, especially nonexperts, take this picture literally, as something that really and objectively happens in nature. In fact, I have never seen a popular text on particle physics in which this picture was not presented as something that really happens. Therefore, this picture of quantum interactions as processes in which virtual particles exchange is one of the most abused myths, not only in quantum physics, but in physics in general. Indeed, there is a consensus among experts for foundations of QFT that such a picture should not be taken literally. The fundamental principles of quantum theory do not even contain a notion of a “virtual” state. The notion of a “virtual particle” originates only from a specific mathematical method of calculation, called perturbative expansion'

    Since they are quite common you will find many long and, unfortunately, sometimes heated threads about such things on this forum. When misconceptions are challenged some people get a bit 'wobbly' for want of a better word. Its takes time for the old ideas to be displaced and the new ones to settle in.

  10. Jan 3, 2016 #9
    Great..Thank You:)
  11. Jan 3, 2016 #10
    This was not actually my intention. I'm just now starting to learn this amazing science of quantum mechanics, and this one popped into my mind(a misconception, of course), so I just wanted to clarify this.
  12. Feb 22, 2016 #11
    I feel like the original posters question still hasn't been answered though.

    Let's agree that virtual particles posited by mainstream science is a misinterpretation, and rather, settle on the fact that they are just extrapolations from equations and can't be physically interpreted by our human brains.

    The question still stands though if the same left handed-ness still appears in those equations.

    I'm not even sure if symmetry breaking even shows up in particle/antiparticle production either.

    Anyway I think more then one person here is interested in an answer from someone who knows more about the subject.
  13. Feb 22, 2016 #12
    Thank You For your reply:)
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook