Quantum Fluctuations of Fields: Vacuum Explained

Click For Summary
Quantum fluctuations in fields are real phenomena associated with virtual particles that momentarily exist in a vacuum. These fluctuations can be understood through the interaction of particles, such as noble gas atoms, which exhibit entangled states leading to effects like the London dispersion force. The ground state energy of interacting atoms is lower than that of non-interacting ones, indicating that quantum uncertainty plays a role in their behavior. The electromagnetic field is also quantized, contributing to effects like the Casimir effect when considering interactions with particles. Overall, while virtual particles may seem like mathematical fiction, they have tangible implications in quantum mechanics.
Lapidus
Messages
344
Reaction score
12
Do fields have quantum fluctuations and are non-zero in the vacuum?

Non-zero in the same way that for a harmonic oscillator the wave function is non-zero for values of the position of the harmonic oscillator?

Or are they considered as 'mathematical fiction' just as 'virtual' particles?

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As far as I know the term "vacuum fluctuation" is assigned just to virtual particles spontaneously coming to "existence".
 
Let's take a case from standard non-relativistic QM:

Consider two noble gas atoms in vacuum, separated by a significant distance. They interact via the Coulomb potential (so it's instantaneous, no fields or mediation going on here). So the total wave function of the system can't be the sum of the wave functions of the two atoms, since there's an interaction going on. It's basically an entangled state, the state of atom 1 is not independent of the state of atom 2.

This gives rise to the London dispersion force - the total energy of the true system is lower than the system of two non-mutually-interacting atoms. You can describe this as being due to the quantum uncertainty or 'fluctuations' in electron density since the contribution is by definition the contribution from the instantaneous, position-dependent interaction between the electrons. But it's the ground state and so it's time-independent, so there are no actual measurable temporal 'fluctuations' going on.

So how do you calculate that interaction? Again, assume you know the wave functions of the isolated individual atoms. So you can use that as a basis and use the Ritz variational method or perturbation theory. As I already said, the ground states of the two isolated atoms is not the true ground state of the interacting pair of atoms. So if I describe my interacting wave function in that basis, I'll have contributions from the "virtual" excited states of those non-interacting atomic wave functions. That does not mean that those atoms are actually in an excited state, because those states are not eigenstates of the true Hamiltonian. These "excitations" only exist because of the choice of basis. The electrons aren't in excited states - which should be obvious: If you have two atoms in their electronic ground states and bring them into proximity, lowering their mutual ground state energy, how could that lead to a real excitation?

Now realize that the electromagnetic field is itself quantized and subject to the same kind of quantum behavior. If you take that into account in the above situation, you have an additional contribution to the dispersion force called the Casimir effect. But if you like, you can also simply consider a single atom and its interaction with the field, rather than another atom. Again you have contributions to its behavior because of that interaction. And again, you can describe those contributions in terms of 'virtual' excited states, which in the case of the field is what you call 'virtual particles'. And the reason is the same, you're starting from a non-interacting description.
 
Thanks for the anwers, especially alxm, nice one!
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
704
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
11K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K