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

Single virtual particles

  1. Jan 17, 2016 #1
    Hello,
    I was curiose as to if it is possible for a virtual particle to appear without its anti-mater/matter counter part. I posted a thread before asking about the existance and untimatly the "realness" of virtual particles. I concluded that they are real from the Casimir effect (i may have interpreted it wrong) and have been wondering about if they can appear without there counterparts.
    Also I am a grade 11 student so please tell me what to study —such as specific papers or theories— to fully understand why the answer is what it is.
    Thank you, J-eastwood
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2016
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 17, 2016 #2

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

  4. Jan 17, 2016 #3
    I have studied that thread extensivly (it's my thread) but i was not able to conclude an answer as to if they can appear without there antimatter/matter counter parts
     
  5. Jan 17, 2016 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    That thread is 47 posts long and from it - apparently from a single message - you draw the wrong conclusion. If we were to answer this question and put another 47 posts towards it, do we have any reason to think the outcome will be any different? Essentially, you have your answer, but since you don't believe it, what good would it be for all of us to devote our time to writing it again?
     
  6. Jan 17, 2016 #5

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    The conclusion you'd have drawn from the other thread is that they don't appear at all, so your question about the counterpart is moot.
     
  7. Jan 17, 2016 #6
    I feel as though I was not specific. My previous thread was asking if virtual particles exist in a way that that can interact with other particles. The Casimir effect says it can as well as supports its self with the ability to calculate the output using F=(πhc/480L^4)A .When i said "i may have interpreted the effect" wrong that was because I do not know if it accepted by the scientific community. Here i am asking if they can appear without there antimatter/matter counter part. An example would be if an electron can appear without a positron. The answers on the other thread do not say anything about if they can appear independently but do -from what i've read) show that they do exist. I have read the other posts and lattice QFT had come up a lot in opposition to them being "real" (i intend to familiarize myself with this theory as well).

    Vanadium 50: i had read nearly all the posts there and YES i have formulated an "opinion" based off of one post (me agreeing) but that post linked me to a effect that appears to be providing plenty of evidence to support virtual particles. i also should state that i am only 16 y/o and do not have a proper scientific background so for me if there is a calculable outcome that can be observed or measured i typically accept it (as i was taught in school this is how things are proven).

    **sorry for any run on sentences and bad grammar**
     
  8. Jan 17, 2016 #7

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The Casmir effect does NOT say that.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503158v1.pdf

    In that other thread I wrote:
    'There is thread after thread about this issue on this forum, and its all exactly the same - they get no-where because some simply do not want to accept the obvious. Anything said outside an actual QFT textbook is very suspect and must be taken with a grain of salt.'

    For some reason you are going down the heading to no-where path rather than the very simple real answer. Virtual particles do not exist. I will repeat it again - they do not exist. Cognate on it. Forget what you have read in the half truth popularisations and face up to the truth. It's not hard - you simply need to divest yourself of baggage.

    Years ago I read all the populist stuff and when I came across the truth it was startling - but I accepted it. It's easy if you try. And once you do your question is meaningless.

    Virtual particles are simply the pictorial representation of something called a Dyson series. It would have been better to call them Jaberwockey's - anything that didn't have the word particle in it. But its not what they are called and we have all sorts of confusion because of it.

    What I don't understand is after everything said in the other thread you reached that conclusion.

    Thanks
    Bill
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2016
  9. Jan 17, 2016 #8
    [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]I would like to appologies firstly for being so defensive and blocking out the obvious when i should have accepted the answers you provided seeing that they are more reasonable. Secondly THANK YOU. I guess i was looking for the answer that coincided with the information i learnt from the big names like Susskind and Hawking and ignored all others. bhobba i have taken what you said into consideration and am purchasing a QM textbook as well as learning to not rush my readings (now out of fear that i will misinturpret again). Vanadium 50 and A. Neumaier i would like to appologies to you for my ignorance as well as the fact that i had attacked you in the last post i posted when you where just trying to help. Once again sorry.
    Thanks jonah[/COLOR]
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Single virtual particles
  1. Virtual particles (Replies: 301)

  2. Virtual Particle (Replies: 1)

  3. Virtual Particles? (Replies: 28)

Loading...