Source of Virtual Particles in Space?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of virtual particles in empty space, exploring their existence, implications in quantum mechanics, and the relationship between virtual and real particles. Participants delve into theoretical interpretations, mathematical models, and the potential effects of these particles on the universe, including concepts like vacuum energy and particle production in cosmological contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that virtual particles are artifacts of mathematical models and have not been detected, questioning their existence in a physical sense.
  • Others argue that virtual particles are real in the context of quantum theory, suggesting that all particles exist as combinations of other particles temporarily.
  • A participant mentions that quantum mechanics allows for temporary violations of conservation of energy, but another challenges this interpretation, asserting that there is no actual violation of conservation laws.
  • There is a discussion about the ambiguity in various interpretations of virtual particles, with some expressing frustration over repeated misconceptions by experts.
  • Some participants highlight the distinction between virtual and real particles, noting that while they agree on the mathematics of quantum field theory, they disagree on the terminology and implications in layman's terms.
  • A later reply introduces the idea of particle production from vacuum perturbations during cosmic inflation and the emergence of particles in the presence of cosmological horizons, noting that these do not necessarily prove the existence of virtual particles.
  • One participant reflects on their struggle to grasp the concepts due to a lack of mathematical education, suggesting that current hypotheses about dark/vacuum energy remain unsubstantiated.
  • Another participant mentions that the more specific the questions become, the less precise the answers are, indicating the theoretical nature of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the reality of virtual particles, with no consensus reached on their nature or implications. The discussion remains unresolved, with differing interpretations and frustrations about the clarity of explanations in the field.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of virtual and real particles, unresolved interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the theoretical nature of vacuum energy and dark energy hypotheses.

  • #61
Naty1 said:
yes, and that such activity violates conservation of energy! Even the quote I posted from Lisa Randall [Harvard] says that...and I have repeatedly read such things...and repeatedly not understood whether such can be 'correct'...
Naty1, I think we do not agree on all aspects regarding virtual particles, and especially not on all aspects regarding their interpretation. But I think we all DO agree that statements like "virtual particles violate energy conservation" are WRONG. This is due to the fact that it's not a wrong interpretation, but that is in contradiction to exact math.

We can discuss about the interpretation or reality of "-1 car" in the calculation "1 car = 2 cars - 1 car", and perhaps we don't agree. But we DO agree that this equation does NOT violate car-conservation.

So again, I am sorry to say that, statements like non-conservation of energy due to virtual particles are rubbish.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
JK423 said:
[...]
Peskin & Schroeder said:
Even when there is not enough energy for pair creation, multiparticle states appear, for example, as intermediate states in second-order perturbation theory. We can think of such states as existing only for a very short time, according to the uncertainty principle ΔΕΔt=h. As we go to higher orders in perturbation theory, arbitrarily many such "virtual" particles can be created.
(JK423's emboldening).
A lecturer in a QED course I attended 15yrs ago tended to say similar things. Sad.

Probably the final paragraph in that section (bottom of p14 and over to 15) is all the motivation that is really needed:
Peskin & Schroeder said:
QFT provides a natural way to handle not only multiparticle states, but also transitions between states of different particle number. It solves the causality problem by introducing antiparticles, then goes on to explain the relation between spin and statistics. But most important, it provides the tools necessary to calculate innumerable scattering cross sections, particle lifetimes, and other observable quantities. The experimental confirmation of these predictions, often to an unprecedented level of accuracy, is our real reason for studying QFT.

Thus, P&S is perhaps best regarded as a learn-to-calculate book.
 
  • #63
Jim Kata said:
Maybe a better question is what is a particle?
:eek: ... umm,... you'd better search back through several years of previous threads before opening that can of worms again. :rolleyes:

Alternatively, search the contents page of Arnold's FAQ for the word "particle". There's more than enough reading there to occupy several rainy days. :wink:
 
  • #64
JK423 said:
Of course, have a look at Peskin & Schroeder, page 13, 3rd paragraph,

Even when there is not enough energy for pair creation, multiparticle states appear, for example, as intermediate states in second-order perturbation theory. We can think of such states as existing only for a very short time, according to the uncertainty principle ΔΕΔt=h. As we go to higher orders in perturbation theory, arbitrarily many such "virtual" particles can be created.


They are careful to say ''We can think of such states as'', implying that it is just a convenient visualization, not a physical fact.
 
  • #65
  • #66
Even when there is not enough energy for pair creation, multiparticle states appear, for example, as intermediate states in second-order perturbation theory. We can think of such states as existing only for a very short time, according to the uncertainty principle ΔΕΔt=h. As we go to higher orders in perturbation theory, arbitrarily many such "virtual" particles can be created...

I'm not familiar with the creation of 'multiparticle states'...can anyone recommend
an online source where I can learn more about this?
Thanks.
 
  • #67
Naty1 said:
I've tried to connect to Arnold Neumaier's FAQ here...

http://arnold-neumaier.at/physfaq/topics/unstable.htmlbut keeping getting a message:
Any suggestions on how to access this information will be appreciated!

There appears to be a problem with our web server. Just try again at a later time. (Web support is already in the weekend; so this might get fixed only on Monday.)
 
  • #68
is this not an expected outcome from the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics? if any particle's wave-function gives it the chance to exist anywhere in the universe, multiplied by the number of particles in the universe, surely it fits that some portion of the particles in the universe would spontaneously appear/disappear from random locations?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K