The most fundamental "particle"

[Mohd Abdullah]

Hi,

Are there any fundamental "particles" that has no charge (e.g. color charge, electric charge, etc.), mass, volume and spin?

 

[Cutter Ketch]

You mean no properties at all? If there were such a thing it would not interact with our universe by any known physics, so we wouldn't know about it.

 

[Mohd Abdullah]

But aren't virtual particles can be described as having no properties at all?

 

[ZapperZ]

But aren't virtual particles can be described as having no properties at all?

Really? What makes them "virtual" then?

Zz.

 

[hilbert2]

Hi,

Are there any fundamental "particles" that has no charge (e.g. color charge, electric charge, etc.), mass, volume and spin?

See George Berkeley and "esse est percipi".

 

[Mohd Abdullah]

Really? What makes them "virtual" then?

Zz.

I'm sorry what do you mean by that?

Virtual particles, I think, are the only "particles" that can be described as having no properties at all. "Something" that is akin to nothing.

 

[phinds]

I'm sorry what do you mean by that?

Virtual particles, I think, are the only "particles" that can be described as having no properties at all. "Something" that is akin to nothing.

And what is the sense in which you think that virtual particles are "something" ? Do you mean something physical?

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm sorry what do you mean by that?

Virtual particles, I think, are the only "particles" that can be described as having no properties at all. "Something" that is akin to nothing.

Where do get an idea like this? Did you just make things up?

Zz.

 

[Cutter Ketch]

Uhmmm

I'm sorry what do you mean by that?

Virtual particles, I think, are the only "particles" that can be described as having no properties at all. "Something" that is akin to nothing.

No, not at all. Virtual particles have properties similar to their real counterparts. Similar because they only exist briefly and the uncertainty principle allows some fuzziness in their properties.

 

[phinds]

UhmmmNo, not at all. Virtual particles have properties similar to their real counterparts. Similar because they only exist briefly and the uncertainty principle allows some fuzziness in their properties.

You got this from some pop-sci presentation didn't you? (and THEY made it up). There are TONS of threads on this forum about virtual particles. They are a mathematical fiction.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/

 

[Mohd Abdullah]

Where do get an idea like this? Did you just make things up?

Zz.

Sorry, I don't know much about the quantum stuffs. Newbie here. But if you look at most pop science sources, they say virtual particles do pop out from nothing then disappear into nothing after awhile. Sorry if I'm making mistake there.

 

[Mohd Abdullah]

You got this from some pop-sci presentation didn't you? (and THEY made it up). There are TONS of threads on this forum about virtual particles. They are a mathematical fiction.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/

If the virtual particles are happen to be just a math fiction, so they're absolutely nothing in the real world. Am I correct?

Is it possible there are "particles" with no properties at all in the context of quantum physics?

 

[phinds]

Sorry, I don't know much about the quantum stuffs. Newbie here. But if you look at most pop science sources ...

That's not necessarily a bad thing to do because they are so accessible but do NOT make the mistake of thinking that you are learning any actual science from them.

If the virtual particles are happen to be just a math fiction, so they're absolutely nothing in the real world. Am I correct?

Did you read the link I provided?

Is it possible there are "particles" with no properties at all in the context of quantum physics?

How would we ever know? Since they have no properties, what is it that you think could be measured that would show their existence? You might as well argue that there really are 18 foot high pink unicorns and the fact that no one has ever seen one, or ever WILL see one, does not negate their existence.

 

[Mohd Abdullah]

That's not necessarily a bad thing to do because they are so accessible but do NOT make the mistake of thinking that you are learning any actual science from them.

Did you read the link I provided?
How would we ever know? Since they have no properties, what is it that you think could be measured that would show their existence? You might as well argue that there really are 18 foot high pink unicorns and the fact that no one has ever seen one, or ever WILL see one, does not negate their existence.

I just found and read the link you'd shared. So, there is no difference between the virtual particles, "something" with no properties at all and absolute nothing. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sorry, I don't know much about the quantum stuffs. Newbie here. But if you look at most pop science sources, they say virtual particles do pop out from nothing then disappear into nothing after awhile. Sorry if I'm making mistake there.

You need to be very careful with your sequence of logic. Having particles popping in and out of existence does NOT imply that they have zero properties or characteristics! At the very least, these particles carry energy and momentum. Virtual photons are the "force carrier" (to use a pop-science term) for electromagnetic interactions! So how could they have no properties at all?

Think about this, and think about the "leap" of conclusion that you're making.

Zz.