Virtual Particles And Hidden Dimensions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the idea that virtual particles might move in and out of unseen dimensions, potentially resembling solar prominences. However, this notion is challenged by the understanding that virtual particles are not physical entities but rather mathematical constructs used in Quantum Field Theory to describe disturbances in quantum fields. Many physicists argue that the concept of virtual particles is often misunderstood, as they are primarily a calculation technique rather than a concrete aspect of reality. The Casimir effect is mentioned as a real phenomenon attributed to virtual particles, but it can also be explained without invoking them. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the distinction between real effects in physics and the abstract nature of virtual particles.
mjacobsca
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
This may be way off base, but is there any support for the notion that virtual particles seem to appear and disappear because they move into and out of dimensions that we can't see? I kind of envision them appearing on arcs similar to solar prominences, where plasma follows the magnetic field lines to create a loop. Could such prominences come from other dimensions, could the virtual particles be attached along these prominences such that they always meet along them, and is it possible that the virtual particles are not created from nothing, but rather just jump into and out of our 3 dimensions?

Another similar thought I had was whether quantum particles that are entangled are actually connected via hidden dimensional constructs such that even when far apart in our 3 dimensions, they may be closely connected in others.

I know these ideas are out there, but I wanted to see what others thought. Please be gentle!

Mike
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mjacobsca said:
This may be way off base, but is there any support for the notion that virtual particles seem to appear and disappear because they move into and out of dimensions that we can't see? I kind of envision them appearing on arcs similar to solar prominences, where plasma follows the magnetic field lines to create a loop. Could such prominences come from other dimensions, could the virtual particles be attached along these prominences such that they always meet along them, and is it possible that the virtual particles are not created from nothing, but rather just jump into and out of our 3 dimensions?

Another similar thought I had was whether quantum particles that are entangled are actually connected via hidden dimensional constructs such that even when far apart in our 3 dimensions, they may be closely connected in others.

I know these ideas are out there, but I wanted to see what others thought. Please be gentle!

Mike

No. To say Virtual Particles are popping in and out of existence is really a flawed perspective on things for a number of reasons. Firstly, in Quantum Field Theory particles aren't really things, they're just labels for disturbances of quantum fields (which are a thing), thus their coming and going is really not amazingly different than a rolling sea with wave forming and going and clashing, etc. where the water is like the quantum field and the wave peaks are like particles. Secondly, I don't think many physicists take the concept of Virtual Particles to be a real thing. Virtual Particles really just come about because we can't solve certain integrals (math equations) exactly and thus need to solve them in this scheme of infinite approximations (called perturbation theory). It's only here that the notion of Virtual Particles pops up so really it's just a mathematical abstraction, if we could actually solve the integrals themselves there'd be no need for a description with them (that's why we call them "virtual").

In other words Virtual Particles are a CALCULATION TECHNIQUE rather than a concrete description of reality.
 
Good Lord, not again.

There are at least six different threads on this. Unfortunately popularizations in particular seem to misunderstand that the reason we distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles is that virtual particles are not real. The Casimir effect is often invoked as evidence that virtual particles having a real, physical existence, but Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to virtual particles or even zero point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents.

This refuses to die. I suspect it is because there are many fewer people who have done the calculation that those who have read something in a popularization. The former group then finds itself drowned out by the latter group.
 
mathman said:
There is a real effect due to virtual particles - its called the Casimir effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

At the end of the day the only time (to my knowledge) the concept of virtual particles needs to come into anything (including the casimir effect) is if you need to calculate some propagator with a small potential V and since you can't solve it exactly (if we could do that things would be peachy and you'd never have heard of virtual particles) so you need to use a Dyson series which can be interpreted as an infinite sum of particle interactions above the vacuum/ground state. However, this is just a mathematical trick to get around solving integrals we can't solve, it's not real physics.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
743
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
14K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
9K