B Virtual Particles and nothingness

AnimaLife
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
According to what I have read and watched (I am new to the subject) the empty space is actually full of temporary virtual particulars that spontaneously and continuously emerge from nowhere and then disappear from the nothingness again but from where comes so much energy for so much creation of matter spontaneous?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
AnimaLife said:
According to what I have read and watched (I am new to the subject) the empty space is actually full of temporary virtual particulars that spontaneously and continuously emerge from nowhere and then disappear from the nothingness again but from where comes so much energy for so much creation of matter spontaneous?
I seems you have some basic misunderstandings here, probably caused by light weight pop science. Here is an article about it, which should answer most of your questions: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/

A forum search for "virtual, particles" should also result in plenty of existing threads you could read.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
AnimaLife said:
According to what I have read and watched (I am new to the subject) the empty space is actually full of temporary virtual particulars that spontaneously and continuously emerge from nowhere and then disappear from the nothingness again but from where comes so much energy for so much creation of matter spontaneous?

I wouldn't say they come from 'nowhere' and then disappear into 'nothingness'. They exist as fluctuations in the underlying quantum fields that extend throughout space. Here's a good link for more information on virtual particles: https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

I HIGHLY recommend reading the entire series on particle physics basics as well, otherwise the above information may not make much sense.
 
@Drakkith Thanks for the link - very clear stuff.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
6K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
355
Views
44K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top