Virtual Particles: Explained in Layman's Terms

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the concept of virtual particles, particularly virtual photons, and their role in mediating forces within quantum field theories (QFT). It is established that all forces in QFTs are mediated by virtual particles, although their existence is not directly verified by experiments. The distinction between real photons and virtual photons is clarified, with real photons being detectable and virtual photons not adhering to the same energy-momentum relationship. The conversation also touches on the implications of virtual particles in calculations related to vacuum energy and their relationship to concepts like quantum entanglement, which is confirmed to be unrelated.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory (QFT)
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic fields and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of particle physics, including photons and virtual particles
  • Comprehension of concepts like vacuum energy and quantum entanglement
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical framework of quantum field theory (QFT)
  • Explore the differences between real and virtual particles in detail
  • Investigate the implications of vacuum energy in modern physics
  • Learn about the role of virtual particles in quantum mechanics and their calculation methods
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, researchers in quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of particle physics and quantum field theories.

GRB 080319B
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

I am new to physics and have been struggling with the idea that forces are just "action at a distance" and that fields are invisible/incorporeal (can only be detected by the influence they exert) and permeate throughout all of space. The article above describes forces as being mediated by virtual particles, which made me feel more confident that fields were actually some form of matter/energy interaction. The virtual photons are apparently transferring momentum between charged bodies, but I got lost in the physics jargon as to how this ends up working. What are the similarities/differences between photons and virtual photons wrt the em field? I think one deal with a static field and one with a fluctuating field, but I'm not completely sure. Are all forces mediated by virtual particles? What experiments have verified that virtual particles exist? Further down in the article it states that the propagation of the virtual photons is ftl. Does this have anything to do with quantum entanglement? I've also heard of the virtual particles in reference to electron-positron pairs, Dirac sea, and zero point/ vacuum energy. Does this have anything to do with the above description or something completely different? I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could explain this virtual particle subject to me in layman's terms. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
GRB 080319B said:
The virtual photons are apparently transferring momentum between charged bodies, but I got lost in the physics jargon as to how this ends up working.
I don't think it's possible to explain how this "ends up working" without getting really deep into the mathematical stuff.

GRB 080319B said:
What are the similarities/differences between photons and virtual photons wrt the em field? I think one deal with a static field and one with a fluctuating field, but I'm not completely sure.
The biggest difference is that a real photon can make a detector click, but a real one can't. The only difference I can think of in addition to that is that virtual photons don't have to satisfy E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4. (This implies that their speeds don't have to be c).

GRB 080319B said:
Are all forces mediated by virtual particles?
All forces in all quantum field theories. There is a QFT of gravity (hence "graviton") but it isn't very useful since it lacks a nice mathematical property called renormalizability.

GRB 080319B said:
What experiments have verified that virtual particles exist?
I could answer this with "none of them" as well as "all of them". Virtual particles show up in the mathematics when you expand a certain function in a series and consider each term separately. To say that virtual particles "exist" is equivalent to saying that the individual terms of that series describe what's "really happening", while the sum doesn't. I don't think there's any justification for that. Hence "none of them" is a reasonable answer to your question. However, they are a part of a method to calculate the probabilities of each possible result of any experiment, and these methods work extremely well. Every experiment that involves quantum mechanics in any way is evidence of that. Even the existence of stable atoms is evidence of that. Hence "all of them" is also a reasonable answer to your question.

Personally, I don't think of virtual particles as a description of what's really happening. I think of them as a part of the easiest way to do calculations.

GRB 080319B said:
Further down in the article it states that the propagation of the virtual photons is ftl.
When you do the calculations I talked about you're supposed to integrate over the momentum, so all speeds up to infinity are included.

GRB 080319B said:
Does this have anything to do with quantum entanglement?
No.

GRB 080319B said:
I've also heard of the virtual particles in reference to electron-positron pairs, Dirac sea, and zero point/ vacuum energy. Does this have anything to do with the above description or something completely different?
Forget about the Dirac sea. It's an old model that's been replaced by quantum field theories.

The calculation method I mentioned also includes virtual particles popping in and out of existence in the vacuum. This is sometimes mentioned as an explanation for a non-zero density of vacuum. I'm not sure I like that explanation though. The result of the calculation is that the density of vacuum is infinite. If we try to guess a cutoff energy and only include smaller energies than the cutoff in the integrals, the result is still many orders of magnitude too high. If we take the cutoff to be the Planck scale, the result is a ridiculous 120 orders of magnitude too large.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K