Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Virtual particles

  1. Aug 29, 2003 #1
    my name is cory mccall and i live in spf mo. i am a junior in high school who is extremely interested in the fields of theoretical nuclear particle and astrophysics. for the first year im going to submit a project to the science fair.
    over the course of about a month im goin to be throwing out some ideas and theories of mine and id love it if u could prove me wrong tell me what i dont know and what i could do to refine these theories. dont worry im not going to take a paragraph to describe myself each time. keep in mind these are based on my knowledge which is nowhere near extensive yet.
    My first theory that im goin to throw out now has to do with theoretical physics obviously! however our setting is space and our culprits are virtual particles. though it hasnt been proven i strongly believe that there is no such thing as nothingness in space,(my opinions on the nothingness in black holes are mixed but mostly conclude that black holes do contain nothingness vacuums) because of virtual particles filling all the spaces. how they do it might be becuase of the uncertainty principle or some kind of restricted superposition of states. My theory is time travel and the creation of a wormhole i believe if we ever figure out how to totally evacuate all of the particles directly touching the shuttle that instantaneously upon reflection or deflection of the particles it will instantly be reduced to the size of a photon and be rocketed at speeds faster than light making a wormhole as it goes. now you ask then where does it stop? well now were talkin quantum mechanics. techinically it will never stop since its in the wormhole where time and gravity have no effect. therefore the shuttle navigates to the nearest black hole. when it completes the connection i havent figured in the effect it will have on the shuttle but.... if they navigated straight back home no matter where they are it will always be a day earlier than when they left....im still workin on that part i was kinda goin on einsteins twin paradox.


    well thats it please reply and tell me how amazing or impossible that is
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 30, 2003 #2

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Err... that's a no-no. Virtual particles are a product of the uncertainty relations used on the nature of spacetime. We know that due to quantum uncertainty that in such a vacuum there is a probabilistic foam of particles popping in and out of existence. We can't get rid of it, unless we eliminate the uncertainty principle itself.

    IIRC, though, as my QM is a little fuzzy.
     
  4. Aug 30, 2003 #3
    what if in the future we found out a mathmatics of some type that could predict when and where these particles were goin to occur? then might it be semi possible?
     
  5. Aug 30, 2003 #4

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    If such a mathematics even can exist, then we would have to throw out alot of QM, and probably the existence of virtual particles with it. Experiments suggest otherwise so far.

    In other words, QM tells us that we can work out the probability of certain positions and appearances, but when they do and which happens is absolutely random. If it is possible to predict absolutely, this would break HUP big time.
     
  6. Aug 30, 2003 #5
    dont be doubting though we thought the world was flat only a few hundred years ago
     
  7. Aug 31, 2003 #6

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Yes but you don't see the problem...

    Let's use an analogy...

    The world is flat.
    Therefore, we conclude the world rests on pillars.

    What you are saying is what would happen to the pillars if we can go around the world?

    The thing is, if we can travel around the world, the world is not flat and hence the pillars don't exist. If we can write down a formula to predict - not just assess probabilities - then quantum uncertainty is not true and virtual particles would not exist. The experiments we have done so far seem to confirm quantum uncertainty.
     
  8. Aug 31, 2003 #7

    ddr

    User Avatar

    WHAT kind of uncertainty are you talking about FZ+?

    http://www.geocities.com/dr_physica/uu.htm
     
  9. Aug 31, 2003 #8

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    The one that is confirmed by experimentation and properly derived from Matrix algebra by Heisenberg. Not the one in the link.

    (Incidently, you have allowed yourself to be mislead by Heisenberg's light analogy. The reason for uncertainty is not to do with particle impacts affecting the particle, and hence imperfect measurement, but with the particles themselves lacking an absolute position and momentum.)


    Hell... I'm bored. I'll do a full debunking of ddr's site while I am at it.

    http://www.geocities.com/dr_physica/hz.htm
    critical error:
    "Now, the magnitude n cannot be pure number because it'll have no physical meaning this way."

    Wrong. When I have n apples, what are the units of n? Pure number. And it does have a physical meaning.

    "p = Nt"

    I guess you haven't learned integration. p = integral of force with respect to t.

    On the rest of the page, who continually changed when N is. In the first equation, N is a force. In the second and third, it is a displacement. These are not at all of same thing.

    http://www.geocities.com/dr_physica/uu.htm
    You have entirely missed out where delta X and delta P came from. They came from the requirement of progressively higher energies of photon to acheive greater resolution. The uncertainty that is represented by heisenberg uncertainty is very different from the change that you use - in effect, you have confused yourself by using the same equation for two radically different things.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2003
  10. Sep 1, 2003 #9

    ddr

    User Avatar

    The units of n apples is apples cause if you also had n oranges saying n only would not clearly distinguish what you refer to.
    int(dp)=int(Fdt+tdF) not int(dp)=int(Fdt).
    what equation and under what condition you derivate to get dp=Fdt
    I'm just saying while considering delta(X)*delta(p) you have to consider p*delta(x)+x*delta(p) as well.this is the thing missed by Heisenberg.
     
  11. Sep 1, 2003 #10

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    From dp = Fdt which is in fact Newton's second law. The F=ma, P = Ft etc are all easy versions they give to students who don't know integration, which only fit experimental results when mass is constant, force is constant etc. Try p = Ft on a case of changing force and it simply doesn't work.

    No. It tells you that you have the same number of apples as you do oranges. In the same way that the n variable also refers to a topographically constant variable, which is not affected by changing the dimensions of the system. That is the significance of pure number variables.

    I'm saying your don't, because you are talking about two different things. The deltas mean different things in different cases - in the former, it's just precise vector changes in a precisely determined system. In the second, it is the degree of scalar undeterminance and uncertainty in any system. Apples and oranges.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Virtual particles
  1. Virtual particles (Replies: 0)

Loading...