I Virtuals particles, vacuum and infinite energy

Donut
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi guys I have a question for you. Virtual particles can appear anywhere and when they have enough energy they turn into real. And if it happens long enough in a vacuum, will it remain a vacuum? If not, then is matter infinite?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Donut said:
Hi guys I have a question for you. Virtual particles can appear anywhere and when they have enough energy they turn into real.
No, they don't
Donut said:
And if it happens long enough in a vacuum, will it remain a vacuum?
Since it doesn't happen that question makes no sense
Donut said:
If not, then is matter infinite?
If the universe is infinite, then matter is infinite, but not having anything to do with virtual particles

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/physics-virtual-particles/
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, PeterDonis and topsquark
Donut said:
Virtual particles can appear anywhere and when they have enough energy they turn into real.
Please post reference links when making assertions like this at PF. Please make sure that the references are to credible scientific articles and not "Pop-Sci" articles. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Likes mattt, vanhees71, topsquark and 2 others
phinds said:
No, they don't

In the Casimir effect, a force is actually measured between the two metallic plates. This was physically interpreted based on quantum vacuum fluctuations. By removing wavelength beyond a threshold the virtual particles allowed energy is constrained between the plates. Thus the observed pressure in the Casimir effect, would come from a lower vacuum energy density between the plates than outside.

Now the question is the following: if the Casimir force is real, then it could generate some work at maximum dW=F*dl (l is the distance between plates). So, can you elaborate on the fact that vacuum energy cannot be real.
 
  • Sad
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy and Motore
  • Like
Likes berkeman
The Insights article links in post #5 are a sufficient response. Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Bob Neurone and topsquark
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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

Similar threads

Back
Top