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
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

Back
Top