# What the term virtual particles referred to

#### Careful

The experienced and loving heart finds no problem with this. The morning can and should be a time of affection, not clinical inspecdtion!
Exactly, and that is why you will appreciate the photon more when you find a natural, local (in the sense that there is no action at a distance) model which explains its appearances to macroscopic apparati. In this regard, the ideas spelled out by the group of people Zbyszek belongs to (with amongst others Bill Unruh), are very interesting.

Careful

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Exactly, and that is why you will appreciate the photon more when you find a natural, local (in the sense that there is no action at a distance) model which explains its appearances to macroscopic apparati. In this regard, the ideas spelled out by the group of people Zbyszek belongs to (with amongst others Bill Unruh), are very interesting.

Careful
I have no particular animus against action at a distance, recalling that Newton was right and Descartes was wrong in their day, and we are all, after all, in "a day", and not at the asymptotic end of time.

But if I was going out on a risky limb for the sake of local action, I'd go by way of Einstein's and Schroedinger's unsymmetrical theory: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~jashiffl/einstein-schrodinger.html [Broken], which is better than the rap the quantum consensus gives it. Especially look for Hlavaty's book Geometry of Einstein's Unified FIeld Theory. He gives a derivation of a spinor bundle over spacetime arising from the geometry. Reading this as a young man I was somewhat inoculated against quantum mysticism and its syntactic inverse, classical reductionism. A plague on both their houses.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Careful

I have no particular animus against action at a distance, recalling that Newton was right and Descartes was wrong in their day, and we are all, after all, in "a day", and not at the asymptotic end of time.

But if I was going out on a risky limb for the sake of local action, I'd go by way of Einstein's and Schroedinger's unsymmetrical theory: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~jashiffl/einstein-schrodinger.html [Broken], which is better than the rap the quantum consensus gives it.
You mean gravitation with an antisymmetric metric'' field, I guess. Might be interesting, but it is for sure better to start with understanding Maxwell theory properly (which is much easier'' to start with but still more than difficult enough).

Anyway, reading over this thread again, I noticed I should have said something about the Coulomb force. There is nothing which suggests that the latter needs to be of quantum mechanical origin'' and (therefore) neither needs to be associated to some time-energy uncertainty. Actually, the total mass'' of the (infinite) Coulomb field equals the rest mass of the particle assuming it has the classical radius R (at least when the particle is not accelerating and energy is measured in the local Lorentz frame associated to the particle); it seems clear to me that there is no such thing needed as constant particle production out of nothing. But it is certainly interesting to contemplate the inner workings of the Coulomb force.

Careful

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Ratzinger

I just noticed that I wrote in my previous 'Feynmann diagramm' which gives me five points on the crackpot list, I believe.

I have further realized that taking virtual particles too literal is also seen as crackpotterish by knowledgeable physicsts. But I like to point out that I was refering to conservative force fields and not those virtual particles coming from scattering. I admit that my billard ball thinking is pretty crappy, but still I like to know more about conservative force and its quantum treatment.

Anyway, reading over this thread again, I noticed I should have said something about the Coulomb force. There is nothing which suggests that the latter needs to be of quantum mechanical origin'' and (therefore) neither needs to be associated to some time-energy uncertainty. Actually, the total mass'' of the (infinite) Coulomb field equals the rest mass of the particle assuming it has the classical radius R (at least when the particle is not accelerating and energy is measured in the local Lorentz frame associated to the particle); it seems clear to me that there is no such thing needed as constant particle production out of nothing. But it is certainly interesting to contemplate the inner workings of the Coulomb force.

So there is none. That's intersting. Could you please expand on it?

By the way a great http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt" [Broken]by a guy called Arnold Neumaier. Check S3, especially S3e in it.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Careful

I just noticed that I wrote in my previous 'Feynmann diagramm' which gives me five points on the crackpot list, I believe.
Don't bother ...

I have further realized that taking virtual particles too literal is also seen as crackpotterish by knowledgeable physicsts. But I like to point out that I was refering to conservative force fields and not those virtual particles coming from scattering. I admit that my billard ball thinking is pretty crappy, but still I like to know more about conservative force and its quantum treatment.
Well, I for sure believe off shell particles should be taken seriously, and finding the carriers of the Coulomb field is definetly a deep problem which is IMO not properly solved at all in QED. What I do consider as a problematic aspect is that people believe this problem has a priori something to do with the second quantized theory as it stands now.

So there is none. That's intersting. Could you please expand on it?
I assume you want to know more about my motivations for banning vacuum fluctuations or about my comments on time/energy uncertainty ? For the latter, I have given my opinion in a thread on the beyond the standard model'' forum (basically there is no time operator). Concerning the vacuum fluctuations, let me say that a deeper study of the classical theory can bring new insights. A very useful paper is Classical electrodynamics of retarded fields and point particles'' by Teitelboim, Villarroel and Van Weert : Rivista del nuovo cimento vol 3, n° 9, 1980. Their aim was to write a review paper containing contemporary insights, hoping that it might serve people who try to solve this problem.

I quickly read a part of Arnold Neumaier : pretty much the standard story, if he would apply the scattering matrix approach to the universe, he would speak of virtual planets and by no means would he be able to say whether the universe contains black holes or not (pretty much the Hawking story), the only information he considers real are (special relativistic) free field states (so he works with states on some conformal past and future boundary). Of course this is as unphysical as one can only get, you can expect this kind of nonsense when people forget that a very useful approximation (in the laboratory) is not to be taken as a fundamental axiom. He makes a valid point though when he says that the virtual particle content depends upon the quantization method (which is a pretty obvious thing), but I disagree that it would lead to a strange picture of reality. It merely tells me that the quantization method cannot give a complete description of reality as it stands. But yeah, if you take the latter as forbidden territory'' then you are pretty much forced to state what this (clever) man says.

Careful

Last edited:

#### reilly

This "feels" right to my tiny brain. I would like to learn how to prove this. Does it follow from the schroedinger equation?

Yes indeed. Follows from the standard solution.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving