Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Are virtual particles real?

#1
Magical Realist Offline
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...icles-rea/

"Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?"

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.

Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics."
Reply
#2
confused2 Offline
Hm. I suspect 'particles' are very close to being no more than a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics .. so virtual particles being real particles doesn't get us much further forward if particles aren't really real.
Wave-particle 'duality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80...le_duality
Reply
#3
stryder Offline
(Feb 6, 2024 09:13 PM)confused2 Wrote: Hm. I suspect 'particles' are very close to being no more than a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics .. so virtual particles being real particles doesn't get us much further forward if particles aren't really real.
Wave-particle 'duality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80...le_duality

Tensors (wikipedia.org) perhaps?
Reply
#4
Zinjanthropos Offline
Can you believe virtual particles are real and the universe is a simulation …. At the same time?
Reply
#5
Kornee Offline
Sigh. The OP has been presented with the real situation a number of times back at SF, and maybe here, but it's always a case of 'in one ear, out the other'.
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/v...tion-myth/ links within links to explore.
Compact summary - no, virtual particles are not real. Notwithstanding that SciAm article.
A likely total waste of time pointing it out here, but doing it anyway.
Reply
#6
C C Offline
(Feb 6, 2024 07:34 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...icles-rea/

"Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?"

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

[...] Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics."

The "effects" may be there, but [supposedly] the majority who work with the quantitative and diagram representations "on paper" don't treat the latter as a material fact or the cause.

There's a similar thing going on with other abstract description in QM undertakings. For example, you have anti-realists who do not reify the wavefunction ("shut and calculate" crowd), and conceptual realists who do treat it as concrete or efficacious in one sense or another. (Footnote[1] at bottom for the history.)

Akin to politics, each philosophical side tries to argue and assert its own views as either the authority or a potent challenge to the entrenched perception.

(1) By definition, the adjective "virtual" entails that the putative "particle" is not real. (Whatever the latter itself means, in the contexts of the varying standards of assorted practices and schools of thought). virtual: "Being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted."

(2) All or most parties agree that virtual particles are at least mathematical artifacts. (anti-realist: "Anything beyond that is futile speculation and pathetic misapprehension of their purely utile role in perturbation theory." ..... realist: "We have justifications for feeling otherwise.")

(3) All or most parties agree that virtual particles cannot be observed/detected.

(4) Disagreements are philosophy of science issues between rival factions. For the anti-realists, the opposition is misguided and partaking in erroneous myth circulation. Whereas the realists deem themselves as rebelling (or whatever) for enlightened reasons.

Virtual particles do not exist
https://medium.com/einsteins-cup-of-tea/...82de3c1627

EXCERPTS: We often hear the word ‘virtual particle’ in physics and pop-sci explanations of quantum field theory. But, in reality, there are no such things as virtual particles. Today we will explore why (and how) virtual particles are needed, and also why they don’t exist.

[...] Keep in mind that the different oscillations which approximate reality, are just creations of us fiddling around to make our simpler equations fit the problem. These oscillation do not really exist. These are just dummy oscillations, or if you prefer, a mathematical sleight of hand.

Now, we have caught on an habit of calling them virtual particles. We think these particles “come in and out of existence” for “very miniscule periods of time”, or that they are “not real”.

Yes, oscillating fields correspond to particles, but these oscillations (and thus the corresponding particles) don’t exist. They are an invention to simplify a rather complex (and real) oscillation. They do not “exist” at all, even for very short intervals of time.
- - - - - - - - -

Do virtual particles really exist?
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...lly-exist/

EXCERPTS: This doesn’t mean that empty space itself is full of particles, but rather that you have quantum mechanical operators, including the “particle creation” and “particle annihilation” operators, acting on the vacuum state continuously. This is often visualized as “particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence,” but that part is just a calculational tool for visualizing what’s happening on a quantum level within empty space.

[...] Finally, in 1997 — when Casimir himself was 88 years old — physicist Steve Lamoreaux made the first experimental measurement of the Casimir effect, determining that two closely spaced parallel plates did, in fact, attract due to the differences in the quantum vacuum inside and outside the plates. In multiple different ways, theory and experiment agree.

So the quantum vacuum really does have observational effects, and those effects have been observed experimentally on ~micron scales and astrophysically over stellar scales. That doesn’t mean that virtual particles are physically real, however.

It means that using the calculational tool of virtual particles in the vacuum allows us to make quantitative predictions about how matter and energy behave as they pass through empty space, and how empty space comes to possess different properties when external fields or boundary conditions are applied. The particles, however, are not real, in the sense that we cannot collide or interact with them.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] The following being only a corresponding analogy, between those who choose to reify a useful tool "on paper" and those who don't.

For those who channeled his original lectures and literature, Niels Bohr philosophically dictated either an anti-realist attitude or a Kantian skepticism about the symbol-mediated territory of QM in general (while possibly sparing the observed entities themselves from such critical wrath). Obviously the physics community was not united in paying heed to that over the ensuing decades. So if there is any dissension about ignoring establishment attitude about virtual particles (the resulting muddled confusion), that likewise is hardly surprising.

Niels Bohr: Bohr has often been quoted saying that there is "no quantum world" but only an "abstract quantum physical description". This was not said by Bohr, but rather by Aage Petersen attempting to summarize Bohr's philosophy in a reminiscence after his death.

[...] According to Faye "Bohr thought of the atom as real. Atoms are neither heuristic nor logical constructions." However, according to Faye, he did not believe "that the quantum mechanical formalism was true in the sense that it gave us a literal ('pictorial') rather than a symbolic representation of the quantum world."

[...] Faye notes that Bohr's interpretation makes no reference to a "collapse of the wave function during measurements" (and indeed, he never mentioned this idea). Instead, Bohr "accepted the Born statistical interpretation because he believed that the ψ-function has only a symbolic meaning and does not represent anything real." Since for Bohr, the ψ-function is not a literal pictorial representation of reality, there can be no real collapse of the wavefunction.


Who invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A study in mythology
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425941

What is commonly known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, regarded as representing a unitary Copenhagen point of view, differs significantly from Bohr’s complementarity interpretation, which does not employ wave packet collapse in its account of measurement and does not accord the subjective observer any privileged role in measurement.

It is argued that the Copenhagen interpretation is an invention of the mid‐1950s, for which Heisenberg is chiefly responsible, various other physicists and philosophers, including Bohm, Feyerabend, Hanson, and Popper, having further promoted the invention in the service of their own philosophical agendas.

Reply
#7
Kornee Offline
(Feb 7, 2024 05:43 AM)C C Wrote: .....Do virtual particles really exist?
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...lly-exist/

EXCERPTS: This doesn’t mean that empty space itself is full of particles, but rather that you have quantum mechanical operators, including the “particle creation” and “particle annihilation” operators, acting on the vacuum state continuously. This is often visualized as “particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence,” but that part is just a calculational tool for visualizing what’s happening on a quantum level within empty space.

[...] Finally, in 1997 — when Casimir himself was 88 years old — physicist Steve Lamoreaux made the first experimental measurement of the Casimir effect, determining that two closely spaced parallel plates did, in fact, attract due to the differences in the quantum vacuum inside and outside the plates. In multiple different ways, theory and experiment agree.

So the quantum vacuum really does have observational effects, and those effects have been observed experimentally on ~micron scales and astrophysically over stellar scales. That doesn’t mean that virtual particles are physically real, however.....
Wrong conclusion. I have posted links to the following, again numerous times back at SF and here too:
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158v1
Again, the repeat story is 'in one ear, out the other'.
To arrive at the correct conclusion, one is required to think the consequences through logically. Ouch.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article The electron is so round that it’s ruling out potential new particles C C 0 86 Apr 11, 2023 04:47 PM
Last Post: C C
  Quantum particles aren’t spinning. So where does their spin come from? C C 1 208 Dec 2, 2022 10:44 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Quantum particles can feel the influence of gravitational fields they never touch C C 1 140 Feb 17, 2022 01:28 PM
Last Post: Kornee
  X particles detected + How infinite series reveal the unity of mathematics C C 0 85 Jan 25, 2022 06:20 PM
Last Post: C C
  Virtual particles may be real particles out of phase with our reality + New adsp mode C C 0 74 Oct 28, 2021 09:35 PM
Last Post: C C
  Weird matter made of partial particles + Search for grand unification of aromaticity C C 1 115 Jul 27, 2021 12:18 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  "Human-scale" object reaches a quantum state + Quantum tunneling of particles is FTL C C 0 145 Jun 17, 2021 11:42 PM
Last Post: C C
  Seeing back thks to QM + Do virtual particles really exist? + Rethink: time is basic C C 3 223 May 16, 2021 02:58 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Massless particles + We're in the final era of the cosmos + QD passes its first tests C C 0 293 Jul 27, 2019 07:27 PM
Last Post: C C
  Virtual particles really popping in & out of being? Or merely quantum bookkeeping? C C 0 378 Nov 21, 2018 07:33 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)