VirtualParticles Strassler
VirtualParticles Strassler
The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in
the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that
is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and
effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”,
generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something
that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.
Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a child’s swing. If you give it a
shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always the same, no
matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion of the swing. Now
compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what would happen if you
started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back and forth swings. Well, the
swing would start jiggling around all over the place, in a very unnatural motion, and it would
not swing smoothly at all. The poor child on the swing would be furious at you, as you’d be
making his or her ride very uncomfortable. This unpleasant jiggling motion — this disturbance
of the swing — is different from the swing’s natural and preferred back-and-forth regular motion
just as a “virtual particle” disturbance is different from a real particle. If something makes a real
particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that
disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all,
and I wish we didn’t call it that.
Fig. 1: Two electrons approach each other; they generate a disturbance in the electromagnetic
field (the photon field); this disturbance pushes them apart, and their paths are bent outward. One
says they "exchange virtual photons", but this is just jargon.
For example, an electron is a real particle, a ripple in the electron field; you can hold one in your
hand, so to speak; you can make a beam of them and send them across a room or inside an 20th
century television set (a cathode-ray tube). A photon, too, is a real particle of light, a ripple in the
electromagnetic field, and you can make a beam of photons (as in a laser.) [Can’t have one in
your hand though, since photons (in vacuum) are always moving.]
But if two electrons pass near each other, as in Figure 1, they will, because of their electric
charge, disturb the electromagnetic field, sometimes called the photon field because its ripples
are photons. That disturbance, sketched whimsically in green in the figure, is not a photon. It
isn’t a ripple moving at the speed of light; in general isn’t a ripple at all, and certainly it is under
no obligation to move at any one speed. That said, it is not at all mysterious; it is something
whose details, if we know the initial motions of the electrons, can be calculated easily.
Exactly the same equations that tell us about photons also tell us about how these disturbances
work; in fact, the equations of quantum fields guarantee that if nature can have photons, it can
have these disturbances too. Perhaps unfortunately, this type of disturbance, whose details can
vary widely, was given the name “virtual particle” for historical reasons, which makes it sound
both more mysterious, and more particle-like, than is necessary. [Students of math and physics
will recognize real photons as solutions of a wave equation, and virtual photons as related to the
Green function associated with this equation.]
Fig. 2: As in Figure 1, for a positron (an anti-electron) and an electron; now the slightly different
disturbance causes the two particles to attract one another, and their paths are bent inward.
This disturbance is important, because the force that the two electrons exert on each other — the
repulsive electric force between the two particles of the same electric charge — is generated by
this disturbance. (The same is true if an electron and a positron pass near each other, as in Figure
2; the disturbance in this case is similar in type but different in its details, with the result that the
oppositely charged electron and positron are attracted to each other.) Physicists often say, and
laypersons’ books repeat, that the two electrons exchange virtual photons. But those are just
words, and they lead to many confusions if you start imagining this word “exchange” as meaning
that the electrons are tossing photons back and forth as two children might toss a ball. It’s not
hard to imagine that throwing balls back and forth might generate a repulsion, but how could it
generate an attractive force? The problem here is that the intuition that arises from the word
“exchange” simply has too many flaws. To really understand this you need a small amount of
math, but zero math is unfortunately not enough. It is better, I think, for the layperson to
understand that the electromagnetic field is disturbed in some way, ignore the term “virtual
photons” which actually is more confusing than enlightening, and trust that a calculation has to
be done to figure out how the disturbance produced by the two electrons leads to their being
repelled from one another, while the disturbance between an electron and a positron is different
enough to cause attraction.
Fig. 3: An electron may naively be thought of as a ripple of minimum intensity --- the minimal
ripple --- in an electron field. But the electron interacts with the photon field (i.e. the
electromagnetic field) and can create a disturbance in it; in doing so it too ceases to be a normal
particle and becomes a more general disturbance. The combination of the two disturbances (i.e.
the two "virtual particles") remains a particle with the energy, momentum and mass of the
incoming electron.
Now there are many other types of disturbances that fields can exhibit that are not particles.
Another example, and scientifically one of the most important, shows up in the very nature of
particles themselves. A particle is not as simple as I have naively described. Even to say a
particle like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement, and
sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true matters.
It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their very presence disturbs the
electromagnetic field around them, and so electrons spend some of their time as a
combination of two disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the electromagnetic
field. The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the
photon field is not a photon particle. However, the combination of the two is just such as to be a
nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and momentum, and with an electron’s mass. This is
sketchily illustrated in Figure 3.
Fig. 4: The Feynman diagram needed to calculate the process in Fig. 3. One says "the electron
emits and reabsorbs a virtual photon", but this is just shorthand for the physics shown in Fig. 3.
The language physicists use in describing this is the following: “The electron can turn into a
virtual photon and a virtual electron, which then turn back into a real electron.” And they draw a
Feynman diagram that looks like Figure 4. But what they really mean is what I have just
described in the previous paragraph. The Feynman diagram is actually a calculational tool, not a
picture of the physical phenomenon; if you want to calculate how big this effect is, you take that
diagram , translate it into a mathematical expression according to Feynman’s rules, set to work
for a little while with some paper and pen, and soon obtain the answer.
Fig. 5: As in Figure 3, for a photon. The photon can become a disturbance in the electron field.
This disturbance has some regions with negative electric charge and some with positive electric
charge, but with total charge zero, like the incoming photon itself. The photon can do the same
with other charged fields, such as the muon field.
Another example involves the photon itself. It is not merely a ripple in the electromagnetic field,
but spends some of its time as an electron field disturbance, such that the combination remains a
massless particle. The language here is to say that a photon can turn into a virtual electron and a
virtual positron, and back again; but again, what this really means is that the electron field is
disturbed by the photon. But why are we seeing a positron — an anti-electron — and yet I am
only referring to the electron field? The reason ties back to the very reason that there are anti-
particles in the first place: every field, by its very nature, has particle ripples and anti-particle
ripples. For some fields (such as the photon field and Z field) these particle and anti-particle
ripples are actually the same thing; but for fields like electrons and quarks, the particles and anti-
particles are quite different. So what happens when the electron field is disturbed by a passing
photon is that a disturbance is set up that has some electron-like disturbance with net negative
electric charge, and some positron-like disturbance with net positive charge, but the disturbance
as a whole, like the photon itself, carries no net charge at all.
For those who learned (and recall a bit of) freshman physics, what is happening is that the
oscillating electric field that makes up the photon is polarizing the electron field — inducing a
dipole moment. Remember dielectrics and how electric fields can polarize them? Well, the
vacuum of empty space itself, because it has an electron field in it, is a polarizable medium — a
dielectric of sorts.
Fig. 6: The Feynman diagram needed to calculate the process in Fig. 5. One says "photon
becomes a virtual electron-positron pair", but this is just shorthand for the physics shown in Fig.
5.
The same is true, by the way, for all the other electrically charged fields, including those of the
muon, the up quark, and so forth.
[Here, by the way, we come across another reason why “virtual particle” is a problematic
term. I have had several people ask me something like this: “ Since the diagram in Figure 6
seems to show that the photon spends some of its time as made from two massive particles
[recall the electron and the positron both have the same mass, corresponding to a mass-energy
(E = m c-squared) of 0.000511 GeV], why doesn’t that give the photon a mass?” Part of the
answer is that the diagram does not show that the photon spends part of its time as made from
two massive particles. Virtual particles, which are what appear in the loop in that diagram, are
not particles. They are not nice ripples, but more general disturbances. And only particles have
the expected relation between their energy, momentum and mass; the more general disturbances
do not satisfy these relations. So your intuition is simply misled by misreading the
diagram. Instead, one has to do a real computation of the effect of these disturbances. In the
case of the photon, it turns out the effect of this process on the photon mass is exactly zero.]
Fig. 7: The electron can generate disturbances in the photon field; the resulting photon
disturbance can in turn create disturbances in other electrically charged fields, such as the muon
field.
And it goes on from there. Our picture of an electron in Figure 3 was itself still too naive,
because the photon disturbance around the electron itself disturbs the muon field, polarizing it in
its turn. This is shown in Figure 7, and the corresponding Feynman diagram is shown in Figure
8. This goes on and on, with a ripple in any field disturbing, to a greater or lesser degree, all of
the fields with which it directly or even indirectly has an interaction.
Fig. 8: The Feynman diagram needed to calculate the process shown in Figure 7.
So we learn that particles are just not simple objects, and although I often naively describe them
as simple ripples in a single field, that’s not exactly true. Only in a world with no forces — with
no interactions among particles at all — are particles merely ripples in a single field! Sometimes
these complications don’t matter, and we can ignore them. But sometimes these complications
are central, so we always have to remember they are there.
Is it correct to say that these quantum fields pervade spacetime – or is it better to say the
set of fields actually composes (creates?) spacetime? Also, what is the complete list of
fields currently known?
In most theories with extra dimensions, some of the fields that we observe would
actually form a part of the metric of the higher-dimensional spacetime. In other
words, one explanation as to why there are so many fields in nature might be that
we live in a world that has some of its dimensions wrapped up (think of how a
hose has a large dimension along the hose and small dimension around the hose)
and that the metric of the full space-time looks to us, in three-dimensional space,
like a metric for three-dimensional space and time along with many other fields
whose explanation seems non-obvious.
A complete list of fields is ill-defined, but I can give you the list of apparently-
elementary fields. [There are many non-elementary fields too, including the
proton field; just as a proton is composite made from quarks, antiquarks and
gluons, so is its field made from other fields. And the wind field and temperature
fields in air, or a density field in a metal, are composite too.] The list of known
apparently-elementary fields is essentially just the list of known particles,
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-
apparently-elementary-particles/, or even more completely, the list of particles
before the Higgs gets a non-zero value, http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-
posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-particles-if-the-higgs-field-were-zero/
(plus the graviton field, which I didn’t put on the slides.)
Hi,
I have some questions about the meaning(s) of the word “particle” in the field of high
energy physics:
1-What is the safest way to call a quantum object: an elementary particle? or a quantum
particle? or a quantum wave? or we just call them by their names like electrons or
neutrinos..etc? or the question is just meaningless?
2-What is the meaning of the word particle in “the branch of particle physics”?
3-Which is more fundamental, the quantum particle, or the quantum field? (I did not find
consensus in this one)
4-And finally, what confuses me most, why “elementary particles” are irreducible
representations of the Poincare group? and what is the meaning of the word particle in
this context?
Sing
o Matt Strassler | October 12, 2011 at 3:32 PM | Reply
1) A name’s a name (see Shakespeare) — what matters is not what you call it but
whether you understand it… fair? As long as you understand the object does not
correspond to any concept in English or in daily life, and that it has some
properties that you just have to learn about, you can call an electron an elementary
particle, a quantum of the electron field, or a quantized wave in the electron field.
Elementary particle is rather short and the least mysterious sounding. “Quantum”
is shortest and most accurate, but sounds very mysterious.
2) You mean, what does “particle physics” mean when referring to it as a subject
of study? Just that many experiments on the basic properties of nature require
studying its particles, and if you do those experiments, propose them, study them,
interpret them, etc., you’re doing “particle physics.”
3) Field is more fundamental. Not all fields have particles, while all particles are
quanta of fields. That’s why the equations used to describe the physics of the
standard model are called quantum field theory, not quantum particle theory. [An
example of a quantum field theory that has no particles is a “conformal field
theory”, very important in studying matter at a phase transition, such as a magnet
at the critical temperature where it loses its magnetization.]
4) Start with classical physics (no uncertain principle) to keep things simple. Then
a massive particle is a localized object with a definite mass, energy, momentum
and position, and orientation. Let’s put one in front of you, at rest. I can now
generate a representation of the Poincare group — the group of all translations,
rotations, and changes of reference frame (boosts with a constant velocity) — by
simply moving the particle to a new position, rotating the particle, or looking at
the particle from a different frame. That set of particle states (with all those
different positions, orientations, and velocities) form a complete representation of
the Poincare group.
The only thing different in quantum mechanics is that I can’t precisely localize
the particle at the same time I precisely determine the momentum and energy. But
I can do a pretty good job on both, or a perfect job on either one. This
complication doesn’t change the argument that the full set of things that a particle
can do form a representation of the Poincare group.
For a massless particle I can’t start with a particle at rest, but the basic strategy for
finding the full representation is the same.
Matt – This is one of the most helpful pieces I’ve read in years. Thanks so much.
So what you are saying essentially is that transient ripples, which are not stable or
sustainable, are caused by every particle in every other field with which they can interact.
If another particle is present, their ripples combine and the particles DO interact. These
ripples look in *some* ways like the ghost of a particle in that field, enough that we can
use the equations of particles to calculate effects. But in other ways, including their
stability, they’re not really like particles at all.
Okay. I got everything except how “virtual particles” are involved in particle
CREATION. At some point, wouldn’t the transient ripples have to coalesce into wave(s)
that ARE stable?
That’s basically right. I wouldn’t use the term “ghost” (for two reasons, one being
that ghost is used as a technical term elsewhere, but more importantly that the
relation is really that disturbances are the more general case, while a particle is an
extremely special form of disturbance.)
How “virtual particles” can create something: the transient ripples themselves are
still not stable in this case. They fall apart, into true particles.
For example, if the two electrons in my picture came together with enough
energy, the transient ripple shown in the figure could have enough energy to
produce an electron-positron pair (so that there would be four particles in the final
part of the picture, three electrons and a positron.) The disturbance in the field can
carry lots of energy, and that energy can be turned into particles. But the
disturbance itself is still transient. Does that answer the question?
9. anon | October 11, 2011 at 1:03 AM | Reply
thanks.
One of the things that tripped me up as a student, was also just how arbitrarily small you
could make the difference between real and virtual.
Usually the definition of a virtual particle is a ‘thing’ that does not satisfy the usual
energy-momentum rules, or the ‘thing’ which is an internal leg in a Feynman diagram.
But then every particle we have ever observed is an internal leg of a bigger Feynman
diagram. For instance, the electron we measured from a particle accelerator eventually is
absorbed by an atom somewhere, and hence becomes an internal leg in that diagram. So
then most people say, well its just a question of lifetime. Long lived particles are called
real, short lived particles are virtual.
But then suppose you have a photon that was emitted from the Pleiades, and it
presumably is real (or almost real) all the way until it is absorbed in your retina. So have
you just measured a real or virtual photon? It sorta depends on how you draw the
diagram!
You are absolutely correct to point out this subtlety! It is, in the end, a matter of
degree.
In general, what we have in quantum fields are disturbances of many types. There
is a very special disturbance we may call a particle, which is a ripple that can in
principle travel forever. But this is an idealization: any real particle interacts with
other objects, and this means nothing is ever exactly this precise, idealized ripple.
So the issue is how close is it to the ideal case. In most physical processes one
deals with objects that are clearly either close to the ideal or very far from the
ideal. A photon traveling from the Pleiades is clearly about as close as you are
going to get to the ideal; its energy and momentum are almost the perfect match
that you would expect for a massless particle. The disturbance between [a “virtual
photon exchanged”] between an electron and a nucleus in an atom has very little
energy and a lot of momentum; it is very far from what you would call a particle.
Columbia, your point here about every particle being part of a larger diagram
suggests a way to dispel puzzlement about EPR-type experiments. The EPR
“paradox” appears, I think, only when there are humans (or other sentient beings)
acting as scientists, creating the experimental conditions and collecting the results.
We like to think of ourselves as standing outside the experiment, causing photons
to become entangled, then sending them off to distant observing stations where
randomizing polarizers have been set up in certain ways, such that the results will
be automatically recorded at each station by appropriate detectors, then later
transmitted from place to place and compared with each other, and so on.
If I’m understanding correctly, your saying virtual ‘particles’ arise because of ‘nearby’
real particles disturbing a field, those disturbances being the virtual ‘particles’. That left
me wondering what then explains the ‘vacuum energy’ of empty space? I naively thought
virtual ‘particles’ where popping in and out of existence with no real particles nearby. I
took it that the cosmological constant was somehow ’powered’ by vacuum energy ?
Thanks for the nice article. When reading about Hawking radiation, one is told that when
a pair virtual particles is created near the event horizon, one may fall into the black body
and the other escape as radiation. Are the virtual particles in this situation somewhat
different than the ones you describe? Do they become “real” particles in this case?
14. Pingback: E a busca pelo Higgs fica mais perto do fim… « Ars Physica
15. Pingback: TOY FOR VIP » Blog Archive » Friday Fodder, October 14, 2011
My lay understanding was that virtual particles “challenge” conventional notions of cause
and effect, but you use the word “cause” in very conventional ways in this article.
Could you try to help me figure out where this notion comes from? Do you know
where you read it? I have some guesses as to where this conception comes from,
but I wonder whether there are modern books promulgating the idea. While it is
true that one has to be careful in general about assuming that all processes can be
described in terms of cause and effect (even before accounting for quantum
mechanics), and also true that quantum mechanics is weird, no doubt about it ,
there is no profound challenge to basic causality in this context. Certainly I do not
think you will not find any discussion of challenges to causality from “virtual
particles” (i.e. generalized disturbances in fields) in any modern quantum field
theory book.
Is this “virtual particle=>causality issue” maybe coming from discussions like those in
Bjorken and Drell section 12.3 ? My reading of their conclusion is that there isn’t really a
problem though.
I’m confused as to what explains the ‘vacuum energy’ where there are no real particles
disturbing any fields ? what powers the cosmological constant ?
19. Pingback: Standard Model Tutorials for the Masses (…er, sorry about the pun…) «
Whiskey…Tango…Foxtrot?
As an electrical / electronics engineer with a strong interest in physics (but not great at
advanced math) your articles have explained more to me in a few hours than in the
several years I spent in secondary and tertiary education. You write and diagram with
amazing clarity. I do notice that when questions are asked about speculative physics
(such as the possibility of extra dimensions), you confine your responses to answers that
can now (or may be in the near future) subject to experiment.
[quote]You [Strassler] write and diagram with amazing clarity. I do notice that
when questions are asked about speculative physics (such as the possibility of
extra dimensions), you confine your responses to answers that can now (or may
be in the near future) subject to experiment.[/quote]
Well, I am asking, has there been to date [ in my location, April 19, 2013,
Monday, 10:48 AM ) experimentation on the reality in observation of virtual
particles, or virtual particels are all speculative?
21. Axel Boldt | November 15, 2011 at 4:50 PM | Reply
In your article “What’s a proton?” you state that there are “zillions of gluons, antiquarks,
and quarks in a proton”. Do most of these qualify as virtual particles as described in this
article, i.e. as mere disturbances of their fields that are in many respects quite unlike real
particles?
Once again, brilliant. I understand so much more about particle fields after reading this
article.
If a particle is “a nice, regular ripple in a field”, how would you describe a string from
string theory? What will they appear like in the field?
What are the grounds for calling this ripple a “string”, in contrast to a
point-like “particle”?
No, what I have in mind is simpler. Think of light — an ordinary ripple in the
electric and magnetic field. Now remember that in quantum mechanics that light
cannot be arbitrarily dim — there is a dimmest possible flash, a ripple of lowest
possible intensity. That dimmest possible flash — the ripple of lowest possible
intensity — is a photon.
That helps a lot when discussing things like electrons: since they have the
exact same charge, and—ignoring quarks and such—all electrical charge
variations come in increments of one electron’s charge, it’s sort of
intuitive that “an electron is the smallest possible variation of the charge
field”. I can even sort of imagine moving electrons as a kind of moving
ripple, and even stationary electrons (my mind throws out the analogy of a
spring in a mattress oscillating without affecting its neighbors).
But I don’t really get the “ripple of lowest possible intensity” analogy for
photons. As far as I can tell, you can have photons of pretty much every
frequency, from ultra-long-wave radio to ultra-hard gamma rays, and I
can’t figure out anything that’s “smallest” and they all share, the way
charge is for electrons. Is that spin or something?
I get that explanation for electrons, or at least it feels intuitive; you can
only have variations of charge in specific units, and those are electrons
(and positrons), at least until you start wondering about quarks and why
they’re allowed to use thirds. But unless I’m very much mistaken, you can
have photons of pretty much every energy, from ultra-long-wavelength
radio to hard gamma rays. What exactly is the quantity a photon is “the
least intensity ripple” of?
Sorry if this is a double-post. I tried to comment earlier but it didn’t seem to go through
(which is hopefully a good thing, because I’ve since edited the post.)
The impression I’m getting about the fundamental nature of matter is as follows, and I’d
love to know if I’m more or less on the right track. Please forgive me if I’m way off-base;
the last thing I want to do is confuse other lay-readers like myself with falsehoods!
–There are plenty of unstable disturbances in a field, too (more of them than stable
ripples even?), which can only be very short-lived and need not behave the same way as
stable ripples (particles) do in the same field. They are known confusingly as “virtual
particles.”
–Stable ripples (“particles”) and unstable disturbances (“virtual particles”) alike interact
with other ripples/disturbances in their own field and/or in (some) other fields (the
specifics of which other fields’ disturbances a given field can interact with vary from
field to field).
–The results of these interactions among field ripples/disturbances are matter and forces
as we know them.
If I’m basically on the right track, I have a few questions to throw at you:
I understand that the Higgs field is thought to pervade all of space-time. Is the same true
of other fields associated with elementary particles, such as the “electron field” and
“photon field” you’ve mentioned? Is it thought that there is just one “electron” field that
exists everywhere?
I really appreciate what you are doing on this site. Many thanks in advance for any
corrective feedback you can provide for my evolving conceptual comprehension of the
nature of reality. I know I can never fully understand this stuff without the math, but I
really want to try!
… except for one additional subtlety with the word “stable”… it needs to be
“relatively stable”, because most particles eventually decay to other particles,
though it takes a while.
Yes, all fields related to the known elementary particles are believed to exist
everywhere in space, and at all times. There is just one electron field that is
everywhere in the universe. What makes the Higgs field different from the other
known fields is that it is non-zero on average everywhere in the universe, while,
say, the photon field [i.e. the electric and magnetic fields treated together] and the
electron field are on average essentially zero.
Quantum fields are constantly fluctuating, and the unstable disturbances that we
call “virtual particles” are always there. It is just something that quantum fields
do, and the mathematics known as “quantum field theory”, which I teach to first
and second year graduate students and which is very well established both
theoretically and experimentally, does a great job of predicting the details of these
fluctuations/disturbances/virtual particles. No lingering mysteries here, not for
many decades.
I don’t know what a “fabric of quantized energy” is or means. You can’t really
explain fields in terms of more fundamental things, at least not at this time; as far
as we know, they are the fundamental things. Fields are just the basic ingredients
of our universe, in our current view. Of course this picture of the universe is likely
to evolve over time as we learn more, and so my point of view may someday have
to change. Right now it is consistent with all experiments.
Thanks again,
Mike
Quantum field theory does not help make quantum mechanics less
weird. It doesn’t make it more so…
Also, I am a confused about the state of the virtual particles before and after the
interaction between two field particles. Do they only form when approaching other field
particles? Are they emitting these virtual particles at all times? What actually happens to
the particle after the interaction?
Thank you very much for this article. It has helped me very much conceptually.
o Matt Strassler | February 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM | Reply
Do you understand how Green’s functions are used to explain the force between
two electrons in classical electrodynamics?
Hey Matt
Discovered your blog over the weekend am a second year physics student at the
university of south australia but all the people here are dopes and not interested in
fundamental questions. I’m interested in the background independent aspect of the field
theories ie: what if we throw away space time altogether and just haver the fields and
their interactions? . Bothered by you’re inclusion of the “muon field” as seperate from the
electron field in this discussion tho. The muon and the tau should just be other kind of
excitations in the “electron field” right? the question is how many fields and how many
ways to fold them? the less the better
Your field question is slightly ill-posed, though probably you can refine it. A field
in classical physics is a function f(x,t), with a set of differential equations that
govern its behavior. If you throw away space and time it becomes a number f with
a set of algebraic equations that determine it. Quantum mechanics of such a field
is just ordinary integrals. This is probably not what you had in mind, but I’m not
sure yet what you really did have in mind. Did you want to remove the *metric*
on space and time [i.e. our ability to measure distances?] while keeping the space
and the time around?
There is strong evidence against thinking of the muon and tau as excitations in
the electron field. When you excite an atom, the thing you expect is that the
excited state can decay to the ground state by the emission of a photon. But
muons decay to electrons only via the weak nuclear interaction, during which they
spit off a neutrinos and an anti-neutrino. The process muon –> electron + photon
has been searched for, but very extensive experiments have never seen this
process (or the corresponding ones for taus) and the result so far is that less than 1
in 100,000,000,000 muons decays this way.
You might still wonder whether that just means there’s something special about
the way that a muon and a tau are excited forms of the electron that is different
from atoms. Well, here’s more evidence. If the electron is special, in that the
muon and tau are excited versions of it, then you would not expect a tau to decay
to a muon (plus a neutrino and anti-neutrino) at the same rate that it decays to an
electron (plus a neutrino and anti-neutrino). But in fact the rates for these two
processes are the same.
Finally, the electron and muon and tau are in some sense intrinsically massless;
they only develop a mass when the Higgs field becomes non-zero (see
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-
particles-if-the-higgs-field-were-zero/ ). So their masses are determined by how
they individually interact with the Higgs field, not by some internal dynamics.
I guess I should mention that in atomic physics there are many excited states with
heavier and heavier masses, but beyond the tau there’s no sign of any fourth
lepton even up to masses over 100 times larger than the tau’s mass.
You may contrast this with the proton, for which there are many excited versions,
all of which decay preferentially back to a proton plus some pions (which for
proton-like objects, made from quarks, gluons and antiquarks, is an even more
efficient process than emitting photons).
Why should we have three versions of almost the same type of particle? And why
would they all interact very differently with the Higgs field? There have been
many, many proposals, but so far nothing is yet known about the answers to these
questions.
Dear Sir,
In the vacuum of space, if there are two bodies A and B and if there is absolutely nothing
between them they should come together since there is nothing to keep them apart. They
must be some form of energy field that creates the space to keep them apart. This energy
field which keep the planets and stars apart could have been created during the big bang.
Gravity could also be explained by assuming that any body with a mass will be capable
of absorbing this field and creating a decreasing density of this field as we go nearer and
nearer to this body.
So before the big bang since there is really absolutely nothing, with no time and space, all
virtual particles that are being continuously created out of nothing should come together
and occupy the same point and as such would ultimately form a singularity with almost
infinite density and triggers off the big bang.
This could happen if there is a mechanism which separate these virtual particles from
their anti-particles.
So has anybody found such a mechanism?
Dr HW Looi
gmail: [email protected]
” if there are two bodies A and B and if there is absolutely nothing between them
they should come together since there is nothing to keep them apart. ”
Two bodies A and B that are stationary relative to one another will gradually
come together under the force of gravity.
So there is no need for an energy field to keep objects apart and to explain why
objects do not come together.
“before the big bang since there is really absolutely nothing, with no time and
space, ”
Dear Sir,
Thank you for answering my question. But I think you have completely misunderstood
what I was trying to say.
Of course I know very well that the conventional Einstein concept of gravity is that it
bends space-time and as such causes two objects to move towards each other. And the
Newtonion concept is that it is nothing more than just an attractive force.
What I am trying to say is that there maybe another more simple concept.
If there are 2 objects in the vacuum of space, and if there is really absolutely nothing in
between, the two objects do not just move towards each other, but rather they should be
next to each other!
Take another analogy. If there are 2 chairs that are 10 feet apart. There is a “space” of 10
ft and if there is absolutely nothing in between, including no space and time, the chairs
would be next to each other and they do not need the conventional gravity to get them
moving towards each other.
The fact that objects in the vacuum of space are separate is because there is “space” in
between them and this space must have been created by some form of energy field.
Dr HW Looi
email: [email protected]
o Matt Strassler | March 21, 2012 at 6:12 PM | Reply
“this space must have been created by some form of energy field.”
This is both a bit illogical and also somewhat confused. A field is one thing;
energy is something it can have, but there is no such thing as an “energy field”.
There are electric fields; particles that are ripples in these fields are called photons
and they can carry energy from one place to another. There are gravitational
fields; particles (hypothetical but deeply plausible) that are ripples in these fields,
essentially ripples in space itself, are called gravitons, and they too can carry
energy from one place to another. But an “energy field” wouldn’t make any sense.
You must mean something else.
In general, we don’t know why there is space, or why there is anything that can be
called a “universe”, but in principle it need not be created by some other field, any
more than the electron or quark fields that are found throughout space need to be
created by some other field. There are many theories as to how space comes to be,
including theories that have time but not space at first, and then develop space
through a very subtle mechanism that is far too difficult to explain here. But once
you have space, you can have objects in it, and they will remain separate.
Am I right that your real question is “why is there any such thing as space,
through which waves and particles can move and in which one can find objects?”
If so, the answer is not known, but it does not have anything to do with an energy
field.
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your great patient and explaination.
I really do appreciate it.
So I will just have to change the last part of my statement to “there is a tiny possibility
that this space may be created by some form of matter or energy, but we really don’t
know what space is made of.”
Thanking you,
Dr HW Looi.
34. Robert E Shafer | March 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM | Reply
This atomic level shift is related to charge renormalization, in that virtual particles in
strong Coulomb field partially shield the bare Coulomb field..
Robert Shafer
Hi, do you know how I found this? At a depression website bulletin board labeled as off
topic. Some of the smartest people I know are nuts. And of course, I didn’t get there by
accident, even though I got here by accident.
I love this stuff. Total lay person here. I was a surveyor though and I can use sine, cosine
and tangent to lay out the corner of the latest Walmart building to within…well, a
thousandth of a foot. Close enough for concrete. And using those 3 functions and a 20
dollar calculator and a hundred foot tape, I can check into known points, inverse some
rectangular coordinates into angle and distance, and voila! Attention shoppers, Brian has
caused all this.
You write so well…better than Feynman. That’s right, I said it. Q E D (major and minor
premises, with a happy ending type of Q E D)
Thanks, excellent. The analogies, ie. the spring, the swing, are huge, Feynmanesque. My
spatial faculties have grown a lobe.
layman Brian, eating in a corned beef and cabbage field, interacting with a coffee
swallow field. It is almost time for a cigarette field. (Did you ever look at cigarette smoke
in a sun ray in a overly windowed room? It is 1.) blue. and 2.) made up of tiny particles.)
“layman Brian, eating in a corned beef and cabbage field, interacting with a
coffee swallow field. It is almost time for a cigarette field.”
this made me smile
I love these articles. Like you, I’ve read many books for laypeople on particle physics
(and even glanced into a few for experts), and your articles are the first that have given
me even a glimmer of understanding of quantum field theory.
The explanations of virtual particles I’ve read have generally been along the lines of “the
uncertainly principle allows conservation of energy and momentum to be violated over
very short times, and virtual particles are the result.” How does this relate to what you say
here? Or is it another “white lie”?
Another white lie, but it gives roughly the right estimates (when you apply the
uncertainty relations) for how common are quantum disturbances of a given size.
That’s why people talk that way.
37. Pingback: Metaphysical Speculations: The Physical Body - Page 5 - Parapsychology and
alternative medicine forums of mind-energy.net
Prof. Strassler,
1) I always thought that, in the context of two “real” particles interacting with each other,
Feynman diagrams were a mathematical convenience, with each diagram representing a
term in the perturbation expansion, and virtual particles were nothing more than a
pictorial way of representing the propagator. You characterize a virtual particle as a
“disturbance” in the field; how does one reconcile the “mathematical convenience” view
of virtual particles with the “disturbance in the field” view of it?
2) I have read the “Schwinger limit” described as the electric field of a laser which is
strong enough to pull virtual electron-positron pairs out of the vacuum and make them
real. Using your language, the laser field creates disturbances in both the electron and
positron fields, i.e. polarizes the vacuum, and if these disturbances are large enough, they
become ripples in the fields, i.e. a real electron-positron pair. Is that an accurate
description of what happens when a strong laser field interacts with the vacuum and
creates electron-positron pairs?
3) How can the following statement from the Wikipedia page for virtual particles be
reconciled with your description of virtual photons as “disturbances” in the photon field:
“Virtual photons are also a major component of antenna near field phenomena and
induction fields, which have shorter-range effects, and do not radiate through space with
the same range-properties as do electromagnetic wave photons. For example, the energy
carried from one winding of a transformer to another, or to and from a patient in an MRI
scanner, in quantum terms is carried by virtual photons, not real photons.”
4) At one point you said, “Exactly the same equations that tell us about photons also tell
us about how these disturbances work; in fact, the equations of quantum fields guarantee
that if nature can have photons, it can have these disturbances too.” Could you be more
specific? I am trying to relate what you said here to what I have read in QFT books. How
does your description relate to the S matrix, propagators, and perturbation expansion? I
have seen the QFT formulation of electron-electron scattering which leads to a scattering
cross section, but how does the repulsive force follow from that?
Thanks,
Neil
singularity in the propagator = resonance = ripple in the field that can travel
indefinitely without a source. Example: photon
2) Yes. If the energy is large enough the singularities in the propagators can be
accessed and there is a non-analytic change in the response of the vacuum. This
also happens for quarks and antiquarks in a strong gluon field, in the context of jet
formation; see http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-
basics/the-known-apparently-elementary-particles/jets-the-manifestation-of-
quarks-and-gluons/
3) See (1); the near-field effects are off-resonance. Photons are on-resonance.
4) See (1): the equation for a Green function G for a field phi is O(G) = J, where
O is some differential operator and J is a source; the equation for a resonance is
O(phi) = 0, for the same operator O.
Said differently: the “virtual particle” i.e. Green function i.e. propagator satisfies
an inhomogeneous linear differential equation, while the real particle satisfies the
homogeneous version of the same equation.
39. Neil Fazel | April 24, 2012 at 9:51 AM | Reply
Thank you!
The effect of virtual particles (electron positron pairs) on the Coulomb field of nuclei was
first calculated by E. A. Uehling in 1935 (see
http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/physics/uehling35/uehling35.pdf ). and this seems
to be very accurate in predicting atomic level shifts in muonic atoms (atoms with an
electron replace with a muon)..
I am so happy to have found your website. It has been extremely educating. thank you. I
hope you write the book(s). There at least two books: the perspective for the layperson;
an undergraduate level for budding physicists.
Now coming to ‘virtual particles’, ‘quantum fields’, ( quantum mechanics) etc and their
underlying models they are indeed useful, powerful but in the final analysis do they
describe reality that actually exists?
Regarding quantum fields for some reason I always imagined them to be one-dimensional
lines: is it better to think of them as volumes – since they fill all space? And is regarding
the different (particle, force) fields as being intertwined a useful analogy when thinking
about particle decay?
Many thanks
Abuisa
o Matt Strassler | May 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM | Reply
In the case of the thin films, we do understand that there is another layer of reality
below the layer that you were using to describe the phenomenon — so the
question you were asked was well-posed.
But when you ask “in the final analysis do they describe reality that actually
exists?”, the answer has two parts. First, how do we know we are anywhere near a
final analysis? There could certainly be more layers of reality beyond the ones
we’ve encountered so far. What experiment can you imagine doing that could
ever answer your question with finality? And if no experiment exists, is your
question a scientific question, in the end?
Furthermore, what does “actually exist” mean? can you imagine an experiment
that tells you whether something really exists or whether it is just a useful tool for
describing and predicting the world? Again, if there is no experiment, can this
question be answered scientifically?
As far as we know, the description of the world using quantum fields and so forth
is an excellent way to think about the world that allows for a vast array of
measurements to be predicted in advance. But we neither know this is a unique
nor a final way to think about reality.
For some reason you misunderstood me; perhaps you can direct me to the point in
the article where my meaning became confusing?
I did not say (or at least, mean to say) that virtual particles aren’t real.
What I said is that virtual particles are not particles — they are more
generalized disturbances in fields. However, they are very real; they are
responsible for all of the basic forces of nature.
The example you gave (Compton scattering) is completely consistent with this.
The “off-shell particle” is most definitely real, but it is not a one-particle state of
the Hamiltonian. In fact it only looks like a single particle in first-order
perturbation theory. That is to be contrasted with the photon and the electron in
the initial and final state, which are one-particle states of the (all-orders)
Hamiltonian.
Could you clarify your comment? I’m not sure you two are talking about
the same thing.
The total cross section for Compton scattering in the non-relativistic limit is σ = (8
pi/3)(r_e)^2 = 0.66 barns. This is also the total cross section for classical Thomson
scattering. If the total cross section for Compton and Thomson scattering included virtual
pair production and annihilation, wouldn’t the cross section include a factor.α= e^2/h-bar
c?
o Matt Strassler | June 14, 2012 at 7:13 PM | Reply
No. First of all, r_e is not a real radius of anything; after quantum mechanics we
understand that r_e = 4 pi alpha / m_e c^2 . So there is already an alpha^2 in the
cross-sections. Second, the scattering process in Compton scattering is described
in quantum field theory as
photon + electron –> virtual electron –> scattered photon + scattered electron
In an ancient notation (which is what the previous commenter was referring to)
you could write this as
followed by
Either way you need a virtual fermion somewhere. (Actually, depending on what
frame you use, there’s another quantum contribution; but that too has a virtual
fermion.)
In all of these leading-order processes (to which there are additional quantum
corrections) you get a factor of “e” at each “–>”, so that gives you e^2 in the
amplitude, and thus e^4 ~ alpha^2 for the probability and the cross-section.
I agree that there are two electron-photon vertices in Compton scattering, each with one
real photon, and one real electron, and one off-the-mass-shell (virtual) electron or
positron. However there is never a virtual electron-positron pair (bubble diagram) in
Compton scattering, as suggested by Jack H above.
You are right that there is never a pair of virtual particles; at each step at most one
is virtual, at leading order in perturbation theory. But I’m not sure Jack H really
meant there was a bubble; I think he meant what I described in my answer.
However, I agree his wording was ambiguous.
45. Bob S | June 17, 2012 at 11:08 PM | Reply
No virtual particle physically appears in the interaction: all possible virtual particles, and
their antiparticles, occur equally and together in the mathematics, and must be removed
by integration over the values of their momenta.
In the coordinate-space representation of a Feynman diagram, the virtual particles are on-
mass-shell (realistic), but only 3-momentum is conserved at each vertex, not 4-
momentum, so there is no immediate way of obtaining 4-momentum-conserving delta
functions.
In the momentum-space representation, the virtual particles are both on- and off-mass-
shell (unrealistic), but 4-momentum is conserved at each vertex, and also round each loop
(as shown by a delta function for each).
In the coordinate-space representation, each virtual particle appears “as itself”, but in the
momentum-space representation, it is represented by a “propagator” (a function of its 4-
momentum).”
The statement that virtual particles occur “equally and together” excludes the single off-
the-mass-shell electron or positron in the Feynman diagram for Compton scattering.
What it doesn’t do is serve any deeper pedagogical purpose. And it leaves off the
physics.
There are real physical effects from non-resonant phenomena in field theory.
Choosing to write those in Fourier notation so that you express them using the
“mathematical device used in perturbation expansion” is the technical aspect of
how you calculate their effects. But this entirely ignores the physics part.
The physics part is that these non-resonant phenomena are responsible for:
electrical and magnetic forces
scattering of particles off one another
all sorts of particle production processes
the shifts in the strengths of forces as a function of distance (beyond the 1/r^2
force law)
the shifts in the strengths of the electron and muon magnetic moments
the interaction of the Higgs particle with photons
and on and on and on…
Prof. Strassler,
Well — I see your point. There is a slipperiness here that I’m in danger of letting
into my language… there are non-resonant phenomena (start with that) and now
you have to figure out how to calculate them. Only at that point do you introduce
a mathematical procedure and start drawing diagrams, and in particular
expressing things in terms of propagators etc.
I have a quick question: does the “electron field” have anything to do with the
probabilistic distribution of the electron…or is this something completely different? I
have a certain understanding of what an EM field is, but an electron field?
48. twistor59 | June 22, 2012 at 3:46 PM | Reply
Following on from Neil Fazel’s point: Do you think that the physics behind quantum
electrodynamics is *fundamentally* perturbative i.e. there’s no way even in principle to
formulate it “exactly”? My point being that, if you *could* formulate it non
perturbatively, then the virtual particle question would never come up. You would have
some other way to compute the effects that are currently computed using virtual particle
contributions.
Hi, I recently turned sixteen, so when you spoke about reading of virtual particles and not
understanding them at the age of sixteen, my interest was piqued. This article helped
solve my curiosity about virtual particles, although I do feel as though I still have a whole
lot to learn. Everywhere else I looked didn’t really make any sense, but this did. I just
wanted to say thank you. My knowledge is pretty limited, and I was wondering if you
could give me links or ideas as to where I could learn more.
Hmmm. Beyond what I’ve told you, I think one has to start getting into the math.
If you’re really interested in learning much more, it may be time to sit down and
learn some real physics … especially about the phenomena of resonance, and
about waves. And probably also about energy and momentum. A freshman
physics course is probably what you need (and you can find on-line resources
from major universities such as MIT if you’re impatient.)
Hello there. A theoretical physics website has this to say about virtual particles:
“If virtual particles were real, they would leave their trace in all methods of predicting
certain phenomena, and they would assign the same properties to the virtual particles no
matter which approximation method is used.
However, the literature readily shows that the details of Feynman diagrams strongly
depend on the perturbation scheme used: In light front calculations, one gets a completely
different set of diagrams than in the more traditional covariant form. And in
nonperturbative approaches such as lattice gauge theory or conformal field theory, the
predictions do not involve virtual particles at all.
The nonexistence of virtual particles in nonperturbative calculations (whether conformal
field theory or lattice gauge theory) is proof that the virtual particle concept is an artifact
of perturbation theory. Something whose existence depends on the method of calculation
cannot exist in a strong sense of the
word.”
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/virtual
From A.J. ““If virtual particles were real, they would leave their trace in all
methods of predicting certain phenomena, and they would assign the same
properties to the virtual particles no matter which approximation method is used.”
Pair production of electrons and positrons is a well-known component of gamma-
ray attenuation (in addition to Compton scattering) above 1.02 MeV, and has been
used to produce positron beams from high energy bremsstrahlung since the late
1950’s. Since 1965, the best estimate of the pion mass has been based on
measurement of the x-ray transition energies of negative pions bound in atomic
levels of various elements (Prior to this, the pion mass was estimated by
measuring lengths of tracks in nuclear emulsions). Is the i/r-squared radial
dependence of the Coulomb field assumption valid in pionic atoms, when the pion
is so close to the nucleus?
In 1935, Uehling (Phys Rev Vol 48, page 55) showed that the Coulomb field near
a nucleus varied from the expected 1/r-squared radial dependence by a new term
which he called “vacuum polarization”. Certainly in pionic atoms, there is not
enough energy in the atomic binding energies to create electron positron pairs, so
what is this “vacuum polarization” term proposed by Uehling? Uehling states;
“According to Dirac’s theory of the positron, an electromagnetic field will, in
general, induce a charge and current distribution due to the creation and
annihilation of electron-positron pairs. The induced fields produced by the
electron-positron distribution may be regarded phenomenologically as
corresponding to supplementary terms in Maxwell’s equations. Since one must
demand the validity of [Maxwell’s] equations in sufficiently weak and slowly
varying fields, ………. these these [supplementary] terms must depend on higher
powers of the field intensities, …….. whenever the fields vary appreciably in a
distance of the order of h-bar/mc [electron Compton wavelength], under which
circumstances an appreciable polarization electron-positron distribution can
exist.” Uehling refers to this as “vacuum polarization”.
So the vacuum polarization correction to the 1/r-squared law is real, and can be
accurately phenomenologically represented by induced creation and annihilation
of electron-positron pairs. Is it just an accident that this correction to the Coulomb
field is accurately represented by a pair of induced charged particles that have
both the charge and mass of electrons and positrons? Is this “vacuum
polarization” just an artifact of perturbation theory? Is there another non-
perturbative scheme, as proposed by A.J., that yields the same result? i think not.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then what should we call it?
This is basically right, yes. though it does leave one thing out; see below.
My statement that virtual particles aren’t particles at all, but are disturbances in
fields, is designed to be as consistent as possible with these statements. Those
disturbances are very complex. Only in perturbation theory do we have a way of
talking about them in a simple way — and indeed, as the author says, there are
multiple ways of talking about what they are and how they work.
Real particles are things you can hold, kick, absorb and study. Virtual particles
cannot be isolated and studied — only more general effects of these general
disturbances can be studied. What the author leaves out is that those general
effects ARE measured and studied, and in fact are hugely important — Casimir
effect, changing of the strengths of forces away from the 1/r^2 approximation,
scattering of photons off each other, etc. I’m sure he would agree, he just was
making a different point… which is that when you express those general effects
using nice pictures of particles running around inside of Feynman diagrams,
you’re using a particular calculational technique, and not making a statement
about the “true nature” of those generalized disturbances. You could have used an
entirely different calculational technique and gotten the same answer without ever
drawing diagrams of virtual particles running around.
Thank you Professor Strassler for clearing that up. It makes sense to me
now.
My second question is about the statement that electron spends part of its time as a
combination of photon and electron disturbance. Are there some clearly definite separate
times when the electron is only electron and then for a nanosecond it is a combination of
disturbances? Or the electron is somehow always someting like a quantun superposition
of all these variants (i.e. pure electron, combination of electron and photon, combination
of other things disturbed by various fields)?
For quanta (i.e. the things we somewhat misleadingly call “particles”) you should
not confuse “lower in energy” with “weaker” or “dimmer”. There’s no
connection.
A wave has a frequency (how often does it wiggle) and an amplitude (how far
does it wiggle.)
A real particle is the wave of lowest possible amplitude (in a corresponding field).
If it is at rest, it has its minimum frequency and energy, corresponding to its mass.
If it is moving in some direction, it has a higher frequency and energy. No matter
what, its amplitude is the smallest allowed.
In the end, the electron is the electron. You can write it as a quantum
superposition of a free non-interacting electron, a free non-interacting virtual
electron along with a virtual photon, a free non-interacting virtual electron along
with two virtual photons, a free non-interacting electron along with a virtual
muon-antimuon pair, etc. So the electron is always partly all of these things, and
no, there aren’t special times when it is one thing rather than the other.
Thank you very much for the response. So the virtual Z in Higgs decay
has lower mass (energy, related to its frequency) than real Z (when being
at rest). But the virtual Z does not have smaller amplitude than real Z.
Virtual particles do not have the mass of the corresponding real particle. A virtual
particle can have any mass, including a negative mass-squared (i.e. a mass that is
imaginary) by having more momentum than energy instead of the other way
round.) It’s a very bad idea to think about a virtual particle as being something
like a particle; it’s not a particle, it’s a generalized disturbance in a field, and it
doesn’t obey the rules particles obey. Energy and momentum are conserved in
Feynman diagrams at each vertex in the diagram, so the combination of the virtual
photon and virtual electron into which the real electron has dissociated has the
same energy, momentum and invariant mass of the real electron that entered and
exited the diagram.
I was reading on virtual particles, and came across an interesting thought. There is this
“sea” of virtual particles at any given point in the vacuum. While I understand the
concept that really the only difference between real and virtual is a very subtle one, on
whether we can “see” it or not, and if it does or doesn’t violate the conservation laws.
From this idea I have four questions- If an electron spits out any virtual particle of sorts,
wouldn’t that electron itself become virtual momentarily because two objects bound
together cannot split apart without energy from outside the system, even if this effect is
immeasurable? Secondly, Dirac predicted the positron with these concepts, virtual
particles as pairs. Is this pair of particles actually a pair, or is one merely the appearance
of existence of the newly turned “real” particle’s anti-particle, because, when observing a
system of, say electrons, if one electron leaves it appears a positive charge is now
present? Thirdly, For these virtual particles to become “real” a transfer of energy must
occur from a real particle to the virtual particle, so is it possible that a real particle that hit
a virtual particle and gave sufficient energy to make them now both real, could lose
energy as it travels through the vacuum of space? Is this possibly what we observe as
mass, with particles interacting with the higgs field? I also read about how real particles
can condense in a vacuum from virtual particles if arranged just right. What does that
mean, how do they have to be arranged? If this is true, is it because of Einstein’s binding
energy concept? Thank you very much for your time. It is very much appreciated.
Hi,
You say “forget about the virtual particles, it`s just that the particle disturbs the field”.
My simple question: HOW?
The way nature works is that fields interact with each other; a particle is a ripple
in one of the fields, and the interaction of that field with other fields disturbs
them. There’s no “how” to that — it’s simply what nature does. You’re asking me
to define the fundamental processes of nature in terms of even more fundamental
things — well, as far as I know, there’s nothing more fundamental than this.
I can write some equations that show you how this works. But I can’t tell you
something more basic than the interactions of fields with one another.
Hi Matt,
I am glad you think that virtual “particles” are real. There seems to be a movement in
some European circles that they are not real. For example, I got booted off
physicsforums.com for arguing that they are real and you can see the link above to
Arnold Neumaier’s FAQ (a PF.com advisor). I sort of get your drift that you want to call
them disturbances but my particle physics instructor, Dr. Andy Inopin, taught me that
they have all the same exact properties as their “real” counterparts except they are simply
“off mass shell” and can’t be detected. Well.. of course if they are detected, they become
“real”.
Take muon decay as an example. If there isn’t a real virtual W boson involved, the muon
could never decay. That virtual W boson has all the same properties as a “real” W boson
except for it is “off mass shell”. So your “disturbance” here sure smells like a W boson
particle. :-) Now, I think that with lower energy Coulomb type interactions, the
“disturbance” connotation could be appropriate. Perhaps you mentioned that above as I
did not read all of the preceding comments.
Best,
Fred
o Matt Strassler | July 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM | Reply
You are putting huge numbers of words in my mouth here. Your example of the
W boson in the case of muon decay is exactly opposite to what I said. You say
“your disturbance sure smells like a W boson particle”. Obviously you have a
serious problem with your nose. I said very specifically: “`virtual particles’ are
NOT particles”; particles are resonances, virtual particles are not. They can even
have negative mass-squared (does this not bother you?)
Your suspicion is wrong. And the fact that you have never heard of
a virtual particle with negative mass-squared puts a knife into your
credibility. [Check: what is the mass-squared of a photon
exchanged between an electron and a nucleus?]
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.physics.foundati
ons/kj0Ok34IpHg
Best,
Fred
@Matt,
Yes, sorry about that as I realized WordPress has a defect in the way their
thread reply works after I posted my reply on SPF. I am used to the FQXi
blogs that have the reply link properly at the end of the thread you want to
reply to. I have posted a correction to SPF.
Please notice, if you are going to answer (in which case I thank you again), keep in mind
that I’m not familiar with the math behind quantum physics, I studied only basic physics
in a computer science bachelor. In other words I do not speak FourierTransformish nor
DoubleIntegralese and know only some words of Derivish ;)
Derivish! My favorite.
A resonance is something that is easy to make: you know that no matter how you
hit a tuning fork or bell, it will always ring with the same tone, i.e. vibrate with its
resonant frequency. A disturbance, in my language, is a non-resonant process; for
instance, if you try to make a tuning fork or bell vibrate at a frequency which it
doesn’t prefer, or make it shake in some non-repetitive way, you can do it, but
you have to work hard. If you do anything particularly energetic in the universe
— say, set off a supernova — you will make lots of particles; you will be much
less likely to make all of the more general types of disturbances, and to the extent
you do, they will turn into particles very quickly.
Decay processes are not necessarily related to field disturbances — can you
clarify your question? What example are you thinking of?
so, if I got it right, by ripple you mean a specific kind of oscillation in the field, with
values that come out of a set of equations, a stable one; while by disturbance you mean
another kind of oscillation, that has different values and is not stable. Are there other
peculiar properties that are different between particles and virtual particles besides
stability?
As for the Decay process, I was thinking of something like W boson in muon decay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay , what I’d like to know is how the resonant
ripple turns to other things in this view. By “how” I mean how you describe the process,
what does it mean that a particle can turn in other particles in terms of a wave turning into
other waves or combinations of waves.
You’ve only partly got it right; but to really get it right we do need to do math. It
would be very easy to explain with equations.
“Virtual particles” is really a term that has multiple meanings capturing many
non-particle processes in quantum field theory, and even if I used math I’d have
to give you quite a few examples. Particles, on the other hand, are very easy to
describe. I simply would not ask your question “are there other peculiar properties
that are different between particles and virtual particles”; there’s almost nothing
about “virtual particles”, viewed in general, that is similar to the corresponding
particle, other than that they carry the same electric charge and other similar
conserved quantities [but that’s just because the charge is something the field has,
and the particle, as a ripple in the field, inherits it.]
How one wave (resonant or not) can turn into other waves is something I plan to
explain in the coming weeks, in my series on how the Higgs field works. Please
stay tuned for that.
“Do you understand my example of the swing, and the difference between
a resonant and non-resonant process?”
I think so! the resonant process should be (like?) a stationary wave, right?
While the non-resonant is a wave that is not stable in the medium it travels
in and will rapidly degenerate, eventually leaving a static wave behind.
“How one wave (resonant or not) can turn into other waves is something I
plan to explain in the coming weeks, in my series on how the Higgs field
works. Please stay tuned for that.”
I’ll try, if I remember of anything when back from holydays ;)
You write: ”But there is so much energy trapped inside a proton that there is enough to
make those virtual quarks and anti-quarks almost real”. You also write that energy does
not make the ripples or disturbances (of fields), but that the fields (which are
fundamental) contain energy: “A field is one thing; energy is something it can have, but
there is no such thing as an energy field”. “Can have”; so are there fields containing no
field energy? Or are these two things always married? “A particle has energy through its
mass and through its motion”. How about a field containing no particles and not moving?
I do understand there is no such thing as “pure energy”.
Or did I get it right? Does energy make the ripples (and disturbances)? If not, who does?
Who creates the sine (or not-sine in disturbance)?
You write: “Yes, all fields related to the known elementary particles are believed to exist
everywhere in space, and at all times. There is just one electron field that is everywhere
in the universe. What makes the Higgs field different from the other known fields is that
it is non-zero on average everywhere in the universe, while, say, the photon field [i.e. the
electric and magnetic fields treated together] and the electron field are on average
essentially zero”.
Question: take for ex. the Z-field (or other weak force bosons or quarks and gluons).
They do not exist “everywhere in space and at all times”. Their range is very limited. Or
did I get it wrong (again)?
You are probably confusing fields with particles. The fields exist all the time
everywhere. Particles are something that may or may not appear in a field and
may have limited range or life time. But the background field is always there. No
matter if any particles run through them. I hope I got it right.
65. Bob S | July 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM | Reply
So fields exist everywhere all the time. These fields have to be Lorentz-invariant, so any
observer in any inertial (non-accelerating) Lorentz frame would always see the same
field. This would not be true of either individual electric or magnetic fields because an E
field Lorentz-transforms to a B field, and vice-versa. So how can these fields be Lorentz-
invariant?
Because in vacuum, the electric and magnetic fields are zero. And zero is Lorentz
invariant.
Only the vacuum, and the laws of nature in vacuum (in regions that are relatively
small compared to the universe as a whole) are Lorentz invariant.
Agreed. The laws of nature are Lorentz invariant, and there is no preferred inertial frame.
But previous posts state that “[These] fields exist all the time everywhere.”
So what kind of fields can be Lorentz-invariant? Can a Higgs field, for example, be
Lorentz invariant?
Strassler: “Yes, all fields related to the known ELEMENTARY PARTICLES are
believed to exist everywhere in space, and at all times.”
Martin: “You are probably confusing fields with particles. The fields exist all the time
everywhere. Particles are something that may or may not appear in a field and may have
limited range or life time. But the background field is always there. No matter if any
particles run through them. I hope I got it right”.
So,sorry I am milking (don´t get nervous): does for ex the Z-field exist ” everywhere in
space, and at all times”, although there are no Z-particles in the vicinity? Or the gluon
field? If the answer is, that in spite of the range all fields always exist everywhere in
space, so why do the different particles (“forces”,fields?) have different ranges? The
answer can not be mass of the interaction particles, because gluons are massless. I can
understand why weak force is weak (and has short range); the Z and W particles have big
mass, they are lazy.
I’m no expert, so I’m just telling you what I understood from Professor’s
explanation: yes, the Z-field exists everywhere in space at all times, although
there are no Z particles anywhere. The only important thing: the value of the field
is zero (on average). The field does exist, but is zero, until you disturb the field
somehow (through a disturbance in another field that interacts with the Z-field).
Why the different particles have different ranges? In this matter I’m not 100%
sure, but in case of the gluons (which are massless) it is probably due to the
confinement because of the color charge. Weak force has limited range probably
because its bosons are very massive and they decay quickly into other particles.
Photon does not have any such constraints, so it can get to great distances.
Hi, Mr. Strassler! I feel so fortunate to have found your website–in particular your posts
on the composition of protons and explanation of virtual particles. I have a question
regarding virtual particles: Do you know, or can you guess why some people have written
that virtual particles (VP) are merely mathematical artifacts of perturbative quantum field
theory, and thus VP have no ontological basis? Should I just ignore those people (I’m
being sort of glib)? By the way, I’ve also read articles by Frank Wilczek which generally
correspond to what you have written about VP. Can you set me straight? Thanks!
Kevin
71. Paul | August 26, 2012 at 7:37 AM | Reply
Hi Matt, I’m a theoretical particle physicist PhD that ended up in biophysics for 20 years.
What’s your thoughts on these virtual particle conundrums:
1. If virtual particles aren’t real (in some sense) why do calculated probabilities depend
on properties of virtual particles (eg B0-B0bar mixing box diagrams depend on top quark
mass etc)? Although one can say they are ‘integrated out’ that’s not entirely true, the
processes depend on virtual particle properties like mt. And, forgive me, I have not been
able to read all of the above entries. Related, how would a non-perturbative treatment of
B0-B0bar mixing hope to involve the top quark mass? If virtual particles are in some
sense real, what sense and what do they mean non-perturbatively?
2. A fun one here re-quantum gravity. I’ve never had enough time to get into this. Would
quantum gravity do away with curved space time or simply account for it?
3. How would virtual gravitons (in a calculation) escape from a black hole so that the
black hole could, act like a black hole, and suck things in? Presumably their virtualness . .
Regards – Paul
Martin: “Why the different particles have different ranges? In this matter I’m not 100%
sure, but in case of the gluons (which are massless) it is probably due to the confinement
because of the color charge.”
I do know what confinement means. But that is just a word. It does not give an answer to
my question. If the fields are around everywhere and all the time, what determines (and
why) the different ranges? Weak force is weak and has a short range because of massive
bosons (that´s easy), but why is strong force strong and has a short range although gluons
are not weak and massless. So how does the “confinement” do the trick?
Hi, Professor Strassler! I’m with Kevin (August 14, 2012), I feel so fortunate to have
found your website–in particular your posts on virtual particles. I have the same basic
question as Kevin’s regarding virtual particles: Do you know, or can you guess why some
people (Physicist Arnold Neumaier,
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/virtual) have written that virtual
particles (VP) are merely mathematical artifacts of perturbative quantum field theory, and
thus VP have no ontological basis? Should I just ignore those people (I’m being sort of
glib)”
In response to A.J | July 13, 2012 at 9:18 PM | You reply, “What the author (Professor
Neumaier) leaves out is that those general effects ARE measured and studied, and in fact
are hugely important — Casimir effect, changing of the strengths of forces away from the
1/r^2 approximation, scattering of photons off each other, etc. I’m sure he would agree,
he just was making a different point…”
However, Professor Neumaier writes, “How can anything be real if its existence depends
on a particular way of viewing the world? How can an experiment (verifying the Casimir
effect, say) can be said to prove the existence of virtual particles if the same experiment
can be explained by a method of calculation not involving virtual particles at all?”
You make virtual particles sound influential and at least potentially real, “a disturbance in
a field can become a “real” particle with the addition of more energy.” This had always
been my assumption about virtual particles but Professor Neumaeir’s posting thru me into
confusion.
Please help me understand any differences, if any, between your view of Virtual Particles
and Professor Neumaeir’s.
Thanks!
Joe S.
Disturbances in fields are real. I *think* Neumaier would agree. The Casimir
effect proves the existence of quantum disturbances of fields that are not particles.
So do atoms and other bound states, through both their existence and the subtle
effects that one must account for to get their binding energies correct.
Now the question is: do you call those “disturbances in fields” by the name
“virtual particles” or not? I think Neumaier is taking a strict perturbative Quantum
Field Theory definition of what a virtual particle is (a line in a Feynman diagram)
and so he would say (I think) that disturbances in fields may be real, but
expressing those disturbances in terms of lines in Feynman diagrams (which is a
*calculational technique*, and not necessary) involves introducing non-real
artifacts. I agree with that statement. He happens to call the “lines in Feynman
diagrams” by the name “virtual particles”. Strictly speaking that’s what one
should do in a technically accurate and precise context. So I don’t disagree with
his approach.
I took a different line of approach. I said: Feynman diagrams (and the lines in
them) are a calculational approach, but disturbances in fields are real. Since the
name most non-experts know for “disturbances in fields” is “virtual particles”, I
decided to stick with the name “virtual particles” but redefine it slightly so that it
actually does mean something physically real.
Amusingly, the title of the paper that became my Ph.D. thesis was “Field Theory
Without Feynman Diagrams.” http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9205205
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my September 2, 2012 posting. Your explanation
preserves the “reality” of virtual particles with the understanding that the physical effects
of their reality can be calculated with or without the use of Feynman Diagrams. In the
context of this discussion, the title of you thesis is truly funny. Again thanks for your
time.
Joe S.
Hi Joe,
Neumaier’s position is from the notion that he believes the Coulomb field of an
elementary charged particle is not quantized but remains as a pure classical field.
There was a substantial discussion on sci.physics.research with him about this if
you are interested.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.research/c-
hWst9vu68/discussion
Of course if you take that particular position, you will have to reject the notion
that virtual particles are real. In Matt’s language then the Coulomb field of an
elementary charged particle is just one big disturbance. But I suspect that Matt
would have it as a disturbance of a quantum field whereas Neumaier has it as a
disturbance of a classical field.
As I mentioned previously in this thread, I was taught that the only difference
between a real and virtual particle is that the word “virtual” simply means “off
mass shell” and all other quantum properties of the particle remain the same.
Though quantizing the Coulomb field is a bit of a tough nut to crack, I simply
think of it as the quantum vacuum is a polarizable medium and the Coulomb field
(and magnetic fields) are a “tilt” of virtual fermionic pairs due to the presence of
the elementary charged particle. In that viewpoint, the Coulomb field is quantized
and I think agrees with Matt’s “disturbance”. A problem with keeping the
Coulomb field as a classical field is instantaneous action at a distance. So I have
to reject Neumaier’s position. Besides all that, if you reject that quantum particles
can’t be momentarily “off mass shell” you are rejecting the uncertainty principle.
Fred
However, Fred, your notion of virtual particles being the same as real
particles but “off-mass-shell” is a perturbative notion that does not survive
to the fully non-perturbative theory.
At best, real particles are poles in propagators (possibly off the real axis)
and they satisfy various theorems. The virtual particles do not satisfy these
theorems. Another way to say this is that the propagators can take a wide
variety of functional forms, depending on how the interactions in the field
theory work; but a pole in a propagator has universal properties.
And even this statement isn’t correct. Most propagators that have the
relevant poles aren’t even gauge invariant [for example, the electron
propagator isn’t.] You really have to look at asymptotic states of the
theory and their scattering amplitudes, very carefully defined. In the end
the whole relation between real particles (which are things that really exist
and are, for instance, gauge invariant) and any notion of virtual particles
(which aren’t in general gauge invariant) completely falls apart.
Hi Fred D.
Thanks for looking more deeply into this. I tried reading the forum you suggested but the
format is too hard to follow. I thought Professor Neumaier’s position on virtual particles
was odd and I’m glad you flushed it out more explicitly.
Joe S.
See my answer above. It seems Neumaier has some correct things to say about
virtual particles, but then leaps to a conclusion that isn’t at all justified (and is
surely contradicted by the successful numerical simulations of quantum field
theory, where one does not use virtual particles in the calculational technique but
certainly treats the fields around particles as fully quantum mechanical, not
classical as Neumaier suggests.)
I sure would like to see a calculational technique that could get the correct
lifetime for muon decay without a virtual W boson involved in the
procedure. You are screwed right out of the gate since you have to have an
outgoing muon neutrino that carries off the quantum number for muon-
ness and another charged particle with spin 1 or 0 that carries off the
charge and can decay to an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. There is
only one particle that we know of that fits the bill. A W boson with spin 1
since there are no charged elementary particles with know of with spin 0.
And has to be way off mass shell. But it still has all the other quantum
properties necessary for the decay to happen.
All of this leaves out the great deal of additional subtlety that arises
when you remember that nature does not live by perturbation
theory; real scattering amplitudes are all-orders results, not tree-
level or one-loop-level results. Put that in, along with gauge
invariance, and you will soon find yourself unable to define virtual
particles as lines in Feynman diagrams… try drawing the more
complicated graphs in muon decay, with virtual photons and
virtual Zs running between the muon line, electron line, neutrinos
and the W, and then put in some lepton loops that split the Z W W
or photon W W vertices, and you will already see trouble.
There are many senses in which it does not make sense to treat the electromagnetic field
around the electron as classical, but one of the worst arises in the context of the gluon.
The gluon is a particle, like the electron. But gluons interact with gluons; the gluon has a
chromoelectric field, like the electron’s electric field. And the chromoelectric field is
another word for the gluon field, just as the electric field is another word for the photon
field. There is no theory where you somehow treat the gluon particle as quantum
mechanical and treat its field as classical — this is a completely inconsistent thing to do.
77. Joe S. | September 2, 2012 at 4:58 PM | Reply
Matt,
Thanks again for your further clarification.
Joe S.
Professor Strassler, could you explain Hawking radiation from your perspective? Or, do
you feel that it is not a correct theory?
Hawking radiation isn’t a theory, it’s something you can calculate will happen if
you have quantum fields near a black-hole horizon; in classical gravity. It doesn’t
require anything tricky and unknown, like quantum gravity. It’s been calculated
various ways and been shown to be consistent in various other ways… so it’s
certainly true for big black holes and ordinary quantum fields like
electromagnetism.
But with that picture, on the other hand, it is not clear how it would make
any difference for one “part” of a disturbance if another random “part”
would become trapped inside a black hole so they can’t “reconnect”. It
also
becomes less clear how some “part” of a disturbance then can start
traveling far away. Maybe something is still missing in this intuition? (Too
much of the opposite intuition?)
(And what are these “parts” you talk about in a disturbance, really? You
still seem to talk about them yourself like objects of their own, and not just
as one big complex field…)
That was very illuminating professor. Thank you for your quick response. I have a few
follow up questions.
1. Your very last statement. “for most disturbances that happen to sit on top of the
horizon, their outside-parts are not made from real particles and will not escape the black
hole.”…do you mean that most disturbances that happen to sit on the top of the horizon
have a virtual particle form and an anti-virtual particle form that quickly annihilate each
other without entering the event horizon. Or, that both the virtual particle form and ant-
virtual particle form will both fall into the event horizon? I cling to the former.
2. Regarding “the very rare thing”. At the event horizon, “the continual spontaneous
disturbance”, is usually “white noise” (my term), or a virtual particle and anti-virtual
particle that quickly annihilate each other without falling into the event horizon. Can it be
assumed, that in very rare events, the virtual particle and anti-virtual particle or “white
noise” somehow achieve a “harmonic” (my term) and in essence become a real particle
and real anti-particle, where the newly formed, anti-particle falls into the event horizon,
shrinking the mass of the black hole, while the newly formed, real particle escapes the
event horizon?
In any case, the latter is more accurate in one of the cases; from the outside
observer’s point of view, the disturbance falls into the horizon; from the point of
view of an observer falling into the horizon, it’s just an ordinary disturbance like
any other. The former happens too, but those aren’t the interesting disturbances
that have something to do with the black hole’s hot atmosphere.
2. The process is Black Hole –> Smaller Black Hole + real particle. Whether the
anti-particle was real cannot be ascertained by any experiment; it’s just a more
general disturbance falling into the black hole.
I’m really not prepared to do this subject justice without pictures and careful
thought about how to explain this clearly. It needs articles, not ad hoc answers,
I’m afraid. And I certainly have to keep focused on other things for now. But I
understand the interest in clear exposition of the subject. Most of what I know I
learned from Lenny Susskind himself, so you might look at videos he’s made to
explain black holes to the public. But I don’t know how thorough he was.
Professor Strassler,
In your opinion are “continual spontaneous quantum field disturbances,” “quantum
fluctuations,” “zero-point energy,” and “virtual particle/antiparticle annihilation,”
different words for the same phenomena or are they different phenomena? If they are
different what are the differences?
Can the figure 3 be developed even further? Could the virtual photon there be considered
also as a disturbance in a quark-field? If so, could it mean that every particle/wave
contains virtually all other particles/waves, in a row of infinite implication?
The virtual photon is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field (i.e. the photon
field). That’s always true, by definition: a virtual particle of any type is a
disturbance in its corresponding field, not in some other field.
But it is true that all fields affect each other to a greater or lesser degree, so a
particle — naively a ripple in its corresponding field — is also made partly from
disturbances, to a greater or lesser degree, in other fields.
83. Pingback: I'm duh? On the LHC.. - Parapsychology and alternative medicine forums of
mind-energy.net
The stuff the electromagnetic [photon] field is made of has been named 3D magnoflux.
Hi Dr. Strassler,
I’m very happy I found this website! I don’t have any professional education when it
comes to physics, but I enjoy learning about various parts of physics on my own. I think
your explanations are great!
This made sense to me when I read it. Your explanation here of virtual particles (field
disturbances) also makes sense, but at this point I can’t see how it would be used to
predict or explain specific phenomena (such as pions). Can you write a bit about this?
Also, why do you answer some people’s questions, but not other’s?
86. Pingback: Quantum Foam, Virtual Particles and Other Curiosities « NOVA's Physics
Blog: The Nature of Reality
dear sir
thank you for this enteresting article, and i have some equestions
1-after years of discovering the photon, do you think that it is a well known concept in
physics.
2-if we have experiment and we succeed to explane it by mathematical equations, is it
nesessary that our explanation is correct.
3-when a photon interacts with electron, is the direction of every one before and after the
interaction is taken in acount in our calculations, for example: compton effect and
photoelectric effect.
thank you.
1- 100% well-known. Photons are used daily; they’re part of modern technology.
The CCDs in digital cameras, for instance, absorb them. Lasers only work
because one can make photons behave in lock-step, giving a beam of light that’s
narrow and has a single color.
2- generally multiple types of explanations give the same equations; even if the
equations are right that does not mean that the conceptual explanation is unique.
Newton’s laws are different in word form from the Hamilton-Jacobi equations
and from the minimum action principle, but they lead to the same equations.
I have thought of an analogy regarding the virtual particles and Higgs field. But I would
like to know if it is valid or lacking. As I understand it, the Higgs field is a condensate of
virtual particles that have become real. These virtual particles, known as the “Dirac sea”,
have a negative energy (relative to the vacuum of space) and became real because it was
energetically favorable to do so (similar to how electrons act in super conductors?) due to
spontaneous symmetry breaking of the vacuum (I do not entirely understand this
concept.)
Every day we go outside, and know there is water vapor in the air. But without our senses
to feel this on a humid day, we would be none the wiser to this water vapor. But as the
sun sets (spontaneous symmetry breaking of the vacuum) and the next morning we wake
to find dew on the grass. The water vapor represents the virtual particle sea and the dew,
the Higgs field. At which point, the weak force bosons and other particles affected by the
Higgs field are observed to have their mass due to interaction with the “dew”.
Finally, thank you. This site is incredibly helpful and I have recommended it to several
friends, all of whom have enjoyed your writing. We all give our thanks to your work.
Sincerely, S.B.O.
Professor Strassler
I have been reading up on virtual particles lately and have found your article and one by
John Baez particularly (no pun intended) illuminating. I have also been reading related
articles in Wikipedia. One of these is entitled “Static forces and virtual-particle
exchange”. In it I found the the following statement:
Is this at all accurate, do you think? I was very surprised to read it, because it seems it is
questioning the entire Standard Model with the exception of its applicability to scattering
experiments. Questionably applicable to the strong force, the weak force, or bound states
generally? Wow.
Also, this question of what is real and what is virtual (the same thing as “not real”?) has
been puzzling me, especially because both your article and Baez’s both end up saying
something like even real particles are sort of virtual. I had the idea, perhaps influenced by
reading parts of John Bell’s book “The Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum
Mechanics”, that photons that enter my eyes and help create the internal image in my
head are definitely real and, beyond this, the particle interactions that leave potentially
measurable traces are also quite real, but do not require an actual attempt at measurement.
Thus, a meteor impact on the far side of the moon leaves a crater even though my current
means of transportation will not get me there to inspect it. The virtual interactions and
quantum theory more generally are then just some mathematics you apply to estimate the
probabilities of these kinds of real events occurring. Wave collapse is associated with
such real interactions, but is itself not real, because the wave function itself is just the
mathematics too. Therefore, I think there is clear distinction between real and virtual
particles, but you and Baez seem to disagree. Where am I wrong?
The article on virtual particles you reference to Baez was not written by him. He
merely hosts the article on his website and it is part of a Physics FAQ for the
UseNet sci.physics.* groups.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
Unfortunately the term “virtual” is a poor term for what virtual means in this
context. It does not mean “not real”. Even Matt’s description as “disturbances” is
a real physical phenomenum. In particle physics, “virtual” simply means “off
mass shell” when used in conjunction with specific particles.
PS. Be careful about Wikipedia articles; most anyone can edit them at any time.
Also, your point about Wikipedia articles is true, but I’m still interested in whether the
opinion expressed by the writer is to be taken at all seriously. I don’t know how well the
theory of quantum chromodynamics agrees with the data or whether QED doesn’t work
so well in explaining the behavior of bound states. I was hoping a theoretical physicist
working in this area could give me a response based on his far better acquaintance with
the empirical tests, etc.
Hi Professor,
Your article, and the comments are especially helpful. I am still confused however, and I
think that this confusion has to do with my attempts at understanding other descriptions
of what virtual particles are. Prior to all of this I was under the impression that virtual
particles are particle pairs that instantly pop and in and out of existence in empty space.
And I though that they were also called quantum fluctuations, or quantum energy. But
when I read your description, I am imagining them as ripples in this quantum foam.
Stable ripples are what we understand as particles and the unstable ripples are known as
virtual particles.
What is the difference between a particle and a ripple or disturbance in the foam? When
people say “particle” I think of an atom, or a subatomic particle. And this cosmic foam, is
it the Higgs field? From my understanding, it is the Higgs field that gives particles their
mass based on their movement through the field. If you could clarify these points for me
that would be much appreciated. Thank you.
A particle is a ripple in a quantum field. I never used the term quantum foam, I
believe. Nor is anyone’s use of the term “foam” to be confused with the Higgs
field; there is no relation whatsoever. Let’s back up.
More general disturbances in quantum fields include the things we call “virtual
particles”, but those things really are not particles at all. To understand all the
different things that quantum fields can do, you really need a course on the
subject.
It is not correct that the Higgs field gives particles their mass based on their
*movement*. Many people use analogies that suggest this, but the analogies are
inaccurate. The Higgs field gives mass to particles even when they are standing
still.
I have explained much of this at a level appropriate for people with a little math
background in a sequence of articles, http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-
posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ and
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/how-the-higgs-
field-works/ . If these are too advanced, stay tuned; I will eventually write less
advanced articles on the same subjects… but that’s not easy.
Dear Professor Strassler, Tim Martin asked: Also, why do you answer some people’s
questions, but not other’s?.
You responded: do you really want me to answer that?
Tim said: But also, I have questions I’d like to ask on other posts of yours, as well, and if
certain questions are more likely to get answered than others, I’d sincerely like to know
what those criteria are!
Like Tim, I have also noticed that some (reasonable?) questions don’t get answered. I
exclude the questions from obvious trolls, or arguments on topics outside of physics.
Some kinds of questions *are* more likely to be answered than others, and we aren’t sure
that if we ask a question, it will be answered. So, we would like to know:
We do understand that you retain the right to decide whether or not to answer any
question; all we are looking for is some guidelines.
Regards,
pdcjw
94. Pingback: Cuidadito con las analogías (1) « Física de particulas para secundaria
95. Pingback: The Constancy of the Heavens — Verified Anew | Of Particular Significance
Even on its own internal logic, Feynman diagrams do not imply the real existence of
virtual particles. This is because each virtual particle is associated with with a single line
in a Feynman diagram but we do not get an end calculation of anything except by
summing over diagrams, (or “histories”). I am not familiar with the calculation itself but I
suspect that the intermediate values associated with the virtual particles cancel out in the
end and do you even get a specific numerical result but rather a probability distribution.
Feynman diagrams work only because the lines correspond to, (probabilistically), real
component waves, (disturbances), in a quantum field. You are actually just using the
diagrams as a tool for deciding on terms to include in a perturbation calculation. The
virtual particles then are just mathematical fiction.
I think you should consider a full fledged book with all the required math and your
exceptional interpretations of equations in terms of physics.
It is probably too much to clarify each and everyone’s confusion without the necessary
math. In the language of the Chinese proverb , teach us to fish rather than providing a
piece meal.
Hi Matt, thanks for your explanations, they really help people like me who are interested
in the concepts of physics but are useless at maths.
I think i have a simple understanding now of what virtual particles are. Here is my
explanation..
But also, when there are no particles, the fields interact with each other causing
disturbances which we call virtual particles. The difference is, a normal particle is a
ripple in the field that can travel through it. But a virtual particle is not, it is a disturbance
in the field which is a totally different thing.
Pretty good!
Hi Professor, I am hoping you could help me understand what quantum fields are. As i
understand it, the Electromagnetic field purveys the whole of space but what is the field
made of ?
Thanks
As far as we know today (though you must remember that in the future we might
learn more about the universe that would change this viewpoint), everything in
the universe is made from fields. The fields are the fundamental ingredients in the
universe, according to current views. They aren’t made from anything else.
Everything else is made from them, and their ripples.
Hello, along a similar line of Kevin’s question, where do the fields “come”
from? Or I guess originate might be a better choice of words. Also, I’m
curious, if I understand your explanation of virtual particles, then what
causes these fields to “interact” or “disturb” when there aren’t any
particles around? I think I read somewhere above in the comments where
someone used the waves of the ocean as an example, but even then, are
not the waves of the ocean caused by a variety of factors?
This is great stuff! I actually came here because of trying to understand something about
classical fields and got sidetracked into virtual particles.
Something I was wondering:
(slight diversion) You know the classic situation of a current going through a wire, with a
static magnetic field around it that radiates out a certain distance? People used to say
some bizarre things to me about current putting it’s energy into sustaining that magnetic
field when accelerated, and then drawing it out again to resist deceleration, and that that
was basically what impedance was. At the time it seemed bizarre that the current should
have the energy I was told about, and then have all this extra energy as well in the
magnetic field. To explain this, I assumed that energy transmitted by the current was both
the energy in the electrical motion and in the associated magnetic field, which combined
added up to the normal momentum and energy transfer I was told about.
Are the normal virtual particles basically the same thing? Where we say an electron has
these properties, but any real electron’s properties are also given by how it “blurs” into
these other fields, existing maybe as a comparatively more localised electron and a halo
of these other interactions? If so, do you have to change loads of things about the
properties of a “naked” electron to get the same thing when you add in all the effects of
the fields it’s interacting with?
I’m having a little trouble understanding your question. This is probably partly the
way you’ve phrased it and partly that it has been ten years since I taught freshman
physics on impedance etc., so I’m probably forgetting the cause of the common
confusion that I think you’re expressing.
Classical fields are related to certain aspects of “virtual particles”. But virtual
particles represent a much more general class of phenomena.
How energy is stored in currents of moving electrons and in the fields that they
carry with them is a tricky business. But I’m not sure exactly what I could say that
would clarify your question.
But I can answer this. Yes, a “naked” electron is quite different from the real,
physical electron. In fact it’s not unique what “naked” means because you can’t
actually ever strip away all the junk that the electron carries with it, so it’s really
just a figment of our imaginations to think of it naked. However, there are
different classes of things inside that halo, and some of them fall away with
distance much faster than the classical electric field, which is the thing that drops
away slowest with distance [like 1/(distance)^2]. That’s why in most of
undergraduate physics, we only have to deal with the real electron and its electric
field; all the complexities of the real electron are typically important only for
measurements which take place at subatomic distances.
So virtual “particles” are short-lived disturbances which occur within fields. Is that a
correct enough summary?
If so, I have another question in regards to the Casimir Effect. I understand that the
experiment is run with super-thin plates which have all electrical charge removed, in a
vacuum. A few places online, I have seen the claim that the virtual “particles,” the effects
of which are observable in the experiment, are literally generated from nothing. But if
virtual “particles” are short-lived disturbances which occur within fields, then it seems
they are making the claim that a disturbance in the field can occur without a field. What
am I to make of this?
Zia, I would say a quantum field is a mathematical concept for each point in
Space. The field is not a real structure but the virtual particles popping in and out
of existence are. The reason the virtual particles can come from nothing is
because, for a very short time, they can borrow energy from the universe as long
as they give that energy back very quickly, which they do, due to pair
annihilation. If i am wrong then please, Professor, correct me !
It’s not that the field is “nothing” in some philosophical sense, like
it is absolute void (no space, no time, no things). The scientific
theory doesn’t really say what a field is or isn’t (in terms of some
ontological reality). What the theory says, is that “this particular
mathematical equation describes our observations of ‘things'”.
People will argue endlessly on what ‘nothing’ means. But that is a
question for philosophers, the science is simply meant to take in
observations and predict future observations… observations of
“things” (electrons, photons, etc.).
Ok, end rant, sorry if this is seen way off topic, but these questions
seem relevant and natural to the topic of virtual particles. I’d be
really surprised if there are any physicists out there who do not
ponder these things and have their own opinions!
Dear Prof,
Since you are the foremost authority in virtual particles with superb mathematical skills, I
wonder if you would be kind enough to point out to me what is wrong with the equations
below because the result does not make sense. I am sure there is an error somewhere.
10 = 3.1623^2
i ^ 4 = +1
*****
E = mc ^2 {(1-v^2/c^2)}^(-1/2)
E = mc ^2 [{(1-(3.1623c)^2)} / c^2]^(-1/2)
E = mc ^2 {(1-10)} ^ (-1/2)
…. = mc ^2 / square root (- 9)
…. = mc ^2 / 3i
E = 1/3 x mc^2 when an imaginary particle is travelling 3.1623 times the speed of light in
a vacuum ! ! !
The only time when matter moves “faster (though not strictly true)” than light is during
the period of inflation at the time of the Big Bang.
At this time the total energy and mass of the universe may be small (and not infinitely
large) but as the inflation decreases towards the speed of light C, the total energy and
hence the total mass may be at it’s maximum at C.
From then on decreases exponentially to the total energy and mass of today i.e. at rest of
E = mc^2.
To put it in another “nonsensical” way, it appears that the Big Bang at the beginning of
time comes from a singularity that do not have an infinite density but rather a singularity
with almost zero mass but with infinite velocity!
Thanking you,
Warmest regards,
Dr Looi
email: [email protected]
well its pretty intreseting but i want know why do we need to introduce the concept of
virtual particle
Quantum field theory requires there be disturbances of this type, and quantum
field theory agrees with data. So we have to have these disturbances.
Why call them “virtual particles”? Because it proved useful for certain types of
calculations to organize the disturbances mathematically as though they were
made from a sum of many fictional particles. [If you know some math, this has to
do with the usefulness of Fourier transforms.] But that’s a math issue, not a
physics issue. Unfortunately, in hindsight, this math fact got taken a little too
seriously… its limitations are much better understood today than was the case
when the notion was introduced.
As a nascent grad student in theoretical particle physics most of this information isn’t
new for me, but it is always great to hear another person explain it. Thank you for the
clear and interesting explanation!
Yours sincerely
Henrik
Henrik
In the symbolic equation I had a two way arrow which was swallowed when I posted it
Come to think of it: In the early universe the gammas may not represent photons but
some other bosons, maybe gravitons. And general relativity is non-linear, where energy
can be converted into mass(at enormous temperatures total particle energy is mostly
kinetic), and so gravitons can beget particles(electrons and positrons) which then
ultimately meet and decay electromagnetically to photons.
Does it now make sense?
Gee, declaring virtual particles unreal by virtue of the concept of time, which is itself
“virtual”.
that is clearly non sequitur. “Selective science jiggerying”, eh?
yours truly,
virt-u-oh-so
my thoughts exactly, I done a search to find anyone else with my thoughts on this
and you are the only one.
For some time now I have postulated the idea that these ‘virtual’ disturbances,
brief as they may be, are enough of a force to leave a residual gravitational effect.
As you say cummulatively enough (maybe, as I do not have enough information
to calculate) to account for dark matter – we have to have gone dramatically
wrong somewhere to be looking for invisible matter – doesn’t feel right, where as
this, well maybe!!
Thank you for your excellent article explaining virtual particles. Your article was
eminently readable and immensely informative. I learned a lot.
First, is there now a consensus among professional physicists as to the ontic nature of
quantum fields? Many undergraduate chemistry textbooks still seem to suggest that the
quantum field for the electron is just a mathematical construction. They say the wave
equation for the electron has no physical interpretation and it is only the square of the
wave equation that has meaning, that being the probability of finding an electron in a
certain location. I was surprised and pleased to read in your article that quantum fields are
to be understood as real entities, in and of themselves – not only real, but fundamental. I
had already come to the same conclusion myself, but I had never seen it so plainly stated
as in your article. My reasoning was the same as yours – a field can exist without a
particle, but a particle cannot exist without the field. So how accepted is this
interpretation among physicists and has anyone told the chemists?
Along these same lines, I wonder if could you say something about the distinction among
the following fields which are easily confused:
1. Electric Field, as between two charged particles or between plates of a capacitor.
2. Magnetic Field, as between two poles of a permanent magnet.
3. Electromagnetic field.
4. Electron field
5. Photon field
6. Ether.
With my new insights gleaned from your article, I would like to take a stab at answering
this one. Please correct me where I am wrong. As I understand it, fields 3, 4, and 6 are
really the same thing, that is, the medium for the propagation of light waves, but that it is
taboo to use the term “ether” for historical reasons. I like that you call it the photon field.
That seems to me to be the most unambiguous way to put it. I had not seen it called that
before. It is the quantum field for the photon.
Field 4, of course, is simply the quantum field for the electron which you clearly
explained in your article. The important point here is that the electron field is not the
same thing as the electric field nor the electromagnetic field.
Fields 1 and 2, strictly speaking, are not quantum fields but rather a mapping of a
physical property to points in space as one might also have a temperature field or a
pressure field or in solution chemistry one might have a concentration field. As such,
these fields do not transport energy by wave action, but may represent a kind of
conduction or flow of some sort down a gradient. What is it that is flowing in the case of
the electric field and the magnetic field? Textbooks call these, electric flux and magnetic
flux, but again suggest that these are just mathematical constructs and that nothing is
actually flowing. Would you say there is a flow of virtual particles or disturbances in the
underlying electromagnetic field? Also, is the magnetic field completely reduceable to an
electric field, perhaps a circulating electric field? Does a magnetic field boil down to a
particular constellation of circulating virtual particles?
I hope you can further educate me on these topics. I tutor undergraduate students in
introductory physics and chemistry. While they are not required to know these details, a
deeper understanding on my part helps me teach them what they do need to know.
Thanks.
Oops, I see some typos in my post. Most importantly, the phrase “fields 3, 4, and
6 are really the same thing” should read “fields 3, 5, and 6 are really the same
thing”. Less importantly, in paragraph 2, the phrase “If you are still entertaining to
questions” should read “If you are still entertaining questions”. Sorry about that. -
Steve
— Virtual particles are not particles because they are non-resonant, i.e. the properties of
the virtual-particles like energy, wave amplitude and frequency are not at the limited
number of specific values (quanta) as that of the resonant particles. In other words virtual
particles are not particles because they are not quantized. That’s all the term particle
means in quantum mechanics, is that the phenomenon is quantized. Does this make some
sense? So virtual particles are not quantized? In other words, they can have any
arbitrarily small (or large?) energy, amplitude and frequency, etc.?
I am envisioning virtual particles like the random and chaotic ripples on the sea, and real
particles like the waves that emerge and propagate to the shore. All real particles decay
into “nothingness” just like the waves break and crash, but there are always a seemingly
unlimited number of virtual particles of all shapes and sizes (i.e. of randomly varying
magnitudes and frequencies of ripples on the surface of the sea, etc.). Is this a decent
analogy?
If I am sort of on the right track, then this brings up the question: If two distinct quantum
fields have a virtual particle that has the same quantifiable properties, are they different?
If the electron field has random fluctuation X and Higgs field has random fluctuation X
(all “virtually-measurable” quantities are identical and encapsulated in X), then what
makes those virtual particles different? Or are they? In other words, is it a necessity that
there are different fields? Why can’t there just be a single field that gives rise to all the
particles, and the particles simply vary by their quantifiable properties like amplitude,
energy, etc.? Of course, this begs the question on the existence of the fields and whether
or not they are simply mathematical abstractions (not real) used to explain the existence
of observable (real) phenomena.
113. Kevin White | July 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM | Reply
A really quick question. The disturbance in the field that pushes two electrons apart, is
that a classical electro-magnetic field? So you have one quantum electro-magnetic field;
and, where there are disturbances in that field, you have classical electro-magnetic fields
– of the sort created by say a charged object or a magnet.
I think sometimes virtual particles are taken too serously, as if they “really exist”. The
idea of virtual particles is advocated strongly and many people (especially laymen) think
they are therefore “real” or at least have “real observable effects”. But the fact is they
appear only when we do calculations using perturbation theory. In this sense I would say
that they are due to the perturbative approach and are nothing more than a mathematical
tool, which brings intuition and helps to visualize (through Feynman diagrams) which
contributions are important.
The quantum fields are the fundamental objects and if we could perform all calculations
without perturbation theory, there would be no virtual particles. The properties we
calculate using perturbation theory and virtual particles are not due to virtual particles;
we simply use this approximate method to calculate these effects of the fields.
There are also cases where perturbative approaches do not work (thus virtual particles
stop existing?). Further, as is pointed out, for example, in this paper*, virtual particles can
also be utilized in classical physics. Yet, not many physicists say that classical
phenomena occur due to virtual particles.
* http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163
o Matt Strassler | August 7, 2013 at 9:42 AM | Reply
Hi Professor Strassler,
I read through the article and the comments. But I’m not very good at science so I’m not
entirely sure if I understand the explanation. I was wondering if you would be willing to
tell me if I got it right per below:
Some experiments showed that when two electrons pass by each other in a vacuum, they
are repelled as we would expect (negative charge + negative charge = repulsion). But at
that moment, when the electromagnetic fields of the two electrons interact, they create a
disturbance. This disturbace is short-lived and has a variety of properties such as mass,
momentum, energy, etc. The disturbance could be loosely described as a “shadow” of an
electron. This is called a “virtual particle”.
Likewise, in a similar manner, when a positron and an electron pass each other, their
positive and negative fields interact and create a disturbance. This disturbance is called a
virtual photon. But like the virtual particle, it’s not an actual, “real” particle (like an
electron).
In other words, the virtual particle really is a popularized term that describes all manners
of these disturbances between real particles. There are various ways to calculate the
disturbances and one popular method is called the Feynman Diagram. The lines in the
diagram are called “virtual particles”. In other words, the disturbances exist but
technically speaking, virtual particles only exist in a Feynman diagram. We can’t even
call the disturbances “virtual particles” because depending on the method of the
calculation, the term “virtual particle” might not even be a part of the language used in
the particular method. Technically speaking, the term “virtual particle” is a convience, a
way of describing one part of a mathematical diagram.
Mathematically speaking, it can be shown that with enough energy, the disturbance (or
“virtual particle”) can actually result in a real particle. So instead of a disturbance/shadow
of a real particle, a real particle can actually be formed from the disturbance.
Also, particles such as electrons are really just long-term, stable disturbances in certain
fields. For example, an electron isn’t a little ball found in textbooks – it’s a disturbance in
an electron field. The disturbance in the electron field is called an electron.
You’re pretty close on most things… a few little details are wrong, but your
general impressions are in pretty good shape.
2) Yes, perhaps. It’s actually much more subtle than you suggest — but the
suggestion that the universe emerges as a disturbance in space-time itself has
certainly been made.
oopsies | September 13, 2013 at 1:32 AM | Reply
Thanks for the reply! I was wondering if you could correct/point out
where I got it wrong. I probably won’t understand it all if it’s too technical
but I’d love to have a starting point to learn.
I don’t think I see any articles on quantum field theory in your collection. I
was wondering if you might be able to write one? Or maybe provide a
dumb-down version of it?
What would you say is the most common thought on how the universe
emerged among scientists like yourself?
Thank you for the post and responses to the many good questions of your readers. I have
learned a lot from both. Please keep up this effort and get your book published soon so
we can all read it.
121. Pingback: Del átomo al Higgs IV: La electrodinámica cuántica y los primeros
ejemplo de la teoría cuántica de campos | Una vista circular
The babak azizzadeh md reviews doctor denies one count of first and second-degree
murder as well as schedule interviews of the patients.
Hello,
Great explanation. It greatly helped by just stating that one should just forget the term
“particle” when talking about virtual particles.
125. Pingback: Science Sunday with John Duffield: Quantum Gravity | Bogpaper.com
As I wrote in my previous post: it helped me a lot by getting rid of the idea that a virtual
particle is a kind of real particle. Maybe too many textbooks suggest that a virtual particle
is a kind of very short lived “real” particle which just can’t be observed because it
disappears very very fast. But still is real.
Right now I am reading “Deep Down Things. The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle
Physics” by Bruce A. Schumm (I would recommend this book). It’s maybe trivial, but
just realizing that W bosons (mediators of the weak force) are neither called leptons or
are made up of quarks shows that W bosons are not real matter. Right?
I am still confused why a mass can be determined for W bosons. How does this fit in
your explanation above? I also wonder how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle fits in
your explanation.
Best wishes,
Richard
The Netherlands
I think we need to re-evaluate what we mean by “real” and “virtual”. Every physical
phenomenon is “real” in the sense that it can be observed (whether indirectly or directly).
I’m not implying any assumptions on anybody’s understanding (surely, my own is quite
lacking), but giving up preconceived notions of what “real matter” is (as opposed to
unreal matter?) is indispensable in coming to grips with modern physics — no need to get
metaphysical either. Of course, there are some deep metaphysical questions which are
highly relevant to human interests into what IS “reality”. Virtual particles are some kind
of fluctuation in a field, so are real particles… they are just two different kinds of
fluctuations. That’s it, right? The pictures above where the electrons are the particles and
“interact” by “exchanging virtual particles” is misleading as well (it’s a model, after all)
because the electron is also simply a special type of disturbance in the electron field. The
real particles are not even “real”, in the sense that they are not actually “solid globs of
stuff”. The field IS the underlying “real stuff” — similar to the collection of water
molecules being the real stuff and ice cubes aren’t really “real things” in the sense that
they are just collections of water molecules. The water molecules are the actual real
things. The ice cubes are just a particular arrangement of water molecules.
Hi Professor,
I’m interested what your views are on the apparent evidence for the dynamical casimir
effect shown by this paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/abs/nature10561.html
Gary
130. Pingback: Quantum Foam, Virtual Particles and Other Curiosities - The Nature of
Reality
It all has to do with the interaction of one field with another (or even with itself, in
some cases.)
To answer these questions actually requires solving the equations that describe the
interaction between the electron field and the electromagnetic (i.e. photon) field.
It’s similar to solving the equations for the electric field due a charged particle in
ordinary first-year physics, but including quantum mechanical effects and the fact
that the charged particle is itself a ripple in its own field.
But anyway, at this point you actually have to solve equations… not so difficult
ones, but too advanced for this website.
Suppose you try to make a distinction between the realm of concepts and the realm of
objects, so that with virtual particles it is all in the realm of concepts, and we humans are
still in need of locating the objects to which they the virtual particles correspond to in the
realm of objective reality.
Or it is all impossible because of the complexity of the issue whatever, and without a
complex and complicated mind, it is impossible from your part to explain to them folks
with no such complex and complicated mind.
Marius de Jess
Hey this is somewhat of off topic but I was wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or
if
you have to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding
experience so I wanted to get advice
from someone with experience. Any help would be enormously appreciated!
For those of you who have made your necessary checks and would like to get the app, it
can be acquired at this Download Link for $4. Full nutritional and allergy information on
chili and all other Wendys menu items can be found at.
136. j kev | March 28, 2014 at 10:06 AM | Reply
Dr. Strassler,
Perhaps you can clarify for me a point (about black hole “evaporation”) that I can’t seem
to get straight. I don’t understand the “energy arithmetic” involved. Here’s my
puzzlement.
If a virtual pair is created just outside the event horizon, and one of the pair goes in and
the other out, it looks to a distant observer that a particle has been emitted. Fine. But the
other one has gone in and *added* its mass (or energy, same thing) to that of the black
hole. How does the net mass/energy of the black hole decrease?
And if one would argue that the entering particle is an antiparticle half the time (fair
enough) and would annihilate with an existing particle inside, that only eliminates the
mass, not the net energy inside. And even if one says that the virtual particle pair is
created slightly inside the event horizon and one of ’em tunnels out, that’s fine, too; but
still: how would this decrease the mass or energy of the black hole?
It is interesting to me that if radiation from a black hole *is* due to virtual particle
creation near the event horizon, then the rate of evaporation would seem (to me) to be
proportional to the surface area of the event horizon, which is proportional to the square
of its radius, which in turn is proportional to its mass. So larger holes oughta evaporate
faster (which apparently *isn’t* true) unless the severe bending of spacetime in this
neighborhood affects these admittedly Euclidean calculations.
sir, i am not a physicist so i want to ask you that many books say that the so called virtual
particles have more energy than that of its initial condition so they don’t conserve energy
will you please clarify that they don’t conserve energy thanks
Hello prof s.
can you weave your magic to explain gravitons, mass, gravity, and how gravity works at
huge distances – ripples in the gravity field?
electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two disturbances, one **in in**
the electron field and one in the electromagnetic field.
141. Boucle d'Or et les sept ours nains | May 4, 2014 at 6:39 AM | Reply
This text is worth everyone’s attention. Wherre can I find out more?
I hopee the testimonial weight loss group names youu have just a
few hundred dollrs too free. Hypnosjs iss onee way to reduce their body size.
Nutritional deficiencies after the surgery to ensure that
you expand your current workload. If you are looking pro a splendid
quick consequence loss ways with thhe intention of losing weight method.
While a recent weight loss group names study, supplementing a
healthy diet.
143. Bob Zannelli | May 8, 2014 at 10:46 AM | Reply
In my seldom humble opinion, it makes no sense to talk of real particles as real and
virtual particles as a mistaken terminology. The reason I say this is because all we can
ever have in physics are models that are hopefully predictive. The idea is of a particle
itself is a model dependent concept based on our classically wired brains. So in my
opinion, virtual particles are as real , or as unreal , as so called “real” particles. I think as
models go , virtual particles are a very useful and visual way to model things in
QFT.That’s why this terminology has persisted despite the criticisms of more purist
thinkers.
Dear Matt,
excellent article. Maybe it is a rather technical question but I try: what is your idea on
what is often called “pomeron” ?
Is it a very peculiar disturbance of the gluon field?
Thanks.
Hello, Neat post. There’s a problem along with your web site in web explorer,
may check this? IE still is the marketplace leader and a big part of other
people will omit your excellent writing due to this problem.
This web site really has all of the info I needed about this subject and didn’t know who to
ask.
I believe the hypothesis that the virtual particles might be responsible for the missing
gravitation called dark matter won’t work. My rationale is that one would expect the
gravitational force due to virtual particles to be nearly uniformly distributed
(homogeneous) whereas the few calculations that have been made of dark matter
distribution are not consistent with this.
151. Thinking Strategies for Science, Grades 5-12 download pdf | June 11,
2014 at 10:35 AM | Reply
This paragraph will assist the internet viewers for creating new web
site or even a blog from start to end.
152. Babies with Down Syndrome: A New Parents' Guide pdf | June 13, 2014 at
3:26 AM | Reply
153. The Winter's Tale: Third Series (Arden Shakespeare) download mobi |
June 13, 2014 at 3:28 AM | Reply
Hi everyone, it’s my first go to see at this site, and article is genuinely fruitful designed
for me,
keep up posting these types of content.
Excellent lay person explanations…now if someone can explain imaginary time to me the
same way
If you are going for best contents like myself, just visit
this web site all the time since it offers quality contents, thanks
158. how to stop acne scars | June 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM | Reply
161. Valpak V38185 Pentair Ultra-Flow Basket, Heavy Duty Best Quality |
August 1, 2014 at 6:13 PM | Reply
Whenever I take a look at your site in Safari, it looks fine however, if opening in Internet
Explorer, it’s got some overlapping issues.
162. Pingback: Nanadownload – Funny cute pictures – Daily funny pictures Dear
NASA: Fuel-Free Rocket Thruster Is Literally Too Good to Be True -
Link exchange is nothing else but it is only placing the other person’s webpage link on
your page at proper place and other
person will also do same for you.
Dear Dr.Strassler,
In the beginning of this article, you use the swing to explain what is “ripple” and what is
“disturbance”. The paragraphs around Fig.3 & Fig.4 said that the statement “a particle
like an electron is a ripple purely in the electron field” is an APPROXIMATE statement.
And the next paragraph you said “The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron
particle, and the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle.”
Then my confusion emerged. Before I read the statement “Even to say a particle like an
electron is a ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate statement”, I thought as
you said that a so-called particle is a ripple in its field and that a so-called virtual particle
is a disturbance in its field whatever the field was caused by other particle. So that I
confused a statement “The disturbance in the electron field is not an electron particle, and
the disturbance in the photon field is not a photon particle”. In that sentence, you said
“disturbance” first and then “electron particle”. I knew what you actually mean but
confuse the usage of the words. So the correct statement is “The RIPPLE in the electron
field is not an electron particle, and the RIPPLE in the photon field is not a photon
particle”?
On the other hand, after I read the black statement under Fig.3 and the so far correct
interpretation: “The electron can turn into a virtual photon and a virtual electron, which
then turn back into a real electron” beside the Fig.4, does the meaning of ripple remains
meaningful? Due to the truth explanation of the electron is the black statement you wrote,
we do NOT have to use the word RIPPLE anymore just because it is only the
approximation concept? If it would right, then we can get rid of the concept of the ripple?
And then said: “the virtual particle is the disturbance of its field, and the real particle is
not the ripple of its field but the combination of several, maybe 2, disturbances of their
belonging fields”?
On the other hand, in the article “Particles Are Quanta”, the paragraph under Fig.6 say ”
Electrons are quanta in the electron field”. Is that exactly right? Or “Electron is the
combination of a virtual quanta(electron) in the electron field and a virtual
quanta(photon) in the electromagnetic field”?
Doesn’t the distinction between “real” and “virtual” depend on a fixed background
(which of course QFT has, so I’m not disputing anything you say in the article)? It seems
to me that, if we were to generalize this to some kind of theory of quantum gravity, you’d
need to know which intervals were timelike vs. spacelike to tell virtual particles from real
particles, which information isn’t prior to the dynamics.
I’m an amateur, so I assume some part of what I just said is (at best) wrong. Care to
comment, Matt?
167. Tangela | August 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM | Reply
Now i’m very happy that I stumbled across this during my search for something
regarding this.
169. how to unlock samsung galaxy s4 | August 28, 2014 at 7:22 AM | Reply
170. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markjkohler/2014/03/18/the-moving-target-
of-social-media-and-your-business-in-2014 | August 28, 2014 at 8:58 PM | Reply
I am in fact grateful to the holder of this site who has shared this enormous article at here.
I’m now not positive where you’re getting your information, however great topic.
I needs to spend a while finding out much more or understanding
more. Thanks for great information I used to be looking for this information for my
mission.
172. jacked ripped muscle extreme supplement | August 29, 2014 at 7:55 PM |
Reply
Excellent beat ! I wish to apprentice even as you amend your site, how can i subscribe for
a blog site?
The account helped me a applicable deal. I were tiny bit acquainted of this
your broadcast provided shiny transparent idea
Quality posts is the main to be a focus for the people to pay a visit the site,
that’s what this website is providing.
certainly like your web site however you have to check the spelling
on several of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling issues and I
in finding it very troublesome to tell the truth nevertheless I’ll definitely come again
again.
I’m trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog.
Any responses would be greatly appreciated.
180. hoodies shirts for women | September 13, 2014 at 2:39 PM | Reply
Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article.
I’ll be sure to bookjark it and come back to read morfe of your usseful information.
Thanks for the post.
I’ll certainly return.
182. best male enhancement pills | September 17, 2014 at 7:40 PM | Reply
Lots of excellent writing here. I wish I saw it found the
website sooner. Congrats!
183. jokowi dan basuki - what makes you beautiful by one direction parody |
September 18, 2014 at 8:42 PM | Reply
I know this site gives quality based articles and other stuff,
is there any other website which provides such things in quality?
185. pool party ideas for kids | September 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM | Reply
You can purchase this small paperback book used for approximately $2.
These costs don’t even factor in the purchase of a first car for
a child, a cost many parents assume or help with when the child turns 16.
Use extra care when passing in bad weather, at night, or under any other unfavorable
conditions, because it is difficult to judge speed and distance.
187. Canon digital camera usage | September 23, 2014 at 7:37 AM | Reply
Your means of telling all in tthis article iss in fact nice, all
be able too easily bee aware of it, Thanks a lot.
189. retro jordans for sale cheap | September 24, 2014 at 12:32 AM | Reply
The next time I read a blog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I
mean, I know it was my choice to read, but I essentially thought youd have something
fascinating to say. All I hear can be a bunch of whining about something that you could
fix should you werent too busy searching for attention.
retro jordans for sale cheap http://biltfonts.com/images/sys.asp?key=retro-jordans-for-
sale-cheap-69
Just desire to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is simply nice
and i could assume you’re an expert on this subject.
Well with your permission let me to grab your RSS feed to keep
up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the enjoyable
work.
Although not all schools in these recent days to continue with a slight decline
in membership, you definitely know it by impeaching & removing a President
who usurps power: Federalist Paper No. Your first day there.
99 percent of it can make an initial Purchase or Balance Transfer.
It has great passion and a community BBQ.
Hasselbeck, who is also a tool for checking any prime number up
to the city and has a wood burning fireplace
and as a national hero with his physical status, both of the NFL.
194. %spinfile-M:\Dropbox\MadHatVPS\Content
Foundry\user\gsaser\content\Twitter Slideshare | September 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM |
Reply
First you WILL have a dry mouth so this helps keep your voice strong.
Because of these, it’s easy enough to find a full-service provider, able to providefast local
service when you need any type of craftsman to work in. Moreover, looking for gforce-
electric a reliable electrician to do the job right.
I know this web site provides quality dependent posts and additional stuff,
is there any other web page which presents such stuff in quality?
196. google plus age limit | September 27, 2014 at 5:41 AM | Reply
When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added”
checkbox and now each time a comment
is added I get several e-mails with the same comment.
Is there any way you can remove me from that service?
Thanks a lot!
Hello!
Will everyone hold the exact same issues as i complete?
I cannot seem to any longer please the partner inside master bedroom.
Soon after getting 3 young children We’ve shed this baby-belly
fat nevertheless I cannot manage to re-tighten my personal vagina.
I can continuously do other activities to make your pet satisfied within the master
bedroom due to the fact genital making love no longer excites your pet.
Help! I’ve began looking at goods and ways to resolve this kind of, may everyone
advocate a fantastic one particular?
Thank you!
I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest but your sites really nice, keep it up!
I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back in the future.
All the best
Good way of explaining, and fastidious paragraph to obtain information on the topic of
my presentation topic,
which i am going to convey in university.
201. magic flight power adapter problems | October 2, 2014 at 2:08 AM |
Reply
202. tap campus life cheats without survey | October 3, 2014 at 2:48 AM |
Reply
Your style is so unique compared too other folks I’ve read stuff from.
Many thanks for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess
I’ll just bookmark this blog.
how do you resist those strong temptations to eat wrong foods and hurt your health and
your
light level. In principle you should always only buy the least processed rice.
Cool the baking sheet for 5 minutes before adding more cookies to it.
Analysis authors stressed the significance of continuing surveillance of HSV-1 and HSV-
2 to screen the
changing characteristics of the infections and urged
public doctors to generate more prevention approaches and vaccines against
herpes infections. Yes, we want one to drive home in a fresh Holden, HSV , or perhaps a
used motor vehicle of
any come up with, but as your premier Hillcrest, QLD Holden dealership
near Brisbane, we don’t would like that
to function as last we observe of you.
One of the problems with bodyweight training programs is that your weight can
sometimes be too heavy or too light.
Now, I was working behind a desk as an accountant most of the day and I had become
sedentary.
The supplements, natural healthcare and wellbeing company has recently released Vital –
VMH: a one
per day multivitamin, multimineral and multiherbal
formulation with natural extracts for mens and womens general health and wellbeing.
I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the layout of your website?
Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.
But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people
could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two
pictures.
Maybe you could space it out better?
It’s amazing to go to see this web site and reading the views of all colleagues on the topic
of
this post, while I am also eager of getting knowledge.
I had a quick question which I’d like to ask if you don’t mind.
I was interested to find out how you center yourself and clear youyr
head before writing. I have had a tough time cleaing my mind in getting my
ideas out. I truly do take pleasure in writing but it just seems like the first 10 to 15
minutes are generally lost just trying to figurde outt how
to begin. Any ideas or hints? Thanks!
Any certain?
214. Christi | October 16, 2014 at 7:01 PM | Reply
hi!,I love your writing very a lot! share we keep up a correspondence extra approximately
your post on AOL?
I require a specialist in this area to resolve my problem.
Maybe that’s you! Having a look ahead to peer you.
Hello every one i want to use this forum to thank Dr Arigbo for bringing joy into my
marriage , i have been trying to get pregnant after my miscarriage 6years ago , but to no
avail until i contacted Dr Arigbo, of Arigbo spell temple and Dr Arigbo made a cleanse
and pregnancy spell for me , thanks to Dr Arigbo am a proud mother of my baby boy and
am expecting another baby very soon , you can contact Dr Arigbo on email
(arigbospelltemple@ gmail. com) or call +2347060960158
for all your spiritual and family issues
I think it’s time to close out this thread, it’s become an attraction for a lot of crazy.
I am in fqct thankful tо thee holdeг of this site wwho has shaгеd this wonderful paragraph
ɑt aat this
time.
Step 2:- Add a firewall exception to the port 25565 (for the purpose of this tutorial)- Add
the
port 25565 to the router under applications, so that the port can be open for you to
be able to run the server – Step 3:- Run Minecraft_server.
The essence of the game is to survive by building your own environment
by utilizing the natural resources and build your
structures. Once you purchase the server,
you can install Minecraft Bukkit on it just as if it were your own computer and start
playing with your friends right away.
219. testosterone cream over the counter gnc stores | November 7, 2014 at 3:19
PM | Reply
Thank you, I have just been searching for information approximately this subject
for a long time and yours is the best I’ve found out so far.
But, what about the conclusion? Are you certain concerning the source?
Hi,
Thanks,
Satya
Thanks for the excellent article on virtuals. I was hoping for an answer to a question
regarding Casimir’s formation of a virtual particle and whether or not it relates to
Coulomb’s Barrier to Fusion. Since virtual particle formation seems to occur in Casimir
force, are ‘virtual particle’ transitions a nuclear reaction – albeit a very small one.
Dr. Strassler,
I have two quick follow-up questions to this post:
1) Are these “virtual particles” quantized? That is – Is the integral over space of the
amplitude of these “disturbances” quantized in the same way that it is for a “natural” or
“stable” particle oscillation is (i.e. “real” photons are quantized – are “virtual” photons?)
2) How does this rough, non-“natural” ripple that you describe as being the virtual photon
differ from a simple fourier decomposition of a “real” photon field which happens to span
a very broad frequency domain in a rather messy way? (to create the impulsive Green’s-
type function)
Look up the effect of vacuum polarization in high voltage. The virtual electron/positron
pairs become “real”. Also if you go way back to the 30’s check out the Dirac Sea
conceptualization that P.A.M. Dirac used to postulate the existence of anti-matter.
Hello Matt,
I studied chemistry at university (a long time ago) and virtual particles were not
mentioned.
Could you briefly tell me if they are relevant to chemical bonding theory and, if so, how?
Cheers,
Robert
if two electrons pass near each other, as in Figure 1, they will, because of their electric
charge, disturb the electromagnetic field, sometimes called the photon field because its
ripples are photons. That disturbance, sketched whimsically in green in the figure, is not a
photon. buy amazon reviews
Hey Great explanations for any layman or a non professional science lover. Hope you
will add more info on other topics too
230. orbitalmomentum | February 10, 2015 at 1:12 PM | Reply
Dr. Strassler; What is the SOURCE of the W “particle”…from whence does it arise?
Thx;
Gary
Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a child’s swing. If you
give it a shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always
the same, no matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion
of the swing. Now compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what
would happen if you started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back
and forth swings. forskolin natural weightloss product
Hey, I liked your article. I’m in 11th grade, so basically I know nothing about sub-atomic
particles and my knowledge of Physics and Math is negligible (but present). My
questions to you are kinda dumb, but I wanted to know – Are gluons solely virtual? And
virtual photon don’t constitute light – so what do they do? And what are virtual
electrons? And all this makes me wonder – are actual electrons waves or particles? And
what are they composed of?
The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word
“particle” in the term.Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus singapore
accounting software
Leave a Reply
RSS - Posts
My Facebook Page
o http://www.facebook.com/ProfMattStrassler
Follow me on Twitter
o As the #BigBang confusion continues, probably worth digging out this article
about what the theory *actually* says profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did…
1 month ago