This is more of a statement than a question but I am bothered by the fact that to explain certain things, virtual particles are required. By definition these don't exist, yet they are used to explain things that do exist - a possible conundrum or maybe circular reasoning? Is anyone else bothered by this? We are dealing in the smallest of scales, but as computing power and optics and all other technologies increase, maybe we will be able to come up with some concrete answers.
Asked
Active
Viewed 69 times
2 Answers
3
Virtual particles are better regarded as a convenient way of representing terms in the infinite sums of quantum field theory than as particles. Feynman introduced his diagrams to organise the calculations but did not claim the virtual particles were "real" in any useful sense.
They are not ontological explanations for things, but often used in popular explanations since the full answer requires a lot of math most listeners are not ready for/interested in.
Anders Sandberg
- 34,657
1
Look at it this way:
It is the present day mathematical model of nature in the microcosm.
Particles are quantum mechanical entities on which quantum numbers are absolutely attached , and a four vector $(E,p_x,p_y,p_z)$. If that four vector's length is fixed, it is called the invariant mass of the particle. If the length is variable within a mathematical integration, the entity is called virtual.
If, or when, we have a complete quantum mechanical theory for the universe, it would mean that one wavefunction should describe everything, and then all particle entities would be virtual, and what we call now real would need a measure, like the heisenberg uncertainty, to decide how much off mass shell the observed particles, say the electrons, could be in order to be treated as what at present we call real.
anna v
- 236,935