Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Virtual particles

keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 8:50:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
You have to be careful with the terms. Virtual particles mediate the interaction between 'real' particles - two electrons repel each other (and an electron and a positron attract each other) via 'virtual photons'. ( ie Virtual particles are disturbances in the electrincal field produced by the electron/positron.)

That can get confused with 'vacuum energy'. It is a fact that in our universe the vacuum contains non-zero energy. Due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that vacuum energy gets tranformed into short-lived particle/anti-particle pairs (by e=mc**2). In that case the particle and anti-particle produced are completely real, albeit they don't usually 'live' very long before they turn back into energy or into a different particle/anti-particle pair.

That is to say 'virtual particles' and vacuum derived particle/anti-particle pairs are not at all the same thing. So to answer the OP, the particles that pop into existence out of the vacuum are always a real particle and a real anti-particle pair and 'virtual particles' don't come into it.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 8:50:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Those virtual particles are real particles. Just because they pop in and out of existence doesn't make them less real.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
janesix
Posts: 3,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 8:52:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 8:50:31 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Those virtual particles are real particles. Just because they pop in and out of existence doesn't make them less real.

Are they able to be detected in the lab? Is that how you know they are real?
janesix
Posts: 3,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 8:53:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 8:50:10 PM, keithprosser wrote:
You have to be careful with the terms. Virtual particles mediate the interaction between 'real' particles - two electrons repel each other (and an electron and a positron attract each other) via 'virtual photons'. ( ie Virtual particles are disturbances in the electrincal field produced by the electron/positron.)

That can get confused with 'vacuum energy'. It is a fact that in our universe the vacuum contains non-zero energy. Due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that vacuum energy gets tranformed into short-lived particle/anti-particle pairs (by e=mc**2). In that case the particle and anti-particle produced are completely real, albeit they don't usually 'live' very long before they turn back into energy or into a different particle/anti-particle pair.

That is to say 'virtual particles' and vacuum derived particle/anti-particle pairs are not at all the same thing. So to answer the OP, the particles that pop into existence out of the vacuum are always a real particle and a real anti-particle pair and 'virtual particles' don't come into it.

Is this just a theory, or are they really detected?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 9:17:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Er... which?
At this level its all theory and interpreting indirect evidence. There is actually a huge problem with the theory of vaccuum energy. The measured value and the theoretical value are out by a factor of about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

I don't know of any laboratory demontration of vacuum energy producing particle/anti-particle pairs but its not my field.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 1:06:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Evidence for virtual particle creation can be found in the Casimir Effect.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 7:30:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 8:50:31 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Those virtual particles are real particles. Just because they pop in and out of existence doesn't make them less real.

Virtual particles are real somethings, but they are not real particles!

Consider an electron interacting with another electron. Both electrons generate an electric field, which in the absence of the other electron could be described by a simple formula (simple if you are physics graduate that is!). But those simple, smooth fields interact with each other when they get close together and the form of the formula describing the fields changes. The change to the formula describing the peturbed fields is identical to the effect of introducing a photon into the picture.

So what is real is an induced mutual distortion of the electrical field of each electron due to the presence of the other electron. The originally smooth fields develop a 'ripple'. That ripple is mathematically equivalent to introducing a photon into the equations, but there is no physical photon - essentially it's a mathematic trick for dealing with the field distortion.

To summarise, virtual 'particles' are ripples in the fields surrounding interacting particles. The ripples are real things, but they are not particles and it is maybe unfortunate that the term 'virtual particle' was ever applied to them. 'Real field distortions' would be an alternative, possibly less misleading term.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 7:36:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Post script - people confuse 'virtual particles' with the ephemeral particle/anti-particle pairs that arise due to vacuum energy. They are separate concepts, not synonyms.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 11:04:42 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Actually, it would be fair to say that"s how all "real particles" are "created".

Recognize that the word "particle" and the phrase "pop into existence" are quantum principles being expressed in classical terms, the classical description is only a metaphor for what is theoretically occurring used to express quantum theory in an understandable manner. In quantum physics a localized perturbation in a quantum energy field is referred to as a "particle" which is a classical term used for understanding, and the difference between "virtual" and "real" (or "ordinary") is simply a matter of how long the "particle" exists after "popping into existence".

It can be said that all "real" or "ordinary" particles began as "virtual" particles that popped into existence and then didn't pop out of existence quickly enough to be designated "virtual". Theoretically, it doesn't matter whether it was during the first 300,000 years of the big bang when baryonic asymmetry occurred for some unknown reason and left us with ordinary matter, or in the practically infinite number of quantum interactions that occur every moment today, every ordinary particle "popped into existence" as a "virtual particle" at some point in time. Even when an electron changes shells due to a change in the energy of the atom, it moves from place to place without traveling the distance in between, so it can be said to have popped out of existence in one shell, and into existence in another shell, the fact that it is an ordinary particle is simply a matter of how long it continues to exist after popping into existence.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 6:21:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
and the difference between "virtual" and "real" (or "ordinary") is simply a matter of how long the "particle" exists after "popping into existence".

I've tried to explain how that is a common misconception. Virtual 'particles' mediate the interactions between (real) particles. They aren't particles at all - they are ripples or knots in the fields associated with charged particles (an electric fied in the case of electrons etc). In the mathematical formalism used to calculate particle interactions those rippled or knots resemble the introduction of a photon into the system, but there is no actual photon involved - it is a mathematical convenience or trick. For calculations purposes it is 'as if' there was a photon there, hence a 'virtual photon'.

That doesn't mean there is nothing physical involved. But the physical object is this ripple or knot in the electric field I was talking about. A virtual photon is not a photon at all - it is a distortion in the electric field of an electron (or other interacting particle).
It is that fied distortin that give rise to the Casmir effect.

Ephemeral particle/anti-particle pairs 'pop into and out of existence' as a consequence of the non-zero energy of the vacuum. That energy gets converted to a real partcle and real anti-particle pair by the virtue of e=mc**2. That is a completely seperate concept from 'virtual particles'.

Some how the two ideas are confused in most people's mind, but they really aren't the same thing at all.

I won't tell you people again! :(
janesix
Posts: 3,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 6:43:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 6:21:10 PM, keithprosser wrote:
and the difference between "virtual" and "real" (or "ordinary") is simply a matter of how long the "particle" exists after "popping into existence".

I've tried to explain how that is a common misconception. Virtual 'particles' mediate the interactions between (real) particles. They aren't particles at all - they are ripples or knots in the fields associated with charged particles (an electric fied in the case of electrons etc). In the mathematical formalism used to calculate particle interactions those rippled or knots resemble the introduction of a photon into the system, but there is no actual photon involved - it is a mathematical convenience or trick. For calculations purposes it is 'as if' there was a photon there, hence a 'virtual photon'.

That doesn't mean there is nothing physical involved. But the physical object is this ripple or knot in the electric field I was talking about. A virtual photon is not a photon at all - it is a distortion in the electric field of an electron (or other interacting particle).
It is that fied distortin that give rise to the Casmir effect.

Ephemeral particle/anti-particle pairs 'pop into and out of existence' as a consequence of the non-zero energy of the vacuum. That energy gets converted to a real partcle and real anti-particle pair by the virtue of e=mc**2. That is a completely seperate concept from 'virtual particles'.

Do they always anhilate each other? Have these particle pairs been detected? does it violate energy/mass conservation laws? Does this mean new matter/energy is continuously being created?

Some how the two ideas are confused in most people's mind, but they really aren't the same thing at all.

I won't tell you people again! :(
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 7:19:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I take it you mean particle/anti-particle pairs.

As I said in an earlier post, I can't find any reference to a laboratary demonstration of particle/anti-particle pair production, but that probably means I don't know where to look rather than such a demonstration doesn't exist! However I do know the value of vacuum energy has been measured in the lab, and that is is wildly different from the figure theory predicts - by the fact to 10**40 or more I mentioned earlier - so thre is a lot more work to be done yet.

As to whether particle/anti-particle pairs always annihilate: possibly not. Hawking radition is often explained a being due to the enormous gravity of a black hole causing one half of the pair to be absorbed into the BH and the other half escaping it, and if the unverse did indeed originate in a 'fluctuation of the vacuum' then while most anti-matter and matter annihilated, there was clearly some matter left over because we are here! But I don't care to speculate on the the origin of the universe because we are clearly currently missing part of the jigsaw and it is impossible to make sense of it with only what we we know today.

I'm sure anyone with a physics degree could tell you more - don't we have one here?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 7:53:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 8:50:31 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Those virtual particles are real particles. Just because they pop in and out of existence doesn't make them less real.

They are not actually particles at all, so lets get all silly and start saying we can create something out of nothing please.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:58:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 7:53:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/28/2016 8:50:31 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Those virtual particles are real particles. Just because they pop in and out of existence doesn't make them less real.

They are not actually particles at all, so lets get all silly and start saying we can create something out of nothing please.

To understand reality we have to be silly. We have to accept electrons can be in more than one place at a time, cats can be both alive and dead, time slows down when you go fast and a load of other impossible things.

From that well known physics text book, Alice in Wonderland:

Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'
Annnaxim
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:02:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 8:52:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/28/2016 8:50:31 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Those virtual particles are real particles. Just because they pop in and out of existence doesn't make them less real.

Are they able to be detected in the lab? Is that how you know they are real?
I am no expert, however there are experts who claim, that virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, don't actually exist. They refer to the (complicated) maths of quantum field theory, to prove their point.

They say that things like the Casimir Experiments or the Lamb shift don't prove the existence of particles "popping in and out of existence". They further claim, that quantum fields are the (only) correct explanation of these experiments.

At this point, I admit I get very confused about what really happens at the quantum level. Are particles really "popping in and out of existence" or are they simply a popular explanation to avoid the complicated maths of QFT?
In other words, are particles just-so stories for the public at large?
Or are particles truly an alternative explanation as to what actually happens?
(After all people like Stephen Hawking uses the term quite frequently.)

Can anyone clarify my confusion?
Annnaxim
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:06:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 7:53:58 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

They are not actually particles at all, so lets get all silly and start saying we can create something out of nothing please.
That is exaclty the question we are trying to find answers to.
If the vacuum is not seething wit particles, where did the universe come from?

[Maybe we need some "new" physics to explain our existence?]
Liveone
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:38:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created? : :

There's no such thing as a real particle in God's creation. It's only His invisible thoughts that are converted into waves that give the illusion of particles when those waves are processed into big beautiful illusions that we perceive with our sense of sight.

Think of those tiny particles like pixels in a computer generated movie. Those tiny pixels are the lowest form of visual light that God taught His characters to build within his simulation program where very tiny particles are the lowest form of light in God's resolution of each big visible object we perceive.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:54:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:02:56 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/28/2016 8:52:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/28/2016 8:50:31 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Those virtual particles are real particles. Just because they pop in and out of existence doesn't make them less real.

Are they able to be detected in the lab? Is that how you know they are real?
I am no expert, however there are experts who claim, that virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, don't actually exist. They refer to the (complicated) maths of quantum field theory, to prove their point.

They say that things like the Casimir Experiments or the Lamb shift don't prove the existence of particles "popping in and out of existence". They further claim, that quantum fields are the (only) correct explanation of these experiments.

At this point, I admit I get very confused about what really happens at the quantum level. Are particles really "popping in and out of existence" or are they simply a popular explanation to avoid the complicated maths of QFT?
In other words, are particles just-so stories for the public at large?
Or are particles truly an alternative explanation as to what actually happens?
(After all people like Stephen Hawking uses the term quite frequently.)

Can anyone clarify my confusion?

Try this, like Keith he tries to explain this in layman's terms:

https://profmattstrassler.com...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:59:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 6:21:10 PM, keithprosser wrote:
and the difference between "virtual" and "real" (or "ordinary") is simply a matter of how long the "particle" exists after "popping into existence".

I've tried to explain how that is a common misconception. Virtual 'particles' mediate the interactions between (real) particles. They aren't particles at all - they are ripples or knots in the fields associated with charged particles (an electric fied in the case of electrons etc).

Are you saying that "the word "particle" is a "quantum principle" being expressed in classical terms" and that "a localized perturbation in a quantum energy field is referred to as a "particle""? Really?

In the mathematical formalism used to calculate particle interactions those rippled or knots resemble the introduction of a photon into the system, but there is no actual photon involved - it is a mathematical convenience or trick. For calculations purposes it is 'as if' there was a photon there, hence a 'virtual photon'.

You mean "the classical description is only a metaphor for what is theoretically occurring" that are "used to express quantum theory in an understandable manner"? Interesting.

That doesn't mean there is nothing physical involved. But the physical object is this ripple or knot in the electric field I was talking about.

You mean that physically, what we refer to as a particle, is actually "a localized perturbation in a quantum energy field", and that "the classical description is only a metaphor for what is theoretically occurring"? No kidding?

You do realize that so far, you are disagreeing with me by restating exactly what I said, right?

A virtual photon is not a photon at all - it is a distortion in the electric field of an electron (or other interacting particle).

A virtual photon is a distortion in the electromagnetic field, as opposed to an ordinary photon, which is a distortion in the electromagnetic field. The difference is that one distortion last longer than the other one.

It is that fied distortin that give rise to the Casmir effect.

The mathematical (and conceptual) framework for the Standard Model is Quantum Field Theory, that is the framework of particle physics, and the Standard Model representation of the Casmir effect is that it results from the presence of virtual particles, and those virtual particles are quantized manifestations of the field distortions you are referring to.

Ephemeral particle/anti-particle pairs 'pop into and out of existence' as a consequence of the non-zero energy of the vacuum.

Yeah, I know, and the non-zero energy of the vacuum manifests particle/antiparticle pairs that are defined as virtual particles.

That energy gets converted to a real partcle and real anti-particle pair by the virtue of e=mc**2. That is a completely seperate concept from 'virtual particles'.

No it isn't, the vacuum energy particle pairs you are referring to are considered to be virtual particles.

Some how the two ideas are confused in most people's mind, but they really aren't the same thing at all.

I'm not the least bit confused and I know perfectly well that the virtual particles that manifest spontaneously in the quantum vacuum are different than the virtual particles that transfer energy in a particle interaction, but I also know that they are both instances of virtual particles

I won't tell you people again! :(

Good, considering that it's inaccurate, it's probably best that you don't repeat it :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 4:26:42 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:59:44 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/29/2016 6:21:10 PM, keithprosser wrote:
and the difference between "virtual" and "real" (or "ordinary") is simply a matter of how long the "particle" exists after "popping into existence".

I wish I'd read your earlier post more carefully... it was very good! I am not shy of admitting to making a mistake, so oops! Contrary to what I said, it is ok to call particle/anti-particle pairs derived from vacuum energy 'virtual'. I was wrong to restrict it to the context of charged particle interaction - it turns out particle/anti-particle pairs are less real than I thought.

In mitigation I was distracted by the remark by Sidewalker I quoted above. It seemed to me to define 'virtual' and 'real' purely in term of lifetime. It is true virtual particles don't usually live long, but that isn't what makes them virtual. Rather virtual particles don't live long because they are virtual.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 4:27:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 4:26:42 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:59:44 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/29/2016 6:21:10 PM, keithprosser wrote:
and the difference between "virtual" and "real" (or "ordinary") is simply a matter of how long the "particle" exists after "popping into existence".

I wish I'd read your earlier post more carefully... it was very good! I am not shy of admitting to making a mistake, so oops! Contrary to what I said, it is ok to call particle/anti-particle pairs derived from vacuum energy 'virtual'. I was wrong to restrict it to the context of charged particle interaction - it turns out particle/anti-particle pairs are less real than I thought.

In mitigation I was distracted by the remark by Sidewalker I quoted above. It seemed to me to define 'virtual' and 'real' purely in term of lifetime. It is true virtual particles don't usually live long, but that isn't what makes them virtual. Rather virtual particles don't live long because they are virtual.

LOL, I make those distracting comments on purpose, its something of an attempt to engage people who know what they are talking about, you know, so every once in a while it can get interesting here. Granted, it was a strange thing to say, but just for grins, follow my reasoning here.

Virtual particles are typically short lived, they are usually violations of the conservation law which don"t last long enough to take on the characteristics of real particles, specifically, they are unruly and just don't obey the mass-shell relation, and since you seem to really be into Feynman diagrams, let's say the real difference is virtual particles are off shell, and real particles are on shell.

OK, so admitting that what they actually "pop out" of is the mathematics, and they do that because of the uncertainty principle, and in this case it's the time/energy relations of the uncertainty principle in a vacuum that they come from, in a kind of mathematical transubstantiation, the numbers take on substance, and become particles.

So"since the conjugate variables are time and energy, and they live for such a short period of time, they aren't around long enough to take on the energy characteristics of real particles, which is to say they don't last long enough for their energy characteristics to get precise enough to fit into the formulas such that they obey the mass shell relation, or, for a Feynman diagram freak, they don't last long enough to get on shell. Mathematically speaking, that's the real difference between virtual and real particles, and when we are talking about quantum physics, mathematically is the only way we can speak.

But, since the conjugate variables here are time and energy, and the longer a virtual particle exists, the more precise its energy characteristics become, and with that the more there is no actual temporal dividing line that tells us at what point in the virtual particle"s existence it becomes a real particle. Theoretically, virtual particles can become real particles, either by seeing them from a different frame of reference (for instance, the Unruh effect), or by physically separating them before they can annihilate (for instance, Hawking radiation). If you trace real particles back to their origin, what you find is that all of them were virtual particles born of a quantum fluctuation, the Standard Model doesn't have any other mechanism for particle creation other than virtual particles, according to theory the only reason there is any structure at all is that quantum thermal fluctuations (virtual particle creation) caused an uneven distribution of matter/energy when the early inflationary epoch occurred, and that uneven distribution of matter energy is what caused things like real particles, galaxies, stars, planets, and people to form.

So, if you unpack the mathematics, it may be strange, but it really is accurate to say that "the difference between "virtual" and "real" (or "ordinary") is simply a matter of how long the "particle" exists after "popping into existence".

In the end, we just have to recognize that Quantum Field Theory is all about mathematical approximations, there are no real dividing lines anywhere, not between virtual and real particles, not between wave and particle, not even between the observer and the observed. It's all a matter of how you look at it, from the point of view of an observer in an accelerated frame of reference, the virtual particle that we see is seen as a real particle.

The only real mistake you made here was to think logically, and I"m sorry man, but when it comes to quantum physics, that dog don"t hunt.

But don"t fret, I can help you overcome your logical thinking problem Grasshopper, in time, when you can snatch the pebble from my hand, you too can think illogically.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:07:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 4:27:57 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
But don't fret, I can help you overcome your logical thinking problem Grasshopper, in time, when you can snatch the pebble from my hand, you too can think illogically.

At my age thinking illogically gets easier and easier.

Can we tell J6 the answer to the OP is 'Yes'?
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 994
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:50:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

It requires a hell-load of energy, but yes; it's possible. In effect, this is like creating pure matter out of pure energy.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 1:59:16 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 8:50:10 PM, keithprosser wrote:
You have to be careful with the terms. Virtual particles mediate the interaction between 'real' particles - two electrons repel each other (and an electron and a positron attract each other) via 'virtual photons'. ( ie Virtual particles are disturbances in the electrincal field produced by the electron/positron.)

That can get confused with 'vacuum energy'. It is a fact that in our universe the vacuum contains non-zero energy. Due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that vacuum energy gets tranformed into short-lived particle/anti-particle pairs (by e=mc**2). In that case the particle and anti-particle produced are completely real, albeit they don't usually 'live' very long before they turn back into energy or into a different particle/anti-particle pair.

That is to say 'virtual particles' and vacuum derived particle/anti-particle pairs are not at all the same thing. So to answer the OP, the particles that pop into existence out of the vacuum are always a real particle and a real anti-particle pair and 'virtual particles' don't come into it.

The universe is made of only one particle in three states - positive, negative and neutral. There is no such thing as attraction - there is only push and fall. Attraction and pulling are just illusions because you can't see the underlying mechanisms. True vacuum is black-hole. Apparent vacuum is left and right spin particles which are not attached and are therefore, undetectable. This is due to not having mass or weight ( not having a 'no spin' (neutral) particle in the middle to create mass or weight)
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 3:33:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Are you any the wiser?
janesix
Posts: 3,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 3:37:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 3:33:46 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Are you any the wiser?

No. But i appreciate the help.

I dont think im smart enough to understand it.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 6:48:02 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 3:37:08 AM, janesix wrote:

I dont think im smart enough to understand it.

That makes you smarter than most people, J6.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 1:06:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Yes if there is a mechanism that can provide them with the energy they are missing such as a black hole in hawking radiation.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 1:08:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/28/2016 8:50:31 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/28/2016 7:38:01 PM, janesix wrote:
When virtual particles pop into existence, are real particles ever created?

Those virtual particles are real particles. Just because they pop in and out of existence doesn't make them less real.

They are only 'allowed' to exist due to uncertainty so they are very much virtual particles.