This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
What sort of definition is this, I think it sounds confusing: "exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle". What is an "ordinary particle"? Also as far as I understand all subatomic particles are limited by the uncertainty principle aren't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.181.33.59 ( talk) 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I've got a question for the physicists here. I've always wondered about so-called "virtual photons." Is there REALLY any difference between real photons and virtual photons? What I mean is this: when we detect a photon with our eye or some instrument, the photon coming in excites some electrons into some higher energy states, or causes induced relaxation of some excited state, or whatever...but basically all the photon did before it "died" was move a charged particle (the electron). This is the same as what a virtual photon does! So, the only difference that I can see is that with a virtual photon, we consider that we observed a charged particle change its trajectory, whereas with a "real" photon, we claim that we observed a photon hitting our detector. But, really, they're the same thing? Comments?
Ed Sanville 04:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would just like to thank the person who wrote this: "Furthermore, in the photon's frame of reference, no time elapses between emission and absorption. This statement illustrates the difficulty of trying to distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles as mathematically they are the same objects and it is only our definition of "reality" which is weak here." Excellent quote! Itistoday 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There are two issues:
This is why nobody uses wikipedia to discuss a pathway to better definitions. Because your rules suck and your rule enforcement is both inconsistent and violently enforced. This questions is INTEGRAL to the definition, and here is another wiki overlord getting the final word - not to help, but to END clarification. Fuck wikipedia. Is there a page for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.0.9 ( talk) 01:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If Einstein lived today he'd have become an alcoholic at the ridiculous state of physics. I was the person who added the last paragraph of the introduction which called into question the foundation for the origin of virtual particles. I put it there based on my own understanding of physics, and though I didn't cite a reference I thought it was an innocuous commentary that just gave more context to the subject. After all, a virtual particle has never been observed, and by its own clever conception it cannot even exist if its observed. If that's not a catch 22 situation I guess they don't exist. I now see that the writing is "literally" on the wall that a citation is required. Well, I don't have one other than my own published writing and I refuse to cite my own writing based on a general cringing at self promotion.
So Wolfkeeper, remove that paragraph if you must and we can all chalk it up as a further example of physics moving in lockstep over the cliff. Physics has now become so absurd that as long as you cite an important person as ignorant as oneself you can pontificate on anything, including multiverses which by definition, being separate universes, have no causality with our own. What a sad situation where a science beloved by many of us has been taken over by accountants without the slightest shred of common sense or genuine intuition. 75.7.4.16 09:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Virtual particles – logical fallacy
I notice there is no citation for the initial summary or for virtual particles at all.
One citation (raymond) is already dead. I hope that wasn’t the one this article depended upon. The powerpoint has no direct or source references. The Gilman cite has no direct or source references. The references on phonons and photon are not about particles with mass.
This means the article has zero direct or source references to its definition.
Yet somehow this wiki article has wrongly reversed the Burden Of Proof to the skeptic.
That’s a logical fallacy called Burden Of Proof reversal. http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Master_list_of_logical_fallacies#Burden_Of_Proof
The proper burden of proof is on the proposer – not the skeptic.
I agree with whoever “added the last paragraph of the introduction which called into question the foundation for the origin of virtual particles.”
I think that until a direct or source reference to virtual particles can be found – that introduction should be revived (though I’ve never read it and can’t find it in history -- Dec 2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.237.245 ( talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Six years later and this stuff still finds people squabbling. I still think we can call virtual particles 'virtual' by a basic Webster's definition of the concept. The point being we don't have a direct word for an imaginary complex abstract vector or a group of them in non-conjugated or translated, rotated (whatever) form. Will we ever finish the Pauli exclusion principle and its unobservables.
I'd prefer to use virtual. Of course I feel it's absolutely required that laymen even have a basic concept of the formation of eigenvectors, and symmetry breaking, etc. Thank goodness from the references we're starting to understand this and define it. It's a concept that needs strict definition for sake of discussing exceptions and complementary subjects. Perhaps this subject can gain enough legitimacy in defining terms that people won't feel threatened, and can start signing things even. Can we at least agree that 'virtual particles' exist, even if they're not real?! Or when we really understand everything going on in the background are we going to encorporate 'virtuality' or complex imaginary particles into the 'real' realm. I think that would just be a confusion to a layman. As referenced by reality and existence, I prefer the concept of observable, indirectly observable, and unobservable. Although, I hope some day we will indirectly observe the unobservable too. Entanglement should definitely be included here as far as something virtual happening. I think entanglement describes the only locally non-local effect around. I could give my reasons; but, I would be surprised even if I did and people couldn't refute it, you'd find a citation anywhere. The attitude nowadays would have had even Einstein and Tesla kicked out from making inclusions into Wikipedia today at some point in their life. Sad state indeed! Cyberchip ( talk) 22:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
New person talking: if you can't explain something in english, then it's likely you're full of shit. Also, if your explanation has no tangible scientific proof, it is also no more than an idea. So, call this whatever you like, but if something can't be detected, then assigning it a status as a real object object in any sense is preposterous. Virtual particles appear to be nothing more than imaginary numbers, very useful for math, but representing nothing more than a missing piece to a mathematical description of something that hasn't been detected. Example: I noticed my friend suddenly acting differently today. Well, that's proof of the existence of god, so, god is real and the effect is god-based. How do I know, because there was an effect! Virtual particles are a mathematical shortcut and may not "exist" in the scientific sense, as in, nobody has ever observed them. Ironically, nothing is really observed since we're all a giant puddle of fluctuating whateverspace, so, science and wiki can all take a seat in the humility corner for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.0.9 ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
After an evening of reading I connected the dots from virtual particle to off the mass shell. I can't believe it was so hard to find an explanation of this anywhere on the net. I thin an explanation like the following, would clear things up for many newbies:
The wording has become mushy and less encyclopedic. A re-vert to ~2 years ago would be a quantum improvement. Or it should be incrementally improved.
Spope3 ( talk) 15:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The section Pair production has some claims that bear on the reality/nonreality of virtual particles. I looked for citations that discuss the relevance of the Unruh effect to virtual particles, but in the sources I found they weren't mentioned. Similarly, the article on vacuum decay doesn't mention virtual particles at all. Can anyone find sources that explicitly relate these phenomena to virtual particles? RockMagnetist( talk) 18:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
see The Physics of Virtual Particles https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/physics-virtual-particles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:62A:4:2F00:223:24FF:FE74:F329 ( talk) 18:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There should be two different pages on virtual particles, one called virtual particles (physics), and one called virtual particles (popular science). The meanings assigned are completely different in both cases, and mixing up these different notions causes considerable confusion and misunderstandings. See "Misconceptions about Virtual Particles" https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/
The same applies for the treatment of virtual particles in various related pages, in particular /info/en/?search=Vacuum_energy /info/en/?search=Zero-point_energy /info/en/?search=Vacuum_state /info/en/?search=Uncertainty_principle /info/en/?search=Hawking_Radiation [se below] /info/en/?search=Electron#Virtual_particles /info/en/?search=Information
The last sentence in the intro about virtual particles being unrelated to anti-particles seemed like a non-sequitur, until I got down to the "History" section, which seems to be entirely about anti-particles (or, even more confusingly, solid-state electron holes) -- and some comments here indicate that either these concepts are very frequently confused, or I am not understanding something properly.
So, I'm just removing the history section.
2601:647:4501:2510:A50B:52A3:3E37:1D2D ( talk) 05:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes."
This is the first time I've seen this claim. As far as I know no one has ever observed electron or proton decay, and not for lack of looking. If whomever made this entry can provide a citation I would love to read it.
19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.82.130 ( talk)
Several places in the article mention that a characteristic of virtual particles is that they exist for a very short time. Is that a real testable fact, or is it a poetic interpretation of the math? Can this time be quantified? Spiel496 ( talk) 22:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The section "Manifestations" suggests that gluons, as the boson force carrier for the strong force, are massive whereas they are theorectically massless.
Spope3 ( talk) 21:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
After looking at both talk pages, and wikifying the sole instance of a mention of this article's topic on the others page: I've hopefully gleaned a laymen's basic overview to a degree that there is some weight in thinking these two topics may be similar enough to warrant an amending summary. If only to give some content with distinctions for how to regard one against the other and what distinguishes them.
Unless there is something more fundamental that I am missing, it seems that quasiparticles occur within particles as composite energies, internally, and virtual particles occur between particles, externally, through space or a medium not intrinsic to the particle itself. Otherwise they both share a transitory nature whose states cannot be readily verified as a stand alone entity but which nevertheless have properties related to some particle in their effect.
If this reasoning isn't viable; whether by being overtly simplistic, just off the mark from the inherent difference entirely or wholly erroneous with there being any rationale whatsoever to compare the two. I would very much like to know. Nagelfar ( talk) 00:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
It should be stated that "virtual particles come from Quantum Field Theory". I will add the sentence to the article, but if you think it can be worded better or placed in a better location, feel free to move it / rewrite it. Qsimanelix ( talk) 18:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Wait, nevermind. I need to improve my reading skills! I don't know how to delete this. I am not touching any other talk pages, let alone the main page. Maybe this "discussion" is still a good thing to have here, as a reminder to editors. Qsimanelix ( talk) 18:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
What sort of definition is this, I think it sounds confusing: "exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle". What is an "ordinary particle"? Also as far as I understand all subatomic particles are limited by the uncertainty principle aren't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.181.33.59 ( talk) 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I've got a question for the physicists here. I've always wondered about so-called "virtual photons." Is there REALLY any difference between real photons and virtual photons? What I mean is this: when we detect a photon with our eye or some instrument, the photon coming in excites some electrons into some higher energy states, or causes induced relaxation of some excited state, or whatever...but basically all the photon did before it "died" was move a charged particle (the electron). This is the same as what a virtual photon does! So, the only difference that I can see is that with a virtual photon, we consider that we observed a charged particle change its trajectory, whereas with a "real" photon, we claim that we observed a photon hitting our detector. But, really, they're the same thing? Comments?
Ed Sanville 04:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would just like to thank the person who wrote this: "Furthermore, in the photon's frame of reference, no time elapses between emission and absorption. This statement illustrates the difficulty of trying to distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles as mathematically they are the same objects and it is only our definition of "reality" which is weak here." Excellent quote! Itistoday 06:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There are two issues:
This is why nobody uses wikipedia to discuss a pathway to better definitions. Because your rules suck and your rule enforcement is both inconsistent and violently enforced. This questions is INTEGRAL to the definition, and here is another wiki overlord getting the final word - not to help, but to END clarification. Fuck wikipedia. Is there a page for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.0.9 ( talk) 01:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If Einstein lived today he'd have become an alcoholic at the ridiculous state of physics. I was the person who added the last paragraph of the introduction which called into question the foundation for the origin of virtual particles. I put it there based on my own understanding of physics, and though I didn't cite a reference I thought it was an innocuous commentary that just gave more context to the subject. After all, a virtual particle has never been observed, and by its own clever conception it cannot even exist if its observed. If that's not a catch 22 situation I guess they don't exist. I now see that the writing is "literally" on the wall that a citation is required. Well, I don't have one other than my own published writing and I refuse to cite my own writing based on a general cringing at self promotion.
So Wolfkeeper, remove that paragraph if you must and we can all chalk it up as a further example of physics moving in lockstep over the cliff. Physics has now become so absurd that as long as you cite an important person as ignorant as oneself you can pontificate on anything, including multiverses which by definition, being separate universes, have no causality with our own. What a sad situation where a science beloved by many of us has been taken over by accountants without the slightest shred of common sense or genuine intuition. 75.7.4.16 09:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Virtual particles – logical fallacy
I notice there is no citation for the initial summary or for virtual particles at all.
One citation (raymond) is already dead. I hope that wasn’t the one this article depended upon. The powerpoint has no direct or source references. The Gilman cite has no direct or source references. The references on phonons and photon are not about particles with mass.
This means the article has zero direct or source references to its definition.
Yet somehow this wiki article has wrongly reversed the Burden Of Proof to the skeptic.
That’s a logical fallacy called Burden Of Proof reversal. http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Master_list_of_logical_fallacies#Burden_Of_Proof
The proper burden of proof is on the proposer – not the skeptic.
I agree with whoever “added the last paragraph of the introduction which called into question the foundation for the origin of virtual particles.”
I think that until a direct or source reference to virtual particles can be found – that introduction should be revived (though I’ve never read it and can’t find it in history -- Dec 2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.237.245 ( talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Six years later and this stuff still finds people squabbling. I still think we can call virtual particles 'virtual' by a basic Webster's definition of the concept. The point being we don't have a direct word for an imaginary complex abstract vector or a group of them in non-conjugated or translated, rotated (whatever) form. Will we ever finish the Pauli exclusion principle and its unobservables.
I'd prefer to use virtual. Of course I feel it's absolutely required that laymen even have a basic concept of the formation of eigenvectors, and symmetry breaking, etc. Thank goodness from the references we're starting to understand this and define it. It's a concept that needs strict definition for sake of discussing exceptions and complementary subjects. Perhaps this subject can gain enough legitimacy in defining terms that people won't feel threatened, and can start signing things even. Can we at least agree that 'virtual particles' exist, even if they're not real?! Or when we really understand everything going on in the background are we going to encorporate 'virtuality' or complex imaginary particles into the 'real' realm. I think that would just be a confusion to a layman. As referenced by reality and existence, I prefer the concept of observable, indirectly observable, and unobservable. Although, I hope some day we will indirectly observe the unobservable too. Entanglement should definitely be included here as far as something virtual happening. I think entanglement describes the only locally non-local effect around. I could give my reasons; but, I would be surprised even if I did and people couldn't refute it, you'd find a citation anywhere. The attitude nowadays would have had even Einstein and Tesla kicked out from making inclusions into Wikipedia today at some point in their life. Sad state indeed! Cyberchip ( talk) 22:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
New person talking: if you can't explain something in english, then it's likely you're full of shit. Also, if your explanation has no tangible scientific proof, it is also no more than an idea. So, call this whatever you like, but if something can't be detected, then assigning it a status as a real object object in any sense is preposterous. Virtual particles appear to be nothing more than imaginary numbers, very useful for math, but representing nothing more than a missing piece to a mathematical description of something that hasn't been detected. Example: I noticed my friend suddenly acting differently today. Well, that's proof of the existence of god, so, god is real and the effect is god-based. How do I know, because there was an effect! Virtual particles are a mathematical shortcut and may not "exist" in the scientific sense, as in, nobody has ever observed them. Ironically, nothing is really observed since we're all a giant puddle of fluctuating whateverspace, so, science and wiki can all take a seat in the humility corner for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.0.9 ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
After an evening of reading I connected the dots from virtual particle to off the mass shell. I can't believe it was so hard to find an explanation of this anywhere on the net. I thin an explanation like the following, would clear things up for many newbies:
The wording has become mushy and less encyclopedic. A re-vert to ~2 years ago would be a quantum improvement. Or it should be incrementally improved.
Spope3 ( talk) 15:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The section Pair production has some claims that bear on the reality/nonreality of virtual particles. I looked for citations that discuss the relevance of the Unruh effect to virtual particles, but in the sources I found they weren't mentioned. Similarly, the article on vacuum decay doesn't mention virtual particles at all. Can anyone find sources that explicitly relate these phenomena to virtual particles? RockMagnetist( talk) 18:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
see The Physics of Virtual Particles https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/physics-virtual-particles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:62A:4:2F00:223:24FF:FE74:F329 ( talk) 18:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There should be two different pages on virtual particles, one called virtual particles (physics), and one called virtual particles (popular science). The meanings assigned are completely different in both cases, and mixing up these different notions causes considerable confusion and misunderstandings. See "Misconceptions about Virtual Particles" https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/
The same applies for the treatment of virtual particles in various related pages, in particular /info/en/?search=Vacuum_energy /info/en/?search=Zero-point_energy /info/en/?search=Vacuum_state /info/en/?search=Uncertainty_principle /info/en/?search=Hawking_Radiation [se below] /info/en/?search=Electron#Virtual_particles /info/en/?search=Information
The last sentence in the intro about virtual particles being unrelated to anti-particles seemed like a non-sequitur, until I got down to the "History" section, which seems to be entirely about anti-particles (or, even more confusingly, solid-state electron holes) -- and some comments here indicate that either these concepts are very frequently confused, or I am not understanding something properly.
So, I'm just removing the history section.
2601:647:4501:2510:A50B:52A3:3E37:1D2D ( talk) 05:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes."
This is the first time I've seen this claim. As far as I know no one has ever observed electron or proton decay, and not for lack of looking. If whomever made this entry can provide a citation I would love to read it.
19:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.82.130 ( talk)
Several places in the article mention that a characteristic of virtual particles is that they exist for a very short time. Is that a real testable fact, or is it a poetic interpretation of the math? Can this time be quantified? Spiel496 ( talk) 22:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The section "Manifestations" suggests that gluons, as the boson force carrier for the strong force, are massive whereas they are theorectically massless.
Spope3 ( talk) 21:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
After looking at both talk pages, and wikifying the sole instance of a mention of this article's topic on the others page: I've hopefully gleaned a laymen's basic overview to a degree that there is some weight in thinking these two topics may be similar enough to warrant an amending summary. If only to give some content with distinctions for how to regard one against the other and what distinguishes them.
Unless there is something more fundamental that I am missing, it seems that quasiparticles occur within particles as composite energies, internally, and virtual particles occur between particles, externally, through space or a medium not intrinsic to the particle itself. Otherwise they both share a transitory nature whose states cannot be readily verified as a stand alone entity but which nevertheless have properties related to some particle in their effect.
If this reasoning isn't viable; whether by being overtly simplistic, just off the mark from the inherent difference entirely or wholly erroneous with there being any rationale whatsoever to compare the two. I would very much like to know. Nagelfar ( talk) 00:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
It should be stated that "virtual particles come from Quantum Field Theory". I will add the sentence to the article, but if you think it can be worded better or placed in a better location, feel free to move it / rewrite it. Qsimanelix ( talk) 18:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Wait, nevermind. I need to improve my reading skills! I don't know how to delete this. I am not touching any other talk pages, let alone the main page. Maybe this "discussion" is still a good thing to have here, as a reminder to editors. Qsimanelix ( talk) 18:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)