Starship Asterisk*

by **outlaw** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:36 am

you also said they travel from future to present? are there experts who think that virtual particles don't exist?and also hawking radiation deal with virtual particles but has never been observed.

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:12 am

outlaw wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:is there evidence for virtual particles? i also read of a physics professor named arnold neumier who says that virtual paticles dont exist.
Previously answered. Yes.
yes what?

Yes, there is evidence for the existence of virtual particles. If there weren't, the underlying theory would be much less widely accepted.

Evidence doesn't mean proof, and it doesn't mean a better theory might not come along later. But the theory is pretty solid, and certainly not something highly speculative (like string theory, for example).

by **outlaw** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:29 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:is there evidence for virtual particles? i also read of a physics professor named arnold neumier who says that virtual paticles dont exist.
Previously answered. Yes.

yes what?

by **Chris Peterson** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:12 pm

outlaw wrote:is there evidence for virtual particles? i also read of a physics professor named arnold neumier who says that virtual paticles dont exist.

Previously answered. Yes.

by **neufer** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:33 pm

outlaw wrote:
is there evidence for virtual particles? i also read of a physics professor named arnold neumier who says that virtual paticles dont exist.

Considering the reality of wave-particle duality is there evidence for actual particles
(other than the apparent mechanism through which waves irreversibly interact)?

by **outlaw** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:05 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:i also read that there are experts who think they are mathematical and are not real?
There are people who think that about "ordinary" particles like electrons and photons, as well- and not unreasonably. In the end, we don't really know what the "real" nature of most things is like. All we have is highly useful physical and mathematical models that tell us how things behave. The relationship between those models and "reality" is more a question for philosophers than scientists.

The bottom line is that a theory of virtual particles allows us to understand observations, and make predictions, which no other theory can currently do. So most physicists are perfectly willing to accept them as "real".

is there evidence for virtual particles? i also read of a physics professor named arnold neumier who says that virtual paticles dont exist.

by **Chris Peterson** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:35 am

outlaw wrote:i also read that there are experts who think they are mathematical and are not real?

There are people who think that about "ordinary" particles like electrons and photons, as well- and not unreasonably. In the end, we don't really know what the "real" nature of most things is like. All we have is highly useful physical and mathematical models that tell us how things behave. The relationship between those models and "reality" is more a question for philosophers than scientists.

The bottom line is that a theory of virtual particles allows us to understand observations, and make predictions, which no other theory can currently do. So most physicists are perfectly willing to accept them as "real".

by **outlaw** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:30 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:so they do some sort of sci fi stuff without information?
I wouldn't put it that way. It's just the way the math that describes things works out. Nobody said that everything in the Universe needs to be obvious or intuitive. Indeed, very little is.

i also read that there are experts who think they are mathematical and are not real?

by **Chris Peterson** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:41 am

outlaw wrote:so they do some sort of sci fi stuff without information?

I wouldn't put it that way. It's just the way the math that describes things works out. Nobody said that everything in the Universe needs to be obvious or intuitive. Indeed, very little is.

by **outlaw** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:17 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
outlaw wrote:so virtual particles are not traveling backwards in time? or are they traveling backwards in time without information?
They travel backwards in time in a manner that doesn't carry information from the future.

so they do some sort of sci fi stuff without information?

by **outlaw** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:16 am

i was also reading that some people dont think virtual particles dont exist.is this a view?

by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:54 am

outlaw wrote:so virtual particles are not traveling backwards in time? or are they traveling backwards in time without information?

They travel backwards in time in a manner that doesn't carry information from the future.

by **outlaw** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:30 am

so virtual particles are not traveling backwards in time? or are they traveling backwards in time without information?

by **Chris Peterson** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:26 am

outlaw wrote:i thought nothing can travel backwards in time without violating causality?

Causality is only violated if information is sent backwards in time. All the tricky theory around virtual particles manages to avoid that.

by **outlaw** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:33 am

i thought nothing can travel backwards in time without violating causality?

by **Beyond** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:16 am

Virtual

Seems to me that if it does what all the others do separately, then it should be called an 'allticle'

by **neufer** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:02 am

: [b]A virtual particle moving [color=#0000FF]forwards[/color], [color=#FF0000]backwards[/color] & [color=#FF00FF]hardly at all[/color] within a short span of time.[/b]

outlaw wrote:
Do virtual particles time travel backwards in time the way tachyons do?

An particle is a particle that moves forwards in time.

An antiparticle is a particle that moves backwards in time.

A tachyon is a particle that hardly moves at all in time.

A virtual particle is often a particle that moves in a closed loop (forwards, backwards & hardly at all) within a short span of time.

by **outlaw** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:06 am

Do virtual particles time travel backwards in time the way tachyons do?

Starship Asterisk*

Virtual particles

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Re: Virtual particles

Virtual particles