Virtual particles
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:06 am
Do virtual particles time travel backwards in time the way tachyons do?
APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
An particle is a particle that moves forwards in time.outlaw wrote:
Do virtual particles time travel backwards in time the way tachyons do?
Causality is only violated if information is sent backwards in time. All the tricky theory around virtual particles manages to avoid that.outlaw wrote:i thought nothing can travel backwards in time without violating causality?
They travel backwards in time in a manner that doesn't carry information from the future.outlaw wrote:so virtual particles are not traveling backwards in time? or are they traveling backwards in time without information?
so they do some sort of sci fi stuff without information?Chris Peterson wrote:They travel backwards in time in a manner that doesn't carry information from the future.outlaw wrote:so virtual particles are not traveling backwards in time? or are they traveling backwards in time 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.outlaw wrote:so they do some sort of sci fi stuff without information?
i also read that there are experts who think they are mathematical and are not real?Chris Peterson wrote: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.outlaw wrote:so they do some sort of sci fi stuff without information?
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.outlaw wrote:i also read that there are experts who think they are mathematical and are not real?
is there evidence for virtual particles? i also read of a physics professor named arnold neumier who says that virtual paticles dont exist.Chris Peterson wrote: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.outlaw wrote:i also read that there are experts who think they are mathematical and are not real?
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".
Considering the reality of wave-particle duality is there evidence for actual particlesoutlaw 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.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.
yes what?Chris Peterson wrote:Previously answered. Yes.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.
Yes, there is evidence for the existence of virtual particles. If there weren't, the underlying theory would be much less widely accepted.outlaw wrote:yes what?Chris Peterson wrote:Previously answered. Yes.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.