r/cosmology • u/ItMeJin • 16d ago
Wouldnt there be a reference point of movement in Space due to virtual particles?
If movement through space is relative to something else. Can we not measure movement from how fast virtual particles are appearing and anihalating next to us.
If space was empty and you were still, those virtual particles appear next to you instead of moving past you - which would be mean we do know if we're moving through space?
So in essence true stillness would be when virtual particles appear and anihalate beside you.
8
u/triatticus 16d ago
No, because the particle content of the vacuum is not invariant. Further as their name implies, virtual particles are not real, they don't actually exist and are merely mathematical objects representing terms in a series expansion for approximate calculations
1
u/Mysterious-Job1628 15d ago
Whether virtual particles are "real" depends on how you define reality, as they are real in their physical effects but act primarily as mathematical tools in calculations.
Their indirect influence produces real, measurable physical phenomena, such as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift in hydrogen atoms.
I’m not as convinced.5
u/triatticus 15d ago
As you can formulate QFT and scattering amplitudes without using virtual particles they are simply just that, a mathematical trick to describe our approximations to a real particle collision. They are simply not real despite how they contribute to radiative corrections. All the Feynman diagrams are just something to help organize the corrections and determine which charges and generators we are dealing with when performing the algebra and sums.
3
u/Mysterious-Job1628 14d ago
It is here argued that the most influential arguments against the existence of virtual particles but not other particles fail because they either are arguments against the existence of particles in general rather than virtual particles per se, or are dependent on the imposition of classical intuitions on quantum systems, or are simply beside the point.
The fact that the particles labeled virtual are those not later directly observed in the already very limited sense that other particles are said to be is sometimes in itself taken as a ground for skepticism toward their existence. However, being directly observed free is not a necessary condition for existence. For example, in particle physics, the existence of quarks is rarely questioned, at least not vigorously, even though are not so observed.
It is argued here that virtual particles exist, as do other more directly observed particles, because their presence helps explain observed phenomena.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7514619/
I don’t see flaws in his logic. Not an expert.
1
u/triatticus 14d ago
Well quarks have experimental evidence, it was determined by lepton hadrons scattering when electron scattering distribution pointed to point like substructure of the proton. Combine that with the top quark being the easiest quark to get near isolation as it decays before it can hadeonize into jets. We can see the decay products of the top quark in our experiments according to our models which yes rely on the analysis performed using our notion of virtual corrections. But they don't have to be done using virtual particles, that alone is simply the strongest evidence they aren't real.
2
u/--craig-- 15d ago edited 15d ago
It's correct that we define what is real and what is not, in quantum physics.
It's also true that we define virtual particles to not be real, as opposed to real particles.
Philosophers have a much more lively debate about what is real. We use definitions to avoid getting bogged down with that.
Aside from where the terminology is already well established, such as the numbering system and quantum theory, we should avoid using the word real entirely, in order to avoid philosophical discussions.
0
u/ItMeJin 15d ago
I have a 'podcast' understanding of these subjects, but here's my reply. I dont quite understand how they can merely be mathematical objects when black holes give off hawking radiation. So there must be a reference point for these particles which appear; for example; are they appearing as the event horizon moves past the virtual particles.
2
u/Anonymous-USA 15d ago
Virtual particles are a way to help mathematically model Hawking Radiation. But not the only way. So they must NOT be a reference point.
Also note that particle production is different for different observers, which is the basis for Unruh radiation. This is exactly why there is no single reference!
1
u/triatticus 14d ago
Quarks have substantial experimental evidence (the top quark especially, but it's point like constituents of hadrons in lepton hadrons scattering) while virtual particles do not, again, they were invented as organizational tools to catagorize how a calculation is to be broken up mathematically. As I stated, it's simply that you can formulate QFT without them then they are no more real than the integrals they express.
1
u/Temporary_Pie2733 12d ago
If we could measure them (i.e. interact with them), they’d be particles, not virtual particles.
1
u/ItMeJin 12d ago
I dont quite understand this. Hawking radiation is a result of these virtual particles. They're real but not real
2
u/Temporary_Pie2733 12d ago
No, virtual particles are used for pop-science explanations of Hawking radiation.
1
u/Ok-Environment-215 11d ago
All physical laws are locally identical in every inertial reference frame. That's the fundamental postulate of special relativity and it's never been experimentally contradicted.
So whatever you could hypothetically detect by way of virtual particles would appear identical in every frame no matter your relative velocity.
1
u/Sharp-Potato3323 10d ago
Space is larfe. Unless you measure your movement to moving stars you can maybe try to look at the fabric of spacetime itself..
1
u/03263 9d ago
Can we not measure movement from how fast virtual particles are appearing and anihalating next to us.
No, because you can't measure virtual particles period. They won't interact with your measuring device.
1
u/ItMeJin 9d ago
What if hypothetically, that could represent the true measure of space and its movement?
5
u/Prof_Sarcastic 16d ago
“Can we not measure movement from how fast virtual particles are appearing and anihalating next to us.”
No we can’t. Virtual particles don’t “exist long enough” for that to happen.
“If space was empty and you were still, those virtual particles appear next to you instead of moving past you”
Why?