Virtual particles

[outlaw]

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

[neufer]

[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]

---

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.

[Beyond]

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

[outlaw]

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

[Chris Peterson]

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.

[outlaw]

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

[Chris Peterson]

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.

[outlaw]

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

[outlaw]

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?

[Chris Peterson]

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.

[outlaw]

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?

[Chris Peterson]

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".

[outlaw]

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.

[neufer]

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)?

[Chris Peterson]

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]

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?

[Chris Peterson]

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).

[outlaw]

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.