5614 Posted May 16, 2005 Posted May 16, 2005 From the Quantum Gravity thread we had: Ed's Quantum Gravity paper can be found here virtual photons, there as a result of Heisenberg’s, uncertainty principle, are turned into real particles by an accelerating object[/b']. The pressure caused by the particles hitting the object (and the resonance) causes inertia. I understand about virtual photons, but how can a virtual photon be turned into a real photon???
Newtonian Posted May 16, 2005 Posted May 16, 2005 Its not how but why! The virtual photon was added to the calculations because of problems in physics.Adding virtual photons made the math hypothetically correct.Experiments have proven using the virtual photon makes everything hunky- dory again,however that does not mean that there is any such thing as virtual photons. Swansont wold be able to explain it better.
fuhrerkeebs Posted May 16, 2005 Posted May 16, 2005 The virtual photon was added to the calculations because of problems in physics.Adding virtual photons made the math hypothetically correct. I thought virtual photons were a consequence of integrating over all of the momentum in the propagator, on mass-shell and off?
Severian Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Virtual photons cannot be made real. They are virtual because they have a missmatched energy and momentum. That is, we do not have E2 = m2c4 + p2c2. In principle, one could make them real by adding enough momentum or energy to make the equation work, but in practice there is no way to do this. The reason is that the photon can only couple to charged objects and conservation of charge means that any interaction vertex with a photon must contain at least two charged particles. Therefore (since the interaction vertices usually involve three particles) any incoming photon is always destroyed. The particle which absorbes the photon can re-emit another photon though (since it is charged) and the new photon could be real, but there is no continuous link with the old virtual one.
5614 Posted May 17, 2005 Author Posted May 17, 2005 Good good.... in that case, ed84c, your paper has a mistake! (and thanks Severian)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now