Can virtual particles come from nothing?

[disappointedyoungman]

Can virtual particles come from nothing?

 

If virtual particles can come from nothing, does that mean that something can actually come from nothing?

 

And if some things can appear out of nothing then why can't the universe or God for that matter had come from nothing?

Edited June 9, 2011 by disappointedyoungman

[IM Egdall]

Can virtual particles come from nothing?

 

If virtual particles can come from nothing, does that mean that something can actually come from nothing?

 

And if some things can appear out of nothing then why can't the universe or God for that matter had come from nothing?

 

Think of it this way. The energy in "empty" space is zero, right? Physicists used to think this was true until quantum mechanics, The Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics says that the more accurately we can know the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa.

 

So the shorter the time period over which we make our measurement, the more uncertain is the value of the energy. This explains the existence of virtual particles. They can spontaneioulsly appear out of empty space, but over only a limited amount of time. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds. One virtual particle has positive energy and one has negative energy, so the average energy remains zero.

 

So, yes, in this sense, something (virtual particles) can come from nothing (empty space). And physicists have speculated that the big bang was a quantum fluvtuation, effectively creating our universe. See links:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[csmyth3025]

...So the shorter the time period over which we make our measurement, the more uncertain is the value of the energy. This explains the existence of virtual particles. They can spontaneioulsly appear out of empty space, but over only a limited amount of time. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds. One virtual particle has positive energy and one has negative energy, so the average energy remains zero....

I understand that Hermann Bondi proposed the concept of negative mass in 1957. I've read about this and I think I have a general idea of the properties he proposed for negative mass.

 

I don't know what "negative energy" would be, altough I've seen the term used before. Can you explain or provide a link for it?

 

NOTE: The Wikipedia link you provided ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle ) does provide some explanation of "negative energy":

 

...A virtual particle is one that does not precisely obey the m²c⁴ = E² − p²c² relationship for a short time. In other words, its kinetic energy may not have the usual relationship to velocity–indeed, it can be negative. The probability amplitude for it to exist tends to be canceled out by destructive interference over longer distances and times. A virtual particle can be considered a manifestation of quantum tunnelling. The range of forces carried by virtual particles is limited by the uncertainty principle, which regards energy and time as conjugate variables; thus virtual particles of larger mass have more limited range...

 

This explanation doesn't help me understand the concept very well, though.

 

Chris

 

Edited to correct spelling errors and to add NOTE

Edited June 9, 2011 by csmyth3025

[DrRocket]

One virtual particle has positive energy and one has negative energy, so the average energy remains zero.

 

So, yes, in this sense, something (virtual particles) can come from nothing (empty space). And physicists have speculated that the big bang was a quantum fluvtuation, effectively creating our universe. See links:

 

 

This would be a much stronger argument if it were true.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Vacuum_energy

 

It actually takes some fancy footwork to avoid predicting that the vacuum energy is not infinite. As it sits now the prediction exceeds observation by a ludicrous factor. Nobody knows why.

 

The discrepancy between the vacuum energy predicted by quantum electrodynamics and the cosmological constant that is consistent with the accelerated expansion of the universe is regarded by some (Wilczek for instance) as the most important and perplexing open problem in quantum field theory.

[IM Egdall]

This would be a much stronger argument if it were true.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Vacuum_energy

 

It actually takes some fancy footwork to avoid predicting that the vacuum energy is not infinite. As it sits now the prediction exceeds observation by a ludicrous factor. Nobody knows why.

 

The discrepancy between the vacuum energy predicted by quantum electrodynamics and the cosmological constant that is consistent with the accelerated expansion of the universe is regarded by some (Wilczek for instance) as the most important and perplexing open problem in quantum field theory.

 

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, the vacuum energy discrepancy is a great puzzle. What I was talking about is conservation of energy. Perhaps a better wording would have been that for virtual particles, conservation of energy is only temporarily violated. Per The Particle Adventure: "The kinetic energy plus mass of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal."

[MigL]

How does one arrive at the predicted vacuum energy which is supposed to be 10^120 times greater than observation ??

 

And is it the result of the infinities that arise in QFT ??

 

Damn that P.A.M. Dirac for the mess he made ( Just joking )

[36grit]

I just wanted to throw in that motion can't be the only attribute of time.

I don't see how motion could occur without distnace, and when motion occurs in distance, that momentum is normaly achieved. I don't know, in my world distance and momentum are also attributes of time.

[alpha2cen]

Can virtual particles come from nothing?

 

If virtual particles can come from nothing, does that mean that something can actually come from nothing?

 

And if some things can appear out of nothing then why can't the universe or God for that matter had come from nothing?

 

 

Are all vacuums the same? Is each vacuum homogeneous? What is the vacuum?

We know vacuum is the space which does not contain any atoms or molecules.

It does not mean the space has nothing.

Like dark matter, at the present, we do not know vacuum well.

We could not handle the something in the vacuum by the present technology.

One of the concepts of the something in the vacuum is the vertical virtual particles theory.

Edited July 14, 2011 by alpha2cen

[csmyth3025]

Are all vacuums the same? Is each vacuum homogeneous? What is the vacuum?

We know vacuum is the space which does not contain any atoms or molecules.

It does not mean the space has nothing.

Like dark matter, at the present, we do not know vacuum well.

We could not handle the something in the vacuum by the present technology.

One of the concepts of the something in the vacuum is the vertical particles theory.

Do you mean virtual particles? If so, what theory pertaining to virtual particles do you have in mind?

 

Chris

[alpha2cen]

Do you mean virtual particles? If so, what theory pertaining to virtual particles do you have in mind?

 

Chris

 

All of the something do not appear, and do not interact with particles. One phenomena we can see it is Casimir effect.