Mass Established by Relative Motion: Implications in GR?

[jaketodd]

A better way to say my last post is: We can't ignore the energy of virtual particles because that's what they are solely doing (transferring energy). So since we can't ignore their energy, we can't observe them in time. Anybody?

Thanks,

Jake

 

[Drakkith]

A better way to say my last post is: We can't ignore the energy of virtual particles because that's what they are solely doing (transferring energy). So since we can't ignore their energy, we can't observe them in time. Anybody?

Thanks,

Jake

They are not transferring their own energy. They are mediating the force between 2 particles.

 

[jaketodd]

They are not transferring their own energy. They are mediating the force between 2 particles.

Analogy: A messenger arrives with a message, not empty handed.

In other words, why can't a virtual particle be the carrier of force between two particles?

Jake

 

[Drakkith]

Analogy: A messenger arrives with a message, not empty handed.

In other words, why can't a virtual particle be the carrier of force between two particles?

Jake

Virtual particles are considered to be. Did you mean real?

 

[chrisbaird]

Maybe this will help. Both real and virtual particles carry the force. When you turn on a laser, a light bulb, or your cell phone's antenna, you create real photons that stream out. These photons will eventually hit a mirror, the wall, or a receiving antenna and will exert a force on whatever it hits. You could say the light source exerted a force on the distant object and the force was carried by real photons. Real photons are created whenever an electromagnetic system radiates. But what if we have perfectly static electromagnetic fields (which is actually much rarer than you think)? Static fields don't radiate and therefore don't emit real photons, but we still observe experimentally that one object can exert a force on another object through a static fields. In the world of quantum field theory, everything is described by creation, destruction, and exchange of quanta (particles), so if there are no real photons to carry the force, the force must be carried by virtual photons. So virtual particles are more of a special limiting case where fields become static. But don't think of virtual particles as invisible balls being emitted and absorbed, but rather as just quantized pieces of a whole field.

 

[jaketodd]

A better way to say my last post is: We can't ignore the energy of virtual particles because that's what they are solely doing (transferring energy). So since we can't ignore their energy, we can't observe them in time. Anybody?

I still think there could be something to this.

 

[Drakkith]

A better way to say my last post is: We can't ignore the energy of virtual particles because that's what they are solely doing (transferring energy). So since we can't ignore their energy, we can't observe them in time. Anybody?

I still think there could be something to this.

I'm sorry I don't understand what that means.

 

[jaketodd]

I'm sorry I don't understand what that means.

Well, according to the uncertainty principle, the more you know either time or energy, the less you know the other. If virtual particles exist as pure energy transmission (vs. for example, regular photons having momentum (virtual particles do not always result in momentum being transferred in the direction they hit another particle; only if it matches the direction of the force they are carrying to another particle)) then their energy can never be neglected to any extent, thus making only their energetic transmission observable, and never their existence in time observable. I know that's pretty complicated and hard to read, but I've thought through it several times, and it makes sense to me.

 

[Drakkith]

then their energy can never be neglected to any extent

What? What does this mean? I don't understand what you mean by saying the virtual particles energy can never be neglected, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Am I misunderstanding something?

 

[uby]

Doesn't the relativistic relationship (E)^2-(pc)^2=(m0c^2)^2 give an absolute scale for mass?

 

[jaketodd]

What? What does this mean? I don't understand what you mean by saying the virtual particles energy can never be neglected, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Am I misunderstanding something?

Maybe from this angle: You can't detect it as a real particle because it's purely a transmission of energy; no physical form. And the uncertainty principle comes in and says: Since you can only detect it by measuring it's energy, then it's hidden from existing in time. This is getting philosophical =)

If someone wants to shoot me down, please don't be too harsh, I'm trying here.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't know jaketodd. Again, I recommend posting in the Quantum Physics forum about this if you really want to know.

 

[DrDu]

To understand how free or non-free fields mediate force or transport energy it is not important to refer to their quantum properties. So why speak of virtual or real particles?

 

[jaketodd]

To understand how free or non-free fields mediate force or transport energy it is not important to refer to their quantum properties. So why speak of virtual or real particles?

I'm bringing the uncertainty principle into it because it seems to appropriately have an interesting implication and explanation.

 

[jaketodd]

One counter argument I've thought of is: Energy transfer can be timed. However, what is really being measured is the particle that the virtual particle is effecting, not the virtual particle itself.

 

[Drakkith]

One counter argument I've thought of is: Energy transfer can be timed. However, what is really being measured is the particle that the virtual particle is effecting, not the virtual particle itself.

Counter argument to what?

 

[jaketodd]

Counter argument to what?

It's a counter argument to virtual particles not being detectable in time.