Haunted by the Spectre of Virtual Particles: A Philosophical Reconsideration

Fox, Tobias

doi:10.1007/s10838-008-9066-9

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most influential argument against the reality of virtual particles, which has come to be known as the "superposition argument", is that virtual particles do not exist because neither the number nor kinds of virtual particles are determinate during scattering processes as modeled by quantum field theory-cf. [1,12] for statements of its slightly differing formulations. As noted by its advocates, this situation is analogous to that in simple non-relativistic quantum mechanics when, as is often the case, the system state is a superposition of eigenstates of a given observable of interest, for the simple reason that particle number is a quantum observable in (second-quantized) quantum field theory; yet, there is little question that the systems of quantum mechanics do exist and possess properties, however non-classically or unsharply.…”

Section: The Real/virtual Distinction and Its Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though virtual particles have been and continue to be widely used in descriptions, explanations, and predictions of fundamental physical phenomena at subatomic scales, the reality of the virtual particles as distinguished from free particles has been the subject of an ongoing debate leaning toward their dismissal-cf. [1] Section 3 and [2,3] for summaries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Virtual Particles Less Real?

Jaeger

2019

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether virtual quantum particles exist is considered here in light of previous critical analysis and under the assumption that there are particles in the world as described by quantum field theory. The relationship of the classification of particles to quantum-field-theoretic calculations and the diagrammatic aids that are often used in them is clarified. It is pointed out that the distinction between virtual particles and others and, therefore, judgments regarding their reality have been made on basis of these methods rather than on their physical characteristics. As such, it has obscured the question of their existence. 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. Several reasons are then provided for considering virtual particles real, such as their descriptive, explanatory, and predictive value, and a clearer characterization of virtuality—one in terms of intermediate states—that also applies beyond perturbation theory is provided. It is also pointed out that in the role of force mediators, they serve to preclude action-at-a-distance between interacting particles. For these reasons, it is concluded that virtual particles are as real as other quantum particles.

show abstract

Section: The Real/virtual Distinction and Its Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Virtual Particles Less Real?

Jaeger

2019

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Probably the most systematic treatment was given by Kuhlmann (2010). 8 The specific aspect of virtual particles has captured the interest of more authors (Bunge, 1970;Redhead, 1988;Weingard, 1988;Fox, 2008;Arthur, 2012). I not only combine and strengthen some of these arguments but will also provide new ones.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Feynman Diagramsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…states depicted by the internal lines of Feynman diagrams which do not have to obey the relativistic energymomentum constraint Eq. 3 (Redhead, 1988;Weingard, 1988;Fox, 2008). However, if the internal lines are void of any real meaning, there is not much left for Feynman diagrams to represent, that is, these arguments translate naturally into points against a literal reading of Feynman diagrams per se.…”

Section: The Argument From Superpositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the interpretation of Feynman diagrams, or, did the LHC experiments observe H → γγ?

Passon

2019

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the received view Feynman diagrams are a bookkeeping device in complex perturbative calculations. Thus, they do not provide a representation or model of the underlying physical process. This view is in apparent tension with scientific practice in high energy physics, which analyses its data in terms of "channels". For example the Higgs discovery was based on the observation of the decay H → γγ -a process which can be easily represented by the corresponding Feynman diagrams. I take issue with this tension and show that on closer analysis the story of the Higgs discovery should be told differently.

show abstract

“…L'argument B) nous semble suffisant pour écarter l'interprétation réaliste des diagrammes de Feynman, en ce qui concerne l'usage standard qui en est fait dans la théorie quantique des champs, puisqu'il permet de comprendre que ces diagrammes n'ont pas vocation à être des images, même épurées, de scènes physiques dans l'espace-temps classique [Fox 2008].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Sur le statut des diagrammes de Feynman en théorie quantique des champs

Rosenbaum¹

2009

philosophiascientiae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Référence électroniqueRésumé : Cet article s'efforce de présenter une conception du statut des diagrammes de Feynman appropriée à l'usage courant qui en est fait en théorie quantique des champs. Son objectif est de montrer que l'usage de ces diagrammes n'est pas susceptible de remettre en cause l'interprétation orthodoxe anti-réaliste de la mécanique quantique. Dans un premier temps est indiqué pourquoi les diagrammes de Feynman ne peuvent être considérés comme des représentations figuratives d'événements physiques. Dans un second temps, l'auteur explique pourquoi il semble préférable de concevoir ces diagrammes comme une notation graphique de termes algébriques. Le propos fournit l'occasion de réfléchir sur la capacité de la cognition humaine à intégrer des combinaisons hybrides de signes et d'images.Abstract: This article is about the conceptual status of Feynman diagrams in Quantum Field Theory. It is aimed at showing that the standard use of these diagrams does not threaten the bohrian instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Firstly, it is explained why Feynman diagrams cannot be considered as naturalist representations of physical events. Secondly, it is argued that these diagrams should better be conceived as a graphical notation of algebraic terms.This conception gives an opportunity to reflect upon the capacity of human cognition to integrate hybrid combinations of symbols and images.

show abstract

Haunted by the Spectre of Virtual Particles: A Philosophical Reconsideration

Cited by 19 publications

References 9 publications

Are Virtual Particles Less Real?

Are Virtual Particles Less Real?

On the interpretation of Feynman diagrams, or, did the LHC experiments observe H → γγ?

Sur le statut des diagrammes de Feynman en théorie quantique des champs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About