And there is no infinite number of "particle-antiparticle" pairs in a vacuum either.
The expression "virtual particle" often comes across in physics and in popular science explanations of quantum field theory. But in fact, virtual particles do not exist as such . Today we will talk about why (and in what form) virtual particles are needed, and why they do not exist.
Quantum field theory
Our story begins with quantum field theory.
. : . , , , . , . .
. , , – .
, : . () .
– , . , , – .
,
. .
, , . , , . , : .
, ( , ): , , .
: . - .
, – . , .
.
, . (x +a)² = x² + 2ax + a². . ? , . , , .
. - , ; , , .
, ; ( ) . , , (, , – ) .
( , ) . , , .
, , – ; , .
(, ). , , , , .
, , – , . . , «» , .
« ». , « », « , ».
, , (, , ) . , () . , .
, :
: , . : , «» .
, . , , . .
: , . , . :
, , , , , . ? .
-?
, . , .
: , , . , , .
, , . , , .
, , , . .
, . , , , , , .
While virtual particles help to understand the phenomenon, this does not mean that they provide a complete picture. Hawking radiation is one of those phenomena where mathematics is taken almost literally in order to simplify the description of the phenomenon.
What's wrong with that? As long as my methods allow me to come up with the right results, I have the right to simplify, right?
Yes, that's right. Until we confuse reality with mathematical simplifications and clearly understand what the real picture is. This is exactly what the article was about.
I think to conclude it with the words of Feynman:
The main principle is not to fool yourself. And yourself is just the easiest to fool.