“A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle.”
Not sure how they even apply in the case where Feynman diagrams aren't applicable. Hell, the calculations likely use lattice QCD which eschews them entirely!
On the contrary, this means that there are too many virtual particles (gluons) being exchanged inside a proton, so many that perturbation theory is not applicable.
No doubt, and Casimir is probably sufficient evidence, but it seems to me a lot of confusion would be saved if we changed the name.
To what I don't know but something like say quantum energy disturbance but more eloquent.
Basically, it's like a playing around virtual machine on a physical PC.
I assume that means those "virtual particles" behave almost like actual particles. e.g. have a rest mass or not.
This helps lay person understand physics better.
> In short, atoms are to protons as a pas de deux in a delicate ballet is to a dance floor crowded with drunk twenty-somethings bouncing and flailing to a DJ.
Also check out the comments and comment answers there. Very interesting too!
Science communication, even between scientists, is filled with lies and half truths that shroud the truth in mystery.
Virtual particles are a good example.
Quarks are fundamental is another example.
A proton is made of three quarks is yet another.
But there are countless others I've come across in studying quantum mechanics and relativity.
Could you share a bit more on this?
https://profmattstrassler.com/2022/09/09/protons-and-charm-q...
Virtual particles do not have an invariant mass. That's why you can find typically huge examples of them inside protons. That's why a beta decay of a neutron can involve the production of a virtual W- boson that has an invariant mass that's 86 times more massive than the neutron.