3 ms·
Would "Virtual Particle" possibly be a more correct and explanatory term?
by MaysonL 12y ago
Would "Virtual Particle" possibly be a more correct and explanatory term?
- scott_s 12y agoSadly, no, as "virtual particle" has a different meaning. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle. The technical term for these, I believe is "quasiparticle": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle
- kazinator 12y agoSo, for example, a "hole" in a semiconductor lattice is emergent, but a phonon is quasi? I suppose we would call an L4 Lagrangian point an emergent phenomenon and not a virtual mass (just because it can be orbited). For one thing, if we did a surface integral around the L4 point, of the gravitational field, we would find that there is no mass there; the net flux is zero.
- scott_s 12y agoI do not know, as I am not a particle physicist. I got "emergent" from the popular press article. The terms "virtual" and "quasi" already have meanings in the field, so my point was it would be further confusing to use their non-technical meanings when trying to explain it to a layman.