## Errors in the physics: VIRTUAL PARTICLES

Let's understand with one of myths of physics of XX centuries under the name "Virtual particles" directly related to a quantum theory.

At the heart of a quantum theory the statement lies that all interactions have discrete character and are transmitted by means of quanta. But any quanta (except photons) in the free view in the nature it is not observed. Well and as the quantum theory without quanta to exist cannot in any way as fields without quanta is not quantum fields the guess has been made that as carriers of interactions elementary particles can act, being in the virtual state. Differently the quantum theory asserts that elementary particles, of which all substance consists, can be both in a real state, and in the virtual. In the first state they really exist in the Universe, their performances can be found out, measured. In the second state they are carriers of interactions between particles being in a real state and move with light speed (as quantum’s). It is considered that the virtual quantum are carriers of electromagnetic interactions, and the virtual mesons – kernel. Well and as it is impossible to find out the virtual state – that its existence is accepted on trust, without the proof. I want to remind that the classical theory negates possibility of existence of virtual particles as it will contradict known laws of the nature except quantum theory "laws", certainly.

Let's begin one after another.

That is affirms, that at the heart of existence of virtual particles is the indeterminacy relation of Heisenberg, entering restriction on simultaneous measuring of co-ordinates and an impulse of particles lies. We will view it. We take the specified relation

∆p × ∆x ≥ h

Also we will substitute in it a quantum impulse

∆mc × ∆x ≥ h

Then we multiply and it is divisible on «c» the left part

∆mc^{2} × ∆x/c ≥ h

Whence we will gain

∆E × ∆t ≥ h (since E=mc^{2}, and x/c=t)

It is considered that the law of conservation of energy can be broken for a while ∆t on quantity ∆E=h/∆t.

It is interesting gained. Have begun with impossibility of simultaneous precise measurement of co-ordinates and an impulse of elementary particles as in a microcosm any measuring imports contortions to a measured, and have terminated infringement of the law of the nature. We will go further.

Let's view now the virtual quantum.

Let at some instant time t the elementary particle core (for example, π + meson) has let out the virtual quantum with energy ∆E, and it has departed aside from a particle with light speed. After a while smaller, than ∆t he has come across other particle (for example, π – meson), has been immersed by it, and thus there was an interaction of both particles. The effect of interaction can be or display of attractive forces between particles or forces of pushing away (if both particles have a charge of one sign).

There is a **first question**: as particles learn that it is necessary to be drawn, or to be repelled, if quantum of a charge has no.

The **second question**: if while the virtual quantum flied, the second particle has moved aside or further and the quantum has missed or has not reached. Then particles will not interact at all – but it completely contradicts experimental data. If the quantum measures such that cannot miss then as it is immersed by a core of other particle which in the sizes on some orders is less?

The **third question**: if the second particle in general is not present nearby then that the virtual quantum will not be let out? But then there is a question - as the first particle learns that it is necessary to let out the virtual quantum and whence it gains the information on quantity of energy and a direction in which it should fly.

Well and if the virtual quantum are let out, and in the absence of other particle then there is other question - why there is an emission with the given energy ∆E instead of from what or another after all the spectrum ∆E is perpetual. As the virtual quantum learns that has come it is time to be liquidated itself and in general that occurs to it after time ∆t.

The **fourth question**: if sideways from the second particle there will be the third on hardly большем distance from the first. It is that will not interact at all with the first. After, the virtual quantum is already immersed by the second particle. Whence the first particle learns that it is necessary to radiate one more virtual quantum for the third and as between them energy ∆E, on which a limit (∆E=h / ∆ t is erected will be divided).

Now we will a little change requirements, having placed the third particle for second that the first it did not see. It is that will not interact at all with the first. After, the virtual quantum will immerse second and if they go through second, through whereas the second will interact.

Let's surround the first particle with set of other both signs of an electrical charge, but on identical distance from the first. Where and as the first particle will radiate the virtual quantum, and that force of interaction inversely proportional to number of participating particles – but it completely does not correspond to experimental data.

The **fifth question**: if radiation of the virtual quantum is conducted extensively uniformly and continuously then the number of the virtual quantum immersed by another particle will be in inverse proportion to a quadrate of distance to the first particle. In this case potential energy of interactions will change under the law 1/r3, instead of as not 1/r.

The **sixth question**: at radiation of the virtual quantum the radiant should gain a recoil momentum and depart to the opposite side. As a result a particle should shake at each certificate of radiation. And liquidation of the virtual quantum will go in general with infringement of a law of conservation of momentum.

The **seventh question**: at a spin of photon is equal to unity. Radiation and liquidation of the virtual quantum go also with infringement of a conservation law of a spin?

The **eighth question**: as the virtual quantum of one particle interacts with the virtual quantum of other particle. If they do not interact, and fly by through then they with the same success can fly by and through a elementary particle, without having noted it, and no interaction will exist. And if they dissipate the one on the other, whereas they reach a core of other elementary particle – there collisions is not to avoid.

Well and electrodynamics laws in general are skipped. And after all the quantum is quantum of an electromagnetic field and process of its radiation or uptake is electromagnetic process.

I do not try to view interaction of the charged elementary particles possessing magnetic fields. The quantum theory in life will not solve such problem.

In my opinion all is clear – the virtual quantum in the nature do not exist, and nature laws are carried out, what mathematical manipulations with them would not spend. Nature laws not us are created, and not to us them to change. Thus, the quantum theory statement about discrete character of interactions contradicts laws of the nature and does not correspond to experimental data.

Whether instead, of it was better instead of inventing the virtual quantum and to demand for them infringement of laws of the nature simply to admit presence of cross of electric fields and to be converted to a classical electrodynamics without breaking nature laws. So according to a classical electrodynamics energy (U), concluded in electric field intensity (E) is spotted by the formula:

U =1/8 π ∫E^{2}dv (the integral undertakes on all field)

Well and as intensity of electric fields from different radiant can put, we will gain the following. If intensity of fields (E_{1} and E_{2}) in space have one sign (not very well «+» or «-») then will be (E_{1} + E_{2})^{2}> (E_{1}^{2} + E_{2}^{2}) – forces of pushing away take place. Well and if intensity of both fields in space have opposite signs then will be (E_{1} + E_{2})^{2} <(E_{1}^{2} + E_{2}^{2}) – take place attractive forces. And so is for any pair of particles. All corresponds to laws of the nature and it is necessary to invent nothing.

Objections in questions second, the third, the fourth, the sixth and the eighth concern also the virtual mesons and nuclear interactions. To these objections it is necessary to add still the following:

**First**, in the nature is exist π^{+}, π^{–} and π^{0} mesons. We will admit, the proton has let out virtual π^{+} meson and itself was transmuted into a neutron. Then the π^{+} meson should overcome at first an electric field of other proton, and on it additional energy is required. After uptake a π^{+} meson other proton its electrical charge becomes equal +2e. Well and if the π^{+} meson does not reach or will miss, its liquidation will occur also to charge conservation law infringement and as then the former proton will return the electrical charge back.

Well and if the neutron lets out virtual π^{+} meson it that becomes an antiproton. Similar objections are and to emission a π^{–} meson.

Thus, π^{+} and π^{–} mesons cannot be carriers of nuclear interactions. So why then π^{0}meson it are. The answer one: π^{0} meson also are not a carrier of nuclear interactions.

**Secondly**, nuclear interactions at first are powerful attractive forces, and then on smaller distances are transmuted into even more powerful forces of pushing away. How here to be – to invent new carriers of interactions, for example K – mesons, but them too much more than it is necessary. And why then with one attic it is attractive forces, and with others – forces of pushing away. Where is the mechanism which is responsible for a direction of forces?

As we see the virtual mesons, critics also do not maintain. And as to an explanation of the nature of nuclear interactions the answer to this question is found in frameworks of the field theory – all according to nature laws.

**So, if what or from "theories" demands presence of virtual particles and the infringement of laws of the nature related to them its future is uniquely determinate. Sooner or later it all the same will fail.**

Vladimir Gorunovich

6.06.2011