Was watching a How The Universe Works episode that re-emphasized the point that light and magnetism emerge from the same phenomenon.

So when two magnets are pulling towards each other, are they exchanging photons or something like that?

No not really. The Magnetism is quantum mechanical in origin and the result of course of the Electromagnetic interactions (eg electrons). You can imagine these interactions as mediated by virtual particles (gauge bosons) when performing the calculations of the interactions as described by eg Quantum Electrodynamics (eg in Feynman diagrams). They are not real photons (like the light we see etc).

I will try to return on this with a longer post with proper links and videos but in the meantime take a look at these 2 brief videos;




and

If the gauge bosons are only "virtual particles", i.e. mathematical entities imagined for use in mathematical calculations and not actually real things, then what is it in reality that explains the action at a distance?


PairTheBoard

This unavoidably will get pretty lengthy and deserves properly a much better treatment than this here but instead of letting the thread wait for long to compose something better i will try this next and maybe the better version will come some time in the future in pieces or others can add as they see fit.

To answer the question;
The gauge bosons are actual particles ie the photon, W+-, Z are regularly detected and the massive ones are extremely short lived but real (well in the manner QM understands the concept of particle). They have decay times say order 10^-24 sec. The virtual gauge bosons do not exist in the same sense. They are a less than perfect descriptive way to physically imagine the steps in perturbative expansions (eg like in Feynman diagrams) that try to calculate how particles interact with each other through the quantized field (because exact solutions are not available) in modern quantum field theory. See it as a remnant of our desire to think in terms of how classically things happen with eg ball collisions in scattering that we can visualize that conserve momentum and generate the appearance of force at a distance - without actual contact - through the exchange of little "balls" (associated with the field) between particles that are the sources of the field, when one tries to imagine these things in simplified versions of physics.


Maybe take a look at this first 2 minutes only of this video;




Consider what happens when we transition from classical field theory (that people in their education come first in contact with the action at a distance idea and the concept of field) to quantum field theory;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_field_theory


"A classical field theory is a physical theory that predicts how one or more physical fields interact with matter through field equations. The term 'classical field theory' is commonly reserved for describing those physical theories that describe electromagnetism and gravitation, two of the fundamental forces of nature. Theories that incorporate quantum mechanics are called quantum field theories.

A physical field can be thought of as the assignment of a physical quantity at each point of space and time. For example, in a weather forecast, the wind velocity during a day over a country is described by assigning a vector to each point in space. Each vector represents the direction of the movement of air at that point. As the day progresses, the directions in which the vectors point change as the directions of the wind change. From the mathematical viewpoint, classical fields are described by sections of fiber bundles (covariant classical field theory).

Descriptions of physical fields were given before the advent of relativity theory and then revised in light of this theory. Consequently, classical field theories are usually categorised as non-relativistic and relativistic. Modern field equations tend to be tensor equations."




See this entry on force;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

and in particular after the usual known classical things earlier read this section;


"In modern particle physics, forces and the acceleration of particles are explained as a mathematical by-product of exchange of momentum-carrying gauge bosons. With the development of quantum field theory and general relativity, it was realized that force is a redundant concept arising from conservation of momentum (4-momentum in relativity and momentum of virtual particles in quantum electrodynamics). The conservation of momentum can be directly derived from the homogeneity or symmetry of space and so is usually considered more fundamental than the concept of a force. Thus the currently known fundamental forces are considered more accurately to be "fundamental interactions".[6]:199–128 When particle A emits (creates) or absorbs (annihilates) virtual particle B, a momentum conservation results in recoil of particle A making impression of repulsion or attraction between particles A A' exchanging by B. This description applies to all forces arising from fundamental interactions. While sophisticated mathematical descriptions are needed to predict, in full detail, the accurate result of such interactions, there is a conceptually simple way to describe such interactions through the use of Feynman diagrams. In a Feynman diagram, each matter particle is represented as a straight line (see world line) traveling through time, which normally increases up or to the right in the diagram. Matter and anti-matter particles are identical except for their direction of propagation through the Feynman diagram. World lines of particles intersect at interaction vertices, and the Feynman diagram represents any force arising from an interaction as occurring at the vertex with an associated instantaneous change in the direction of the particle world lines. Gauge bosons are emitted away from the vertex as wavy lines and, in the case of virtual particle exchange, are absorbed at an adjacent vertex.[24]

The utility of Feynman diagrams is that other types of physical phenomena that are part of the general picture of fundamental interactions but are conceptually separate from forces can also be described using the same rules. For example, a Feynman diagram can describe in succinct detail how a neutron decays into an electron, proton, and neutrino, an interaction mediated by the same gauge boson that is responsible for the weak nuclear force."

So maybe see this video now (more parts of this will be also later);



Before what follows next maybe take a look also on this entry on perturbation theory in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory

(Let me also add some personal thoughts on this in the meantime).

That way (through a brief reading on perturbation theory) you can build insight further on how the popularized through books or documentaries simplified physics presented often connects to the real thing in calculations and how this connection when tried to be imagined in classical pictures of the world, familiar to our senses, can be very misleading and limited.

One eventually actually attains a proper education in the right order (that doesnt require these simplifications) by studying first classical field theory/Lagrangian Mechanics, Electromagnetism (the main example of it), Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics, perturbation theory (more advanced quantum mechanics treating more complex interesting systems, even reaching the levels of Quantum Chemistry where the techniques of perturbation theory are examined and celebrated - and where one can even see how magnetism of this OP question is explained at a microscopic level) and quantum field theory and in particular Quantum Electrodynamics (the main example of the modern success story). Then later comes the study of Gauge theories, Standard model and its processes and Renormalization theory (trying to deal with the problems of the perturbative approach), then higher proposed theories like Supersymmetry and String theory etc.

It then (through this education) becomes possible to appreciate the parallelism/analogies and mental images promoted (to those that didnt follow that proper education sequence and are only trying to get a simplified understanding) by these popular books and documentaries for what they really are (ie descriptions that cannot stand further scrutiny in their literal sense once one starts to study things properly - hence why many physicists actually resent these descriptions which often reach students before the proper education takes place and corrupts the process a bit).

Unfortunately proper university education doesnt have enough time to see all these things in a more extended manner that would offer deeper logical and historical insight into how all these concepts evolved to the modern ones. Most students in fact are typically busy doing homework calculations and passing exams and accepting theories as presented without the type of connection that a true thinker deserves (like how they were discovered properly with a full account of the developments in experiments, new ideas , proposals, failures and successes). The finished product (current theories) is rather presented formally in a less than natural setting, not like how you would be teaching a young curious Einstein or Feynman for example who are interested in understanding/retracing/replicating the steps that human thought took to arrive at these formulations. Such honest thinker of course is benefited by following the historical development of these topics, aided by modern perspective to avoid the complication of the actual path events took before simpler ways to understand them became available (unlike the history of science researcher). In my opinion a proper education requires a balance between what is done now and the history of science perspective. And of course what is done now also needs to be 5x expanded in details (worked out examples) to really understand these things properly at a level of extreme ease and comfort that enables further innovations by the thinker (full access to calculations to really appreciate the process and actually use it to find things that experiments verify).

This is not typically offered very satisfactory in curriculum in my opinion. Things deserve far better detail that is not available to even a full PhD program. Most people end up studying these things on their own or never at all, as they become specialists in different topics, which for a while can escape the legitimate requirement to have a good clean coherent broad picture of all these theories (all the classical papers span over 90 years at this point - enormous amount of work - that most university programs fail to study in the detail they deserve even in summary). In the end in order to produce legitimate original research work its impossible to avoid understanding all these topics a lot better than the first time presented to you as a student.

(Continuing now after this personal viewpoint break.)



Take a look also at the entry on virtual particles;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

"In physics, a virtual particle is an explanatory conceptual entity that is found in mathematical calculations about quantum field theory. It refers to mathematical terms that have some appearance of representing particles inside a subatomic process such as a collision. Virtual particles, however, do not appear directly amongst the observable and detectable input and output quantities of those calculations, which refer only to actual, as distinct from virtual, particles. Virtual particle terms represent "particles" that are said to be "off mass shell". For example, they can progress backwards in time, or travel faster than light. That is to say, when looked at individually, they appear to be able to violate basic laws of physics. Regular particles of course never do so. On the other hand, any particle that is actually observed never precisely satisfies the conditions theoretically imposed on regular particles. Virtual particles occur in combinations that mutually more or less nearly cancel so that no actual violation of the laws of physics occurs in completed processes. Often the virtual-particle virtual "events" appear to occur close to one another in time, for example within the time scale of a collision, so that they are virtually and apparently "short-lived". If the mathematical terms that are interpreted as representing virtual particles are omitted from the calculations, the result is an approximation that may or may not be near the correct and accurate answer obtained from the proper full calculation.[1][2][3]

Quantum theory is different from classical theory. The difference is in accounting for the inner workings of subatomic processes. Classical physics cannot account for such. It was pointed out by Heisenberg that what "actually" or "really" occurs inside such subatomic processes as collisions is not directly observable and no unique and physically definite visualization is available for it. Quantum mechanics has the specific merit of by-passing speculation about such inner workings. It restricts itself to what is actually observable and detectable. Virtual particles are conceptual devices that in a sense try to by-pass Heisenberg's insight, by offering putative or virtual explanatory visualizations for the inner workings of subatomic processes.

A virtual particle does not necessarily appear to carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle. This is because it appears as "short-lived" and "transient", so that the uncertainty principle allows it to appear not to conserve energy and momentum. The longer a virtual particle appears to "live", the closer its characteristics come to those of an actual particle.

Virtual particles appear in many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, even classical forces — such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges — can be thought of as due to the exchange of many virtual photons between the charges.

Virtual particles appear in calculations of subatomic interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. A subatomic process involving virtual particles is schematically representable by a Feynman diagram in which they are represented by internal lines.

Antiparticles and quasiparticles should not be confused with virtual particles or virtual antiparticles.

Many physicists believe that, because of its intrinsically perturbative character, the concept of virtual particles is often confusing and misleading, and is thus best avoided.[4][5]"




Then later in the same entry read about Feynman diagrams;


"The calculation of scattering amplitudes in theoretical particle physics requires the use of some rather large and complicated integrals over a large number of variables. These integrals do, however, have a regular structure, and may be represented as Feynman diagrams. The appeal of the Feynman diagrams is strong, as it allows for a simple visual presentation of what would otherwise be a rather arcane and abstract formula. In particular, part of the appeal is that the outgoing legs of a Feynman diagram can be associated with actual, on-shell particles. Thus, it is natural to associate the other lines in the diagram with particles as well, called the "virtual particles". In mathematical terms, they correspond to the propagators appearing in the diagram.

In the image to the right, the solid lines correspond to actual particles (of momentum p1 and so on), while the dotted line corresponds to a virtual particle carrying momentum k. For example, if the solid lines were to correspond to electrons interacting by means of the electromagnetic interaction, the dotted line would correspond to the exchange of a virtual photon. In the case of interacting nucleons, the dotted line would be a virtual pion. In the case of quarks interacting by means of the strong force, the dotted line would be a virtual gluon, and so on.
One-loop diagram with fermion propagator

Virtual particles may be mesons or vector bosons, as in the example above; they may also be fermions. However, in order to preserve quantum numbers, most simple diagrams involving fermion exchange are prohibited. The image to the right shows an allowed diagram, a one-loop diagram. The solid lines correspond to a fermion propagator, the wavy lines to bosons."


It might help at this point to see these next 3 short videos (as compared to full lectures available on youtube on these topics eg by susskind and others) that may not be hard to follow; (the first is like an earlier video but i included all 3 now because they are together as a sequence)








It is actually a good time investment to start seeing videos by Feynman on QED and modern particle physics.

I suggest starting with this ;



and then actual lectures too like 4 of these (follow the links after each one)

Ultimately, our understanding of "reality" is a bunch of mathematical laws that accurately describe the things we observe. We can tell you that theories which use virtual particles match the evidence extremely well. Whether they "really exist" is very much like asking if the number five really exists.

I believe I followed your post and as far as I can tell it does not answer my question. Are there actual particles which interact to explain the action at a distance, with the "virtual particles" merely a mathematical device to aid in conceptualization and calculation of the more complex actual interactions? If so, what are the actual particles which interact? If not, what is actually happening to explain the action at a distance?

Try to be brief and keep to the point.


PairTheBoard

Ok what do you need to have a satisfactory answer to your question? You need a process that explains why if we have 2 charges at some distance r they feel forces that go like kq^2/r^2? But this is a classical picture. You need both speed and position accurately described in that picture. The field is the one that is causing the particle to move feeling that force. That field is generated by the sources of the field that are the charges. That is the classical picture. All space is filled with a field that is produced from the sources (like in the solution of the field equations of electromagnetism that is an inhomogeneous wave equation with sources currents and charges eg here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhomo..._wave_equation)

And you want now this picture that is not realized to be described by a process in terms of mental images that require such classical concepts as forces and accelerations etc (things that cannot be observed at the elementary particle level, ie Force as seen in Newton's equations for particles is only an effective treatment at the classical level)?

But didnt i give you an idea of the problem with this ;

"Quantum theory is different from classical theory. The difference is in accounting for the inner workings of subatomic processes. Classical physics cannot account for such. It was pointed out by Heisenberg that what "actually" or "really" occurs inside such subatomic processes as collisions is not directly observable and no unique and physically definite visualization is available for it. Quantum mechanics has the specific merit of by-passing speculation about such inner workings. It restricts itself to what is actually observable and detectable. Virtual particles are conceptual devices that in a sense try to by-pass Heisenberg's insight, by offering putative or virtual explanatory visualizations for the inner workings of subatomic processes."


When you have scattering (ie the equivalent of the classical interaction of eg charged particles that feel the Coulomb force) what you calculate is cross sections, scattering amplitudes.

The idea of the classical field theory is that the force is carried (at a distance) by the field and the field is the result of the sources. All this requires of course perfect knowledge of speeds and positions of the particles.

(See under
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
in the Forces in Quantum Mechanics section for a first idea of the problems)

I mean you are trying to imagine something that happens (ie a process that explains how they are accelerated etc) that would work only if the world was a classical system.


It is possible when we scatter electrons to derive the Coulomb law (eg see here http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/six.pdf page 24 and get also the other parts five, four three etc by changing the url) ) (the 1/r potential or 1/r^2 force law in the classical picture of forces) from the original Lagrangian of QED (and similar for Yukawa potential for scalar field with mass)



using Feynman tree level diagrams that some like to see as manifestations of virtual particles carrying the force. I am not one of them. (the reason is that in order to be very accurate in describing the scattering amplitude you will need to go also to higher levels of Feynman diagrams beyond the tree level, eg loop diagrams and then loops within loops etc exactly as you would expect in a perturbative expansion that never ends and so in this picture if you insist you will have the particle interact with a virtual gauge boson that then also interacts with other virtual fermions and this with other virtual bosons etc in an endless picture of emerging complexity as you go deeper in the perturbation expansion. (of course in many processes only the first tree level result is needed to reproduce the familiar classical picture which of course is not the true world only a very good approximation to our experience in certain cases). So that naive picture of a single boson exchanged between the 2 charges becomes quickly an infinity of boson upon boson exchanges and virtual fermions in between etc endlessly all adding up to what you observe as total probability amplitude.

Eg things like;



and far more complex even...


So if one insists on that picture it quickly becomes an endless sequences of all possible connections allowed by the theory's Lagrangian at deeper and deeper level. It is never a single boson in the end as the naive popularized picture (at the tree level) would want to see it.


I cannot describe to you what is actually happening because the world appears to not behave that way as if such description is possible in terms of how we would imagine it classically (with objects exchanged etc), these are not observable details, all we get is probabilities (amplitudes) to find particles in certain places as result of the scattering.

Different questions are needed to be asked instead. Like how do you find the probability for the particle to move from one point to another.


You may also want to take a look at this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

"The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is a description of quantum theory which generalizes the action principle of classical mechanics. It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of possible trajectories to compute a quantum amplitude."

What particles? What "actual" particles. I understand what's going on is complex. But what are the actual particles involved in this complex interaction?


PairTheBoard

2 electrons scattering are the actual particles for example (excitations of the Dirac fermionic field). They exist inside a quantized field. Eg the field of QED. The virtual particles are visual representations of the Feynman diagrams used to calculate eg scattering amplitudes to see what happens when they scatter (eg the equivalent of them scattering elastically like in classical physics eg Rutherford scattering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering but this is only at tree level, you need higher levels so the picture gets complicated quickly and the single gauge boson exchange picture proves limited and simplistic, think of it as 2 particles and an infinity of virtual ones lol)

(In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum)


I mean you want to imagine that the Coulomb force (eg that classically leads to say hyperbolic trajectories) is the result of the exchange of a gauge boson right? But this is a simplistic picture of what is actually happening (and so is maybe the very idea of insisting that something is actually happening - like a hidden mechanism - that can be described in classical terms) that is best described in terms of scattering amplitudes and not exact sequence of mechanisms between the 2 so to speak, again read the Heisenberg statement above.


I suggest you spend a few hours or days watching the Feynman videos i linked (and maybe i will add a few more). It might help become a bit less unhappy with the strange theory we are cursed/blessed with lol until we finally find out what is behind it at a greater level which i still insist is close. (in a way we are victimized by our classical level perception of reality and want to imagine processes that are exact and descriptive in terms of perfect mechanisms which of course require fuzzy things such as spacetime geometry itself. I also insist on taking a look at the Feynman path integral formalism of QM which imagines that the probability amplitude acquires contributions from all paths of all possible histories, that in itself is not consistent with imagining a subtle hidden exact process that we are simply missing...)

The earth and the sun interact gravitationally at a distance by each interacting with an underlying quantum field. This quantum field interaction makes up what is known as "virtual particles" and they are solutions to pretty complicated equations involving these quantum fields, but not totally unlike notes on a guitar string being solutions to a wave equation. They are quite different from regular particles but share enough superficial simmilarties (quantized, bose/fermi statistics etc) that they are called virtual particles.

Of course the real particles that make up the sun and earth are also solutions to quantum field theory equations, but they behave so differently (longer lifetimes, obey causality etc) from the virtual particles involved in action at a distance that it makes sense to draw a fairly clear distinction between them in most situations, even though they are both allowed states of the same quantum field. Hopefully that is short enough without being misleading/wrong

So magnetic "force" at a distance is really caused by transference of momentum by electrons in a complex way understood in the context of quantum theory where "particles" like electrons have some very un-particle-like properties.

Is that about right?


PairTheBoard

This is just like asking "what's really going on" inside Schrodingers box. These virtual particles can't be observed even in theory, so it's a bit meaningless to ask if they're "actually" there. Ultimately, we have a set of mathematical constructs that give us results that match observations, and that's all we can say about reality. It's also true for non-virtual particles as well.

We are attuned to locality and causality as routine as the seasons and straight forward as 2+2. That is how I consider the root assumption of 'classical nature'. Imagine that being called into question by indirect indication which suggests while that thinking remains valid, it's not absolute. Just the easiest to observe with our scientific facilities. Quantum nature is obviously not very easy to scientifically observe at all, requiring exceptionally specialized knowledge and tools just to derive indirect indication.

I understand that. But if we do a Schrodinger's box with a cat inside it's not a dog. If we do a double slit experiment with a beam of electrons it's not photons that are hitting the screen. So in the case of magnetic force I'd like to know which particles are doing the momentum transferring work to explain the force at a distance. The best I can tell from masque's massive posts is that it's electrons. I've been told previously that it was photons. Which is it?

This is with the understanding that the process of the momentum transference is quite complex with Schrodinger box quantum weirdness involved and that the mathematical device of virtual particles was invented for ease in conceptualization and calculation. But that doesn't change the understanding that at bottom the work of momentum transference is done by electrons even if the way it happens is hidden in quantum weirdness.


PairTheBoard

The excitations of the fermi field ie the electrons interact with the radiation field. (so 2 electrons say interact via the radiation field with each other) (both the sources and the field have been quantized)

In doing Feynman diagrams to calculate probability amplitudes you have perturbation terms that one could appear as seeing local interaction between electrons and virtual photons. This is why people call it they exchange momentum though the virtual photons. But those are not real particles and the full calculation may require many depths of such diagrams with loops etc (not just the tree level that is interpreted as a single virtual photon). This is why i do not like to see it that way.

QM deals with what can be observed. The inner workings cannot be observed. What you ask ie to describe to you a process in some detail requires a description that is eg consistent with a classical picture of actual small balls hitting each other and transferring momentum that way in precise locations (eg like billiards where an intermediate ball is used to interact 2 other balls with - you hit the first - calling it electron it strikes a second - calling it photon , the second strikes the third one -eg another electron and its like effectively the first interacted with the third through the second) where all these variables, momentum and locations ie trajectories are perfectly known for all participants but it just does happen in a way we cant see it. No this is not what is going on. Its not a classical picture like that which is hidden from us, even if it helps to imagine it that way considering an integration over all the possible collisions of that type. The virtual photons are not actual photons that we actually cant observe. They are just what we conveniently called some terms of the perturbative expansion because these parts use boson propagators and vertices where the interaction terms of our Lagrangian appears connecting the fermions with the gauge field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagator

"The most common use of the propagator is in calculating probability amplitudes for particle interactions using Feynman diagrams. These calculations are usually carried out in momentum space. In general, the amplitude gets a factor of the propagator for every internal line, that is, every line that does not represent an incoming or outgoing particle in the initial or final state. It will also get a factor proportional to, and similar in form to, an interaction term in the theory's Lagrangian for every internal vertex where lines meet. These prescriptions are known as Feynman rules.

Internal lines correspond to virtual particles. Since the propagator does not vanish for combinations of energy and momentum disallowed by the classical equations of motion, we say that the virtual particles are allowed to be off shell. In fact, since the propagator is obtained by inverting the wave equation, in general it will have singularities on shell.

The energy carried by the particle in the propagator can even be negative. This can be interpreted simply as the case in which, instead of a particle going one way, its antiparticle is going the other way, and therefore carrying an opposing flow of positive energy. The propagator encompasses both possibilities. It does mean that one has to be careful about minus signs for the case of fermions, whose propagators are not even functions in the energy and momentum (see below).

Virtual particles conserve energy and momentum. However, since they can be off shell, wherever the diagram contains a closed loop, the energies and momenta of the virtual particles participating in the loop will be partly unconstrained, since a change in a quantity for one particle in the loop can be balanced by an equal and opposite change in another. Therefore, every loop in a Feynman diagram requires an integral over a continuum of possible energies and momenta. In general, these integrals of products of propagators can diverge, a situation that must be handled by the process of renormalization."


For fun always ...good to remember until the next synthesis...



(segment from the first lecture in N. Zealand i posted earlier)

Basically, the short answer is virtual photons.

And i never said its electrons by the way. Its just that PairTheBoard doesnt deserve a simplistic answer like that. So i tried to show him how the concept begins in the calculations because it looks like that and you can call it virtual gauge bosons but that doesnt make that picture actually something valuable any better than the classical idea of action at a distance through the field the sources created. (except that unlike the classic picture, this approach actually calculates things that experiments confirm)

The entire popularization efforts start from trying to be cute about parts of the the process of working with Green's functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green's_function

Now that i checked again the link on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

i think PTB and anyone similarly interested will be benefited by reading it say up to the point that the Mathematics section starts (say 2/5th in the article) that to be fair deserves to take things in order with proper physics education, even though someone scientifically trained can still look at it and recognize a lot.

If you read it i expect to recognize that the picture of electrons exchanging photons becomes problematic if you wish to take it literally because the theory in fact assumes that all possible exchanges of that type can take place (of course with properly adjusted weights) in order to find out what happens in some particular interaction.

So the effort to imagine a process behind the scenes so to speak loses its point because it is as if all possible processes that could ever happen happen at the same time to get to the probability of some outcome. But it is my understanding that this averaging is not like the averaging of a classical problem that it can happen in many ways (like the EV of a game proposed) and a particular one always happens and its just that you dont know which so you go over all possible ways to eg estimate the EV (some probability tree process i mean with several steps). It is not something hidden from you. There is no objective reality as in one particular way things happened that someone could know about before interacting with the system (ie detecting the electron in C in the link's example ) and because you cant know it you go over all possibilities. In a way it is as if all is happening. So how can one then see it as a singular well defined exchange of momentum between an electron and a virtual photon. But you do need that singular character if you wish to imagine a process here that carries the interaction (carries the force).


Do you see why i object to the simplification often popularized?

Think of how you would visualize a transition from a cube to a tesseract. Nolan does an excellent job of this in Interstellar.

The two corners never meet.

Representative outputs. So light and magnetism share core elements and origin. There is information generated in the vacuum in where both try to get back to they were originally.

Magnetism defines us as much as light does, sometimes more, usually less but we are not avian. So our conscious regard of its importance is sparse. Not so much birds.

Unplumbed depths of The Laws of Attraction, I'm sure. Might be that light/gravity have a relation as meshed as spacetime. Light under superluminal acceleration might just be mass itself, and Mendeleev simply representative of scattering and collations of both an internal map and an external mosaic of common roots.

Or perhaps that's too romantic.

Calling this "photons" and "electrons" belies the notion that these "particles" are not particles at all, but are compressed units of specific vacua which attract and bind each other through opposing force interactions. A photon is an indicator. An electron is an indicator. I don't think we're sophisticated enough to determine actual reality yet.

Schrodinger only had to rattle a jar of cat food to find out if the cat was alive, no need to look in the box.

Sometimes indirect methods are just as good as direct ones.