How can virtual particles just pop in and out of existence? Doesn't

>>8073450
>As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles — which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles — do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle.

>However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make.

>>8073450
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.

>>8073450
Virtual particles are just a mathematical tool. Each line tells you to write down some mathematical expression, and each vertex some other expression. What exactly depends on the theory and the kind of line/vertex. A quark line is different to a gluon line, and a quark/gluon/gluon vertex is different to a 3 gluon vertex.
That's all it is and thinking of them as actual particles is simply incorrect, despite what popsci might tell you.

>>8073450
Your shitpost violates the law of conversation.

>>8073500
Is a proton an actual particle?

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

>>8073469
nice, a virtual page

>>8073450
there is no symmetry, it's all bullshit

>>8073450
>something larger
how about a universe?

http://youtu.be/zO2vfYNaIbk?t=50s

>>8073500
>Whenever something doesn't fit with current theory "it's just a mathematical abstraction"
nice handwaving

>>8073569
>the current theory doesn't fit with the current theory
Nice one

>>8073509
The contons will oppose you if you advocate that.

(The antonym of the protons, of course I am referring to)