GIThruster wrote:Pretty sure you're right here. IIUC, all "quasiparticles" are accounting measures or mathematical constructions much like virtual particles, in that they only describe behavior. There is no reason to suppose they exist. So using them to describe behavior other than what is observed is silly. The concept only exists to give us a handy, reduced explanation. It is not an accurate description of real events. So any model that uses this approximation, is not really looking at the actual issue. This is one of my beefs with White's QVF model. It's based on virtual particles that have no mass and do not gravitate, transferring momentum, which means they must have inertial mass but not gravitational mass--a direct violation of Einstein's Equivalence Principle and all of GR. You don't make bone-headed mistakes like this if you're paying attention to what the actual tool and models are supposed to be used for. This is why Sean Carroll at CalTech has been so critical of White's model, even calling it "bullshit" in the press--because he's incensed that someone is proposing a misuse of such tools. This is likewise what Shawyer did with the "group velocity" concept.tomclarke wrote:Perhaps I'm just dim. I'm not seeing the connection between polaritons and nuclear physics.
See for polaritons
http://www.omel.ethz.ch/education/Plasm ... PLASMONICS
For Virtual Particles(non resonance disturbances in the EMF field) see
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-a ... -are-they/