Talk:Vacuum polarization

message: This sentence:
: According to quantum field theory, the ground state of a theory with interacting particles is not simply empty space.
(emphasis mine) seems to have a typo?
—RuakhTALK 14:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Theory": confusing typo? 

message: The article states:
In the presence of an electric field, e.g., the electromagnetic field around an electron, these particle-antiparticle pairs reposition themselves, thus partially counteracting the field (a partial screening effect, a dielectric effect). The field therefore will be weaker than would be expected if the vacuum were completely empty.
If this is true then the true charge of an electron is actually a tiny amount greater than what we observe. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, perturbation theory suggests it is infinitely greater, see renormalisation. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  true charge of an electron 

message: "The substances perceived to us are atoms which come into existence from vacuity and drop out of existence again.  Thus when a body moves from one position to another the atoms in the first position cease to be and a group of new similar atoms comes into existence in the second position, so the movement involves a series of annihilations and creations"
De Lacy O'Leary, 1922 
Before mentioning the title of the book, I must say that's a very accurate description especially since quantum mechanics wasn't born yet.   It can be understood why the author used some of the less accurate terms because, well without QM, there were no better choices at the time.
Now the odd thing is the title of the book "Arabic Though and It's Place in History" in the Chapter "Orthodox Scholasticism".   The author was translating religions ideas for western readers using scientific terms.  Which must be emphasized the concept did not exist in western science at that time, so he did an impressive job with what he had to work with.   The author therefore is in a sense the first westerner to describe the phenomena far ahead of the physics people (me being one of them).   Of course the field, polarization, and all those terms were not even theory in 1922, so he did an amazing job all things considered.
The next sentence is "The cause of these changes is God, the only permanent and absolute reality"  which is natural considering that happens to be what he was writing about in the book.   
The use of western scientific context is impressive in accuracy and seems odd for a book on Arabic thought, where some Greek Philosophical parallels would have seem to be the choice.
Fx303 (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A description of Vacuum Polarization from 1922 

message: For example:
"Maxwell's equations are the classical limit of the quantum electrodynamics which cannot be described by any classical theory. A point charge must be modified at extremely small distances less than the reduced Compton wavelength λ c {\displaystyle {\lambda _{c}}} {\displaystyle {\lambda _{c}}} (   = ℏ m c = 3.86 × 10 − 13  m {\displaystyle \ ={\frac {\hbar }{mc}}=3.86\times 10^{-13}{\text{ m}}} {\displaystyle \ ={\frac {\hbar }{mc}}=3.86\times 10^{-13}{\text{ m}}}). To lowest order in the fine-structure constant, α {\displaystyle \alpha } \alpha , the QED result for the electrostatic potential of a point charge is:[3]"
The math is fine, but the English is murky.
107.3.128.7 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads OK to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation uses confusing sentence structure 

message: The below sentence is not very clear and could maybe be broken up into two or more sentences.
I can't understand what Rabi measured or how that is connected to developments in radar equipment. Also the sentence is three lines long.
Miguelmurca (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix it. I hope I got it right. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Much better, thanks :) Miguelmurca (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence could be broken up 

message: Currently (as of now Note 11) corresponding to reference
is marked as year 1980. However, Course_of_Theoretical_Physics#Volume_4 is marked as 1982 for the same volume and year. The most likely discrepancy being caused by language editions e.g. Russian v. English editions. Can this please be checked and notated accordingly with which language/publisher is being referenced so that no discrepancy exists?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMmpds (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference / Citation and Note Needs Verification and Checking