Does quantum field fills every single piece of the universe?

No-where-man
Messages
191
Reaction score
0
I mean I read there is no such thing as absolute nothingness (which is logical), you can't create something from nothing.
But does it mean that quantum field fills every single piece of the universe which means there are not "holes", actually in quantum field that are completely empty?
Big thanks for the answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think what people often write, there is a probability of some quantum activity happening throughout the universe.

Eg. Pair creation and annihilation. This happens on a bed of quantum fields rather than coming from a |0> state.

Though, I have no real guess as to what happens inside a black hole
 
No-where-man said:
I mean I read there is no such thing as absolute nothingness (which is logical), you can't create something from nothing.
But does it mean that quantum field fills every single piece of the universe which means there are not "holes", actually in quantum field that are completely empty?
Big thanks for the answer.

Wow! You're lucky that the notion that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness is logical to you! :D
To answer your question, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Referring to this article,
http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/HiggsField.htm, I quote

"He proposed that this field existed throughout all of space and that particles gained their mass by interacting with it."

Also vacuum fluctuations don't make sense if there are regions where the fields are 'restricted' from.
 
eightsquare said:
Wow! You're lucky that the notion that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness is logical to you! :D
To answer your question, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Referring to this article,
http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/HiggsField.htm, I quote

"He proposed that this field existed throughout all of space and that particles gained their mass by interacting with it."

Also vacuum fluctuations don't make sense if there are regions where the fields are 'restricted' from.

Ok, big thanks for the link.
 
No-where-man said:
you can't create something from nothing

Well, nothing is a tricky term in QM and Lawrence Krauss does not entirely agree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE


But does it mean that quantum field fills every single piece of the universe which means there are not "holes", actually in quantum field that are completely empty?

Depends what you mean by “fills” and “holes”... it’s like a “bubbling brew” of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence, so fast that you can never detect them, hence empty space is not completely empty. The fact is; the weight of your body comes mostly from the “borrowed energy” of virtual particles because the quarks (the building blocks of protons and neutrons in the atomic nuclei) weigh almost nothing (maybe a perfect ‘remedy’ for overweight people – “It’s only virtual!” :smile:).
250px-Quark_structure_proton.svg.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECkG_JdodMA


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilczek
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top