B Does QM state that Space is made of nothing?

Last edited:
Read it - a few points:

1. It says 'The key mathematical idea in quantum mechanics is simple enough to be understood by anyone actually interested in how the world works. In quantum mechanics the state, or probability function, of any physical system is represented by a matrix, called the density matrix. It is a square array of numbers. This array is like a cross word puzzle with the number of rows equal to the number of columns, and with a number, instead of a letter, in each little box. Such an array is called a (square) matrix'

I would say, while OK as it stands, it's a bit more subtle than that - see Gleason's Theorem.

2. Lets look at that final bit 'It is the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics, more than any of its rivals, that incorporates mental aspects into the process of the creation of reality. Indeed, the aim of all of the attempted “improvements” upon the orthodox interpretation has been to get the mental aspects out of the dynamics. That objective appears to be an anti-scientific philosophical legacy inherited from the two hundred year reign of classical mechanics.'

Well yes Copenhagen has the wave-function as sort of a degree of confidence a rational person would have. But that's the same as the Bayesian view of probability. Are you worried about normal probability theory as well? Are we really in that deep a do-do? You can take that view if you like, but its a rather unusual one. Maybe that's why most applied mathematicians, including me, prefer the frequentest interpretation - but that has its own issue to do with the strong law of large numbers being in the infinite limit:

I, and most others just say - well there is a probability so close to zero you can take it as zero for all practical purposes, so while the number the strong law applies to is very large (and you can make it as large as you like - a googleplex to the power of a googleplex if you like) it can be for all practical purposes be large but finite.

Still there are those that take me to task on that view and don't agree with it. As John Baez says much of the augments about QM is simply arguments in a different setting about what probability means:

3. Note, despite what the article says there is no collapse in QM. Stapp should know that - but can probably be excused since it's more a populist paper.

Last edited:
Thank you all for the additional opinions and information. I am especially interested in this statement.

However, all we really know about the spacetime continuum is that it is a concept that has been useful for organizing sense experience. Man’s effort to comprehend the world in terms of the idea of an external reality inhering in a spacetime continuum reached its culmination in classical field theory. That theory, though satisfactory in the domain of macroscopic phenomena, failed to provide a satisfactory account of the microscopic sources of the field. The bulk of Einstein’s scientific life was spent in a frustrated effort to make these ideas work at the microscopic level. The rejection of classical theory in favor of quantum theory represents, in essence, the rejection of the idea that external reality resides in, or inheres in, a spacetime continuum. It signalizes the recognition that “space”, like color, lies in the mind of the beholder.
I wonder, even though Einstein failed in his effort. What if he was on the right track but failed only because he did not have the right model to derive the proper equation. It is my guess, please tell me if this guess is wrong. I believe that he was working at the very core of reality where space (the Continuum) and the particles that reside consubstantially within that space are the actual cause of gravity. In other words gravity is not caused be a particle to particle interaction but a particle to space interaction. If the proper model with the correct mathematical description were to be discovered would this in fact prove that QM is incomplete.

Yes, I see something now, the microscopic sources of the field. This is still unknown. Understand this and we would understand all things.

I certainly have a lot of good information about QM now and much to consider and read about. Thanks for the suggested reading.
the empty vacuum of space … is filled with 'stuff'
Have a peer reviewed paper or textbook to back that up?

We can discuss such here, but speculations or loose heuristic language even by eminent physicists are not valid sources. We can discuss things like the above so you understand why they are or are not valid - but cant be used to support personal views. If you are not happy with that then this is not the forum for you and you should go elsewhere.

From your link:
Quantum vacuum
Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being non-empty at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly. It has been suggested by some such as Paul Dirac[7] that this quantum vacuum may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether. However, Dirac's aether hypothesis was motivated by his dissatisfaction with quantum electrodynamics, and it never gained support by the mainstream scientific community.

That description of QM (specifically QFT) is wrong - as I explained before and will now repeat. It is talking about virtual particles which do not exist in the usual sense - they are simply descriptions of lines that appear in a Feynman diagram. Better to call them Jaberwocky's to avoid confusion. Those lines are just pictorial representation of a Dyson series - not in any way physical. Thinking of them as particles is just a heuristic, useful sometimes - but not true.

Don't believe me? Well you need to study an actual QFT textbook and find where it says it. Here is one I have and have studied:

Find it in that book, or another actual QFT textbook, and we can discuss it (not in this thread - it needs a thread of its own) where actual experts in QFT (they are professors in physics that actually teach it) will carefully explain whats happening - but it will just be a more detailed rehash of what I said. Still you are welcome to try.

Note by forum rules only peer reviewed papers or actual textbooks are valid sources. You can ask for explanations of other sources - that's fine - and I have explained the quote above (to repeat its wrong - its speaking in loose heuristics physicists sometimes do when not being careful) but you cant use it as support for non-mainstream physics or personal theories you may have.

I also need to point out some actual peer reviewed papers would not pass peer review by many professors that post here - but its perfectly legit to discuss them here and see the errors they have. That actually is quite educational - seeing how even experts and people who are supposed to pick up such make mistakes. A common one in that category in misunderstandings about so called weak measurements - but that is just bye the bye.

Last edited:
The OP question has been sufficiently addressed. Thread closed.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads