Does QM state that Space is made of nothing?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of space in quantum mechanics. It is stated that quantum mechanics is not a theory of space or time, but rather a theory of the motion of quantum particles. The conversation also explores various theories about the composition of space, including the idea that space is made up of a Higgs field or tiny vibrating strings. It is mentioned that there is currently no clear layman's definition of space according to quantum mechanics. Some scientists believe that a theory of quantum gravity may provide a better understanding of space.
  • #1
mpolo
70
1
I am trying to understand what space is. Does QM state that Space is made of nothing? In other words it does not exist?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Hmm, I have been having discussions elsewhere with a prominent mathematician and that is what he is claiming. If space is something then what does QM say space is? I just want a clear laymen s definition for what space is according to QM. Does such a definition exist? Maybe not. Some people say that space is made up of a Higg's field that exists in a hidden dimension. There are some other scientists that say that space is filled by tiny vibrating strings. This is confusing.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Quantum mechanics is not a theory of space or time. It's a theory of the motion of quantum particles, and they exist in an ordinary space (3D euclidean space) and ordinary time (parameter).

Maybe you're interested on Quantum Field Theory which is Quantum Mechanics + Special Relativity. Even so, this theory says nothing about the space composition. Our current knowledge of space (space-time) is that it is continuous and flexible (it curves in presence of matter). All theories about a possible composition of space-time are not proved experimentally.
 
  • #5
mpolo said:
Does QM state that Space is made of nothing? In other words it does not exist?

No, because "nothing" and "exist" are not well-defined scientific terms.

mpolo said:
If space is something then what does QM say space is

"Something" is also not a well-defined scientific term.

mpolo said:
I just want a clear laymen s definition for what space is according to QM. Does such a definition exist?

No. The question itself is not well-defined.

mpolo said:
Some people say that space is made up of a Higg's field that exists in a hidden dimension. There are some other scientists that say that space is filled by tiny vibrating strings. This is confusing.

Yes, you're liable to get confused if you try to understand science from pop science sources.

As far as the actual science is concerned, spacetime, as a "background" for things like quantum fields, is the domain of general relativity, not QM. GR says that spacetime is a 4-dimensional manifold ("manifold" is a precise mathematical term that you can look up) with a locally Lorentzian metric.

Many physicists believe that we will someday find a theory that merges quantum field theory and general relativity (the usual name for this is "quantum gravity"), and that this theory will model what we now think of as spacetime in terms of more fundamental entities. But we don't have such a theory yet, so all we can do is speculate at this point.
 
  • Like
Likes kvantarina and bhobba
  • #6
mpolo said:
Hmm, I have been having discussions elsewhere with a prominent mathematician and that is what he is claiming. If space is something then what does QM say space is? I just want a clear laymen s definition for what space is according to QM. Does such a definition exist? Maybe not. Some people say that space is made up of a Higg's field that exists in a hidden dimension. There are some other scientists that say that space is filled by tiny vibrating strings. This is confusing.

QM assumes space-time as the background in which things occcur - specifically inertial frames for both QM and its relativistic version QFT. In non-relativistic QM inertial frames (one in which the so called Galilean transformations apply) good old Euclidean geometry holds. So that's the answer to your mathematician friend. Its as real or nor real as Euclidean geometry. His reaction to that will likely depend on if he is an applied mathematician or a pure one. If he is an applied mathematician they long ago stopped thinking in terms of what it is their mathematical models actually model - but rather how good a model is it and what does it it say and/or predict about what it is modelling. Its for the reasons Peter Donis outlined - terms like reality, real, exist etc are notoriously hard to pin down so - well they gave up. Back in the days when that hadn't given up there was this case of Gauss vs Kant. Kant thought Euclidean Geometry was true a-priori, but Gauss had discovered, but not published due to Kant's reputation, that it was just as valid and in fact could logically be mapped to other kinds of geometry like Hyperbolic Geometry. So lesson learned. It laid the ground for Riemann's general treatment of geometries and eventually to Einstein and GR.

If he is a pure one then just point him to Hilbert's axioms of Euclidean geometry and say they assume that - what it means is up to him/her to decide. Pure mathematicians usually don't care about that sort of thing.

Extending it beyond inertial frames is a lot harder - but progress of a sort has been made - and its not what pop-sci books tell you:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3511

Everything is honky dory up to about the Plank scale - beyond that - well let's just say research is ongoing. Maybe your mathematician friend can help.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #7
mpolo said:
I just want a clear laymen s definition for what space is according to QM.
According to all science I have seen so far, "space" is what is between two spatial coordinates (and time is what is between two time coordinates). The "is" should be understood more as "is used" not as "is the product/made of".
 
Last edited:
  • #8
@bhobba Thanks for the additional insight. I won't give his name here but my friend is a topologist if that is any help to understanding what he thinks. He is a very nice fellow and he teaches at the University of Illinois. I have a great respect for what he says. I may not always agree but I always listen and give it great consideration. He likes to say "nothing exists, not one thing" Things just emerge when we look at them. Thanks for the history lesson I am always very interested in the philosophical back ground to math and physics.

Also thanks @Mr rabbit That is exactly what I wanted to know. What the current consensus thinking is on the subject of space.
 
  • #9
Well, you are sure, he's in the math faculty or rather more inclined to theology and/or philosophy? SCNR :biggrin:
 
  • #12
mpolo said:
@bhobbaHe likes to say "nothing exists, not one thing" Things just emerge when we look at them.

Well actually classicality is an emergent thing - maybe even sort of an an illusion from QM. But nothing existing - that's pushing it a bit too far. Far better not to worry about such things at all because it so loaded with ill-defined philosophical baggage.

Interestingly an actual philosopher said something of relevance here - Wittgenstein:
'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.'

But then again prior to being a philosopher he was an applied mathematician/aeronautical engineer so its hardly surprising he picked that one up. Existence is one of those things its best to stay clear of in science - although some famously do not eg Penrose. Look up his views for something interesting. Also look at the famous debates between Wittgenstein and Turing about the reality of math - equally as interesting - Wittgenstein believed it was just a convention - to Turing it was objectively real - if not bridges would fall down etc etc. Your mathematician friend will likely really enjoy that one. Being the better debater, but not as great a mathematician as Turing (but no slouch) it is thought he won. But the modern view is Turing was likely correct - most hold some view like - existence, reality etc is what our models tell us. It's a bit circular - but hey these really foundational questions are a morass anyway.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #13
Bill,

Great response. I am at heart a philosopher and I crave the view points other than my own. Almost all of my questions here at this site are foundational in nature. They seem to frustrate a lot of people here. I enjoy the debate and how it forces me to think and examine my ideas. I am really very interested in the foundational questions. My friend and I have written each other and had many good discussions. I am told by others in the group that I am associated with that he is a very big mathematician and highly acclaimed. We all research for this group in our own way. Everyone's ideas are appreciated and respected.

I will give him your recommendations next time I communicate with him. I know that he thinks that questions concerning what is real and not real are a waist of time. I have listened to him on talk shows discussing the idea of nothingness. Not many laymen type people can accept that for many reasons so I have not heard him convince many people. He has not convinced me. We have discussed his logical sort of proof he gives. I responded to the proof and demonstrated that it is not consistent. We respectfully disagree and continue our friendship.

I am very interested in the opinion of physicist's when I ask for information. I am interested in knowing what the most prevalent view is. What makes it difficult for people like myself is that QM has so many different interpretations. In my philosophy of things when you have more than one interpretation or explanation for a phenomenon that is an indicator that something is wrong.

The problem with me is I want to get answers with absolute precision and the problem with language especially concerning QM is that the response I get about that thing I ask about is that it is immediately abstracted from the real world to the degree as to not represent any real thing. I am left still wondering. My personal belief is that mathematics is the most precise language of reality. One creates the model of reality from the imagination and then derives the mathematics from the imagined model. Then we can test the math of the model with experiments. If the predictions of the math are proven correct by experiment then that validates the math which then validates the imagined model. We now understand another puzzle piece of of the grand mystery. General Relativity is a good example of what I speak.

There is a problem with this scheme where QM is concerned. What if the math used to describe a phenomenon possesses no basis for describing the cause of the effects of the phenomenon in question. We now have a tool that gives us the right answers for experiments without any knowledge of how the results are happening. In my opinion we have elevated that tool to a full blown theory that can never be used to discover and understand the foundational questions of nature. I do not mean to upset anyone I just want to know what you guys think and the reasoning why you believe as you do. I have a great respect and love for science and math. Its my way of getting closer to God. Science to me is a spiritual thing. I want to know the thoughts of the creator.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #14
mpolo said:
What if the math used to describe a phenomenon possesses no basis for describing the cause of the effects of the phenomenon in question.

Sure it does. You are assuming, incorrectly, that "cause" means we have to be able to describe an exact trajectory in space and time. It doesn't.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #15
mpolo said:
In my philosophy of things when you have more than one interpretation or explanation for a phenomenon that is an indicator that something is wrong
Well "phenomenon" is too vague a term. There are many real things that can be interpreted in many ways based on many point of view. When those "things" aren't in the domain of physics, it is very common. If this thing is QM it only point to the fact that is may be incomplete, that's very different from "wrong"

mpolo said:
The problem with me is I want to get answers with absolute precision and the problem with language especially concerning QM is that the response I get about that thing I ask about is that it is immediately abstracted from the real world to the degree as to not represent any real thing.
That's not a problem with language or math. The problem is the QM phenomenon are real. You think that they are "abstract" because they are just unusual.
The math is a little bit abstract, the the math of GR isn't really that easy too.

mpolo said:
My personal belief is that mathematics is the most precise language of reality.
That belief is well grounded, because it kind of is the definition of what math is. Actually Asimov develop this idea in Foundation up to the point where more mundane "things" (like emotions and behaviors) can be expressed in mathematics.
But in fact there are many languages that fits many purpose. And absolute precision may just be impossible.

mpolo said:
There is a problem with this scheme where QM is concerned. What if the math used to describe a phenomenon possesses no basis for describing the cause of the effects of the phenomenon in question.
I see no difference between GR and QM. They both follow the exact same scientific method you describe previously.

mpolo said:
We now have a tool that gives us the right answers for experiments without any knowledge of how the results are happening.
Yes, but GR is also a tool. As a layman I understand probability well enough. It is much harder to understand how spacetime curvature is happening.

mpolo said:
In my opinion we have elevated that tool to a full blown theory that can never be used to discover and understand the foundational questions of nature.
I don't think that is correct. QM can very well be used as a foundation for something else. Actually it is the purpose of every theory.
But you probably meant that most theoretical physicists are in the "shut up and calculate" group. A group that is probably very happy not to go further in the rabbit hole. You may be interested in the next Sean Carroll book, where he will precisely address that issue.
I like the way he addresses problems, even if I disagree with his main premise.
 
  • #16
mpolo said:
I am very interested in the opinion of physicist's when I ask for information. I am interested in knowing what the most prevalent view is. What makes it difficult for people like myself is that QM has so many different interpretations. In my philosophy of things when you have more than one interpretation or explanation for a phenomenon that is an indicator that something is wrong.

You have touched on a number of interesting things here - some of which have an answer and some that do not.

Of what has an answer, and does not:

1. We know very well formally why QM is as it is. In order of increasing mathematical sophistication:
https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0101012.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6562

2. From the above we see QM is the simplest most reasonable probability based theory about observations, without being really careful in a general sense about what an observation is. Physically we want to use calculus to describe changes in states etc and if you demand that then QM is basically what you get.

3. This then exposes the real nitty-gritty issue with QM - it is a theory about observations that occur here in a common-sense classical world. But how can a fundamental theory that assumes such in the first place explain what it assumes - that is a big big issue.

4. Of course physicists get that - it's not the pop-sci junk you read in popularization - but a genuine issue - maybe the genuine issue. Much, much work has been done to try and resolve it with great progress being made. Here is THE book on it:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540357734/?tag=pfamazon01-20

5. As the above explains we now have a fully quantum theory of what an observation is, but now the problem has morphed. Colloquially its why we get any outcomes, observations etc at all - there is a technical version but I will not go into it.

6. This is the rock bottom essence of the modern version of what is going on with QM. The real surprise is we have a theory with tons and tons of different answers and I would not say any predominate - its runs a gamut with physicists with all sorts of arguments. Some like me think its basically hooey - who really cares - we stick to the so called ensemble interpretation or similar (one version along those lines is what Brian Green says he thinks it is at the end of the video) - to others its of vital importance - and we have all sorts of views in between. See the following video:


That's pretty much it - but I need to mention the book I suggested to your mathematician friend - its written by a pure mathematician for pure mathematicians and holds no view physically at all - just the math ma'am, just the math. As I said what he makes of it after that will be interesting - my bet is he will form a view just like the myriad of other scientists have - but what that is, is the interesting bit. If he sticks to his pure math roots it will be like mine - who cares. But we will see.

But of greatest importance is that no view is better than any other since science depends on experiment and they all are experimentally exactly the same. And that is the real key to this interpretation stuff. Each interpretation illuminates the formalism in some way so you gain a better understanding of what the theory actually says. For example you will often hear people speak about collapse in QM - its hooey - but until you have studied interpretations that don't have it (and the book I suggested to your friend doesn't) you don't immediately see it. That's the real value of this stuff, and what we discuss here as far as foundations go. We do not discuss philosophy - but rather actual specific questions about what various interpretations say.

If that interests you hang around for a while. But if you want to discuss deep philosophical issues then you are at the wrong place. But for understanding what QM actually says - then here you will find it.

Of course we discuss a LOT more than just foundational things, and philosophy is forbidden by forum rules - but if you want to understand the real deal, not sugar coated popularization's with wave-particle duality (like collapse its another crock), collapse, virtual partices etc then this is the right place.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #17
From Henry Stapp's book, page 67, 68,

In spite of doubts cast on our intuitive notions of space and time by the theory of relativity, the idea lingers on that persisting physical objects occupy spacetime regions that can be divided into ever finer parts. A basic premise of classical physics is that this classical concept of the spacetime continuum is the appropriate underlying concept for fundamental physical theory.

It is important to recognize that quantum theory has nothing in it that can be regarded as a description of qualities or properties of nature that are located at the point or infinitesimal regions of the spacetime continuum. On one hand, the descriptions of the experimental arrangements and observations are basically operational descriptions of what technicians can see and do. They are not, strictly speaking, descriptions of the external things in themselves. Moreover, they are not descriptions of microscopic qualities or properties. On the other hand, the wave functions are merely abstract symbolic devices. They do not describe qualities or properties of nature that are located at points or infinitesimal regions of the spacetime continuum. The abrupt change of a wave function in one region of spacetime when a measurement is performed far away at the same time makes any such interpretation unreasonable. The wave functions of quantum theory are to be interpreted as symbolic devices that scientists use to make predictions about what they will observe under specified conditions. As Bohr says it:

"In the treatment of atomic problems, actual calculations are most conveniently carried out with the help of a Schrödinger state function, from which the statistical laws governing observations attainable under specified conditions can be deduced by definite mathematical operations. It must be recognized, however, that we are here dealing with a purely symbolic procedure the unambiguous physical interpretation of which in the last resort requires a reference to the complete experimental arrangement."

"In fact, wave mechanics, just as the matrix theory, represents on this view a symbolic transcription of the problem of motion of classical mechanics adapted to the requirements of quantum theory and only to be interpreted by an explicit use of the quantum postulate."


The fact that quantum theory contains nothing that is interpreted as a description of qualities located at points of an externally existing spacetime continuum can be construed as evidence of its incompleteness. 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.

If the classical concept of the spacetime continuum were accepted, then quantum theory could not be considered complete, i.e., if it were accepted that the persisting objects of nature literally reside in a spacetime continuum, with their various parts definitely located in specific regions, then a complete scientific account of atomic phenomena would, by virtue of the natural and normal meanings of these words, in this framework, be required to describe whatever it was that is located at the points or infinitesimal regions of that continuum. Quantum theory does not do this, and hence a claim of completeness would be an abuse of language.

In a pragmatic framework the claim of completeness has a different natural meaning. The natural meaning of the claim that quantum theory provides for a complete scientific account of atomic phenomena is that no theoretical construction can yield experimentally verifiable predictions about atomic phenomena that cannot be extracted from a quantum-theoretical description. This is the practical or pragmatic meaning of scientific completeness in this context.


Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #18
AlexCaledin said:
The fact that quantum theory contains nothing that is interpreted as a description of qualities located at points of an externally existing spacetime continuum

That's wrong, unfortunately like some other stuff I have read from Stapp. Likely its not quite getting context right rather than actually not knowing QM which he obviously does.

QM is a theory about observations that appear in a commonsense classical world located at points in a usually assumed Euclidean Space. Look up Euclid's axioms to see how points fit into it - it's fundamental.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #19
Well, "points" in physics are not "points" in mathematics. The classical world is about coarse-grained observations, and there's always a finite resolution of space-time intervals. The description of spacetime as a smooth pseudo-Riemannian manifold is in this sense a coarse grained classical description. Stapp is right in saying that quantum theory is incomplete as long as there is no consistent quantum description of space time which is most probably closely related to the consistent quantum description of gravity, as General Relativity tells us that the spacetime structure is closely related to gravitation.
 
  • Like
Likes AlexCaledin and bhobba
  • #20
vanhees71 said:
The classical world is about coarse-grained observations, and there's always a finite resolution of space-time intervals.

Yes of course in understanding how the world around us emerges a coarse grained view is usually used so in that sense point is not quite a good description.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #21
bhobba said:
... in understanding how the world around us emerges ...

- but, wait a minute . . . This idea, of our world "emerging", is no more than philosophy and ought to be forbidden here, right?
 
  • #22
No, it's called quantum statistics. Most philosophers won't be able to understand it ;-)).
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and Nugatory
  • #23
vanhees71 said:
No, it's called quantum statistics. Most philosophers won't be able to understand it ;-)).
- that's hardly an appropriate thing to say to an electronic (or chemical etc) researcher - and such people have all good reasons to consider themselves main "consumers" of QM, demanding it to be consistent. Quantum statistics, to them, is the theory that explains, with astonishing success, the properties/behavior of objects like e. g. semiconductor crystal. You cannot tell them how that crystal itself "emerges" because they know (and think) too much about the drastically sophisticated process of manufacturing such objects.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
AlexCaledin said:
that's hardly an appropriate thing to say to an electronic (or chemical etc) researcher
I'm not sure why not. Electronic (or chemical, or ...) researchers aren't philosophers, and vanhees isn't saying that "that crystal itself 'emerges'" from anything other than some manufacturing process. He's saying that the physical laws that govern the behavior of macroscopic objects emerge from a statistical treatment of microscopic quantum mechanics in a manner vaguely analogous to the way that the ideal gas law emerges from a statistical treatment of microscopic classical mechanics. (This vague analogy is mine not his, but I can't do any better in a B-level thread).

This isn't a philosophical claim, it's a claimed based on reasonably convincing math that is somewhat underappreciated in popular treatments.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and bhobba
  • #25
AlexCaledin said:
- but, wait a minute . . . This idea, of our world "emerging", is no more than philosophy and ought to be forbidden here, right?

I explained it in post 16 - Vanhees and Nugatory expanded on how its done, mathematically - its via a coarse gaining kind of technique similar in some ways to statistical physics. The reference I gave in that post gives the full gruesome detail.

And yes Vanhees was correct to say what he said about points - I was not as exact as I should have been - my bad. Its in the math in that for example the wave-function gives the probability of observing something at a point - so points are in the theory. But that is just the math - you can never actually do it ie locate the exact point of say an electron - that's why the wave-function of a particle is modeled by something very 'weird', the Dirac Delta Function - its not in any way a function in the usual sense - but is introduced for mathematical convenience. The world around us 'emerges' from the math by something much more sophisticated.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #26
- just found another Stapp's article, seems the most comprehensible consideration of the world's "emergence",

(since it's allowed here:smile:)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l6aFEsQkT-8J:www-atlas.lbl.gov/~stapp/Quantum-Collapse.doc

the final words seem especially remarkable.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
AlexCaledin said:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l6aFEsQkT-8J:www-atlas.lbl.gov/~stapp/Quantum-Collapse.doc

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. Let's 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:
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/the-strong-law-of-large-numbers/

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:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

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.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #28
Thank you all for the additional opinions and information. I am especially interested in this statement.

AlexCaledin said:
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.
 
  • #30
tomdaniels said:
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 can't 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:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/019969933X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

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 what's 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 can't 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.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #31
The OP question has been sufficiently addressed. Thread closed.
 

1. What is QM and how does it relate to space?

QM stands for quantum mechanics, which is a branch of physics that studies the behavior of matter and energy at a very small scale, such as atoms and subatomic particles. QM does not directly state that space is made of nothing, but it does provide a framework for understanding the properties of space and how it interacts with matter and energy.

2. Is space really made of nothing according to QM?

According to the principles of QM, space is not considered to be made of nothing. Instead, it is described as a dynamic and constantly changing medium that is filled with energy and particles. These particles, known as virtual particles, constantly pop in and out of existence, creating a fluctuating and complex structure in space.

3. How does QM explain the concept of empty space?

QM does not view space as being completely empty. Instead, it is seen as a vacuum that is filled with energy and particles that are constantly interacting with each other. This concept is known as quantum vacuum or zero-point energy, and it is an integral part of QM theories.

4. Can QM provide evidence for the existence of virtual particles in space?

While QM does not directly provide evidence for the existence of virtual particles, it does offer mathematical equations and theories that support their existence. These theories have been tested and validated through experiments, providing strong evidence for the dynamic nature of space.

5. Does QM have any implications for our understanding of the universe?

Yes, QM has greatly influenced our understanding of the universe and has led to many groundbreaking discoveries in physics. It has helped us understand the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy, as well as the behavior of these particles at a microscopic level. QM also plays a crucial role in our understanding of the universe's origins and its ongoing expansion.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
522
Replies
3
Views
679
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
24
Views
543
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
67
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
24
Views
1K
Back
Top