How does emergent spacetime work?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of emergent spacetime, specifically how spacetime can arise from "nothing." Participants reference Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe From Nothing," which presents a popularized view of this idea but is criticized for its lack of rigor. The conversation highlights the distinction between mathematical descriptions of geometry and the physical reality they represent, emphasizing that spacetime may emerge from unknown fundamental degrees of freedom rather than true nothingness. Key references include peer-reviewed papers discussing the emergence of spacetime and critiques of popular science interpretations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and spacetime geometry
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics and entanglement
  • Knowledge of cosmological theories, particularly the Big Bang theory
  • Ability to critically analyze popular science literature
NEXT STEPS
  • Read "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss for a popular science perspective
  • Explore the peer-reviewed paper on spacetime emergence: Emergence of Spacetime
  • Investigate the concept of vacuum fluctuations and their implications in quantum field theory
  • Study the mathematical framework of Feynman diagrams to understand virtual particles
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, cosmologists, and students interested in the foundational concepts of spacetime and the philosophical implications of "nothing" in physics.

  • #31
DAH said:
I'm still a bit confused as to whether the particle/anti-particle pairs are just a myth or they really do exist, even if it's just for a fraction of a second.

And the answer to this is, neither. Virtual particles are a name for a particular mathematical feature of a particular mathematical approximation used in quantum field theory. (The simplest way I know of to point at this feature is to say that virtual particles are internal lines in Feynman diagrams.) So virtual particles are not a myth, because the mathematical approximation I refer to is really used and can make real predictions that match experiments. But virtual particles don't "really exist" either, because they can never be observed directly (that's what internal in "internal lines in Feynman diagrams" means) and the mathematical feature is part of a specific approximation scheme which is not the only mathematical way to do quantum field theory. So the question you are asking is really the wrong question; you should not even be thinking in terms of whether virtual particles "exist" or not.

DAH said:
virtual particles (if they exist) have positive and negative energy

While there is a sense in which this can be said to be the case, it is open to the same objections that I gave above to asking the general question of whether virtual particles "exist" or not.

DAH said:
Does that mean the virtual anti-particle has negative mass (Eg. -1 kg)?

Not in any useful sense.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dragrath and DAH
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
PeterDonis said:
This has nothing whatever to do with virtual particles or the (highly heuristic and often misleading) viewpoint in which some virtual particles have negative energy. Please don't confuse the OP any further.
He asked for a link to negative energy. I gave him one.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dragrath and Motore
  • #33
phinds said:
He asked for a link to negative energy.

He asked for a link about negative mass in relation to virtual particles. That's not what you gave him. The concept of "negative mass" described in the link you gave has nothing whatever to do with virtual particles and is not the same concept as the concept of "virtual particles having negative energy" that was referred to in the Carlip article the OP linked to when he asked about negative mass. As I said, please don't confuse the OP further.
 
  • #34
PeterDonis said:
And the answer to this is, neither. Virtual particles are a name for a particular mathematical feature of a particular mathematical approximation used in quantum field theory. (The simplest way I know of to point at this feature is to say that virtual particles are internal lines in Feynman diagrams.) So virtual particles are not a myth, because the mathematical approximation I refer to is really used and can make real predictions that match experiments. But virtual particles don't "really exist" either, because they can never be observed directly (that's what internal in "internal lines in Feynman diagrams" means) and the mathematical feature is part of a specific approximation scheme which is not the only mathematical way to do quantum field theory. So the question you are asking is really the wrong question; you should not even be thinking in terms of whether virtual particles "exist" or not.
While there is a sense in which this can be said to be the case, it is open to the same objections that I gave above to asking the general question of whether virtual particles "exist" or not.
Not in any useful sense.

I like to think of imaginary numbers as an analogy. I've never had 3i apples, but the concept is incredibly useful mathematically. Heck, even negative numbers were considered absurd until people started lending money. ..
 
  • #35
valenumr said:
I've never had 3i apples, but the concept is incredibly useful mathematically. Heck, even negative numbers were considered absurd until people started lending money. ..

In other words, what kinds of numbers are going to be useful depends on the particular application. Yes, that's true.

In the particular application under discussion in this thread, namely General Relativity, negative numbers for mass has a very specific physical meaning, which does not apply to virtual particles.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K