How does emergent spacetime work?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of emergent spacetime and the question of how spacetime can arise from "nothing." Participants explore theoretical perspectives, reference literature, and express personal interpretations of the idea, with a focus on the implications of "nothing" in the context of physics and cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the concept of spacetime emerging from nothing, questioning the validity of this idea.
  • Others argue that the notion of "nothing" is inconsistent and suggest that if spacetime is emergent, it must arise from something, although the nature of that "something" remains unknown.
  • A few participants reference Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe From Nothing," discussing its popularization of the idea and expressing skepticism about its scientific rigor.
  • There are differing views on whether spacetime is emergent or fundamental, with some suggesting that space and time may have different statuses in this regard.
  • One participant mentions the relationship between quantum entanglement and the emergence of spacetime, seeking clarification on how entanglement relates to fundamental particles.
  • Another participant reflects on the idea of a universe from nothing, linking it to their atheistic perspective and discussing the nature of vacuum fluctuations in quantum physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of emergent spacetime or the implications of "nothing." Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about the definitions and interpretations of key concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of the topic, with some acknowledging a lack of familiarity with the technical aspects of the literature referenced. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of "nothing" and its implications for the emergence of spacetime.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring theoretical physics, cosmology, and the philosophical implications of the concept of nothingness in relation to the universe.

  • #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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
10K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K