Is Vacuum a Dynamic Entity with Hidden Matter and Energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of vacuum in physics, exploring whether it can be considered a dynamic entity with hidden matter and energy. Participants examine classical versus quantum interpretations of vacuum, the implications of vacuum energy, and the interaction of electromagnetic fields with vacuum. The conversation includes theoretical aspects, conceptual clarifications, and references to specific phenomena like the Casimir effect and vacuum polarization.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that vacuum is not merely the absence of everything but a dynamic entity from which particles and antiparticles can emerge briefly.
  • There is a debate on whether matter and energy can be considered the same thing, with some arguing that while mass is a form of energy, energy is not a form of mass in the same way light is a form of energy.
  • One participant suggests that vacuum energy could imply the vacuum is a source of energy, while another counters that vacuum energy cannot be harnessed for work as it represents the lowest energy state of a system.
  • Participants discuss the interaction of electromagnetic fields with vacuum, with one noting that light interacts with vacuum in a sense, referencing vacuum polarization.
  • There is mention of the perturbation methods in Quantum Field Theory and how they relate to the concept of virtual particles, with some skepticism about their existence in other theoretical frameworks.
  • One participant raises a question about how non-perturbative methods explain vacuum polarization, indicating a gap in understanding or knowledge on that topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of vacuum, the relationship between matter and energy, and the implications of vacuum energy. There is no consensus on these topics, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific interpretations of quantum mechanics and field theory, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes references to complex theoretical concepts that may not be fully explained or agreed upon by all participants.

fog37
Messages
1,566
Reaction score
108
Dear Forum,

Vacuum is classically interpreted as the absence of everything. But the quantum view of vacuum sees it as a bubbling, dynamic entity from which particles and antiparcles emerge for very short intervals of time.
Relativity teaches us that energy and matter can be converted into each other (is it correct to say that matter and energy are the same thing?)

So if vacuum has energy does it mean the vacuum is itself matter or does it mean that it "hides" matter? I am familiar with the Casimir effect (vacuum energy (with or without mirrors) is said to be infinite. This implies that the vacuum of space could be an enormous source of energy, the so called zero point energy)

From Maxwell equations, we know that the electromagnetic field is able to auto-propagate in the vacuum (it does not need a supporting medium likes sound does). Is it possible that the EM field interacts with this vacuum as it propagates or is this very unlikely?

Thanks,
fog37
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fog37 said:
Vacuum is classically interpreted as the absence of everything. But the quantum view of vacuum sees it as a bubbling, dynamic entity from which particles and antiparcles emerge for very short intervals of time.

Yes, in quantum mechanics, the word "vacuum" has a very technical meaning. It refers to the lowest possible energy state of some system.

fog37 said:
(is it correct to say that matter and energy are the same thing?)

No. Some things that we do not call "matter," such as light, still have energy.

fog37 said:
So if vacuum has energy does it mean the vacuum is itself matter

Not in the way that the word "matter" is usually used. Usually we use the word "matter" to refer to things made of electrons, quarks, and similar particles.

fog37 said:
or does it mean that it "hides" matter?

I'm unclear what this would mean.

fog37 said:
I am familiar with the Casimir effect (vacuum energy (with or without mirrors) is said to be infinite.

This is an oversimplification.

fog37 said:
This implies that the vacuum of space could be an enormous source of energy, the so called zero point energy)

No. You can't use vacuum energy to power anything. As I said above, we use the word "vacuum" to mean the lowest energy state of some system. So you can't drain this energy away and use it to do useful work, because the vacuum already has as little energy as it is possible for it to have.

fog37 said:
From Maxwell equations, we know that the electromagnetic field is able to auto-propagate in the vacuum (it does not need a supporting medium likes sound does). Is it possible that the EM field interacts with this vacuum as it propagates or is this very unlikely?

There is a sense in which light "interacts with the vacuum" as it propagates. You can try to read about vacuum polarization.
 
fog37 said:
is it correct to say that matter and energy are the same thing

To understand it you need to know the modern view of energy:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/noetherth.htm
Noether's Theorem is more general. It says that if a transformation of the coordinate system satisfies certain condition, namely being continuous, then necessarily there exist a quantity that is conserved. The exact quantity may not be known but nevertheless it is known that it exists. There may be other transformations, such as the inversion between right and left-handed coordinate systems, which leave the Lagrangian function unchanged but for which there are not conserved quantities.

Basically energy is the quantity that is conserved if the laws governing a system are time invariant - which intuitively you expect to be the case generally. When applied to relativity this shows mass is a form of energy - but not that energy is a form of mass in the same way light is a form of energy but energy is not a form of light.

The view where the vacuum is virtual particles popping in and out of existence is a by-product of the perturbation methods used in Quantum Field Theory - it is now thought they don't really exist because they do not appear in methods that don't use that approach.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
The_Duck said:
[..]
There is a sense in which light "interacts with the vacuum" as it propagates. You can try to read about vacuum polarization.
Ah yes, that's interesting! :)

bhobba said:
[..] The view where the vacuum is virtual particles popping in and out of existence is a by-product of the perturbation methods used in Quantum Field Theory - it is now thought they don't really exist because they do not appear in methods that don't use that approach
How do those other methods explain vacuum polarization?

Thanks,
Harald
 
harrylin said:
How do those other methods explain vacuum polarization?

Good question.

Don't know.

Pedagogically one way to derive QFT is as the limit of interacting blobs of stuff. To solve such things perturbation theory is used. But there is another way to proceed. Instead of taking the limit you leave the spacing small and solve numerically on a computer. Its called Lattice Field Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_field_theory

Its known when you do that virtual particles do not appear.

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
It says that if a transformation of the coordinate system satisfies certain condition, namely being continuous, then necessarily there exist a quantity that is conserved.

I think you mean the transformation has to be continuous and has to leave the Lagrangian invariant, correct?
 
PeterDonis said:
I think you mean the transformation has to be continuous and has to leave the Lagrangian invariant, correct?

Well that was a quote from the link - not mine.

But yes its something like that - although it's been a while since I delved into the detail. If I remember correctly it doesn't have to be invariant to the change - it can change by a four-divergence and still hold.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K