Space as not empty, non-locality, conceptual implications?

In summary, quantum mechanics may hint at a theory that explains why causes need not have causes. This could be a way to view space-time as being limited, and that "beyond space time" exists.
  • #1
Curious45
39
0
Hi there!

I understand the tendency of physicists to stick to the math, and the logic itself, and to often avoid attempting to conceptualize a process or law, but that's kinda the opposite of what I'd like to do here.

I don't mind at all if you refer to the theory, math or logic, and id quite like that, but I am attempting here to conceptually comprehend the stuff. I am a little math freindly, and very concept, logic and word freindly.

I don't understand quantum physics well, I admit. I certainly don't follow the math. But conceptually I understand some of it.

What confuses me conceptually, are things like entanglement, virtual particles, quantum foam & zero point energy.

First, the foamy stuff. Space, apparently, is not empty. Its full of virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence, apparently due to, or justified mathmatically by HUP. Additionally, even at the lowest energy state, energy is still popping out of the "vacuum", in the form of ZPE, or the ZP field. But that still to me, does not explain, causally what actually creates these phenomena. Why does the virtual particle pair pop up? Why does the ZPE pop up? Where or what does it come from?

If all effects have causes, what causes these, and what causes those causes?...could we follow that truck back up the line a bit, in a way that someone not very physics math saavy can understand?

It seems to me, in this case, conceptually, a little like if particles or energy, are coming into existence, then they must be being created by something. And that something should be an actual something, not an equation, or an expression of "random". Especially because some of this quantum foam actually apparently causes the higgs boson, and that gives things mass via its field, and other virtual particles do other important stuff. This "stuff from nowhere" seems to sit at the heart of how everything works. Which at least atm, doesn't make any conceptual sense, unless it does actually come from "somewhere" and we just don't know where that "where" is, or can't yet measure it.

Please bear with me if I have got something wrong, or if I am expressing this in a conceptual way, even an inaccurate conceptual way. I want to understand it, in a true mental fashion.

...

And then entanglement. This is also confusing. I here physicists often say that this is explained by the separated particles having the same identity.

But if that's true, doesn't that pervert our concept of space/identity/locality and have huge implications? If one thing, can exist in two places, even vastly different places, then conceptually that would seem to imply that space is not merely curved, but folds over on itself, or even that space or locality is not strictly real?

(So far as I know, quantum theory does not itself propose a curved spacetime)

Perhaps not everyone interprets particles pairs like this, and if not id like to hear any other conceptions.

As a total layman (I have read a few books on physics), it would seem logical to imagine that we should abandon completely any Newtonian conception of space or matter, and perhaps adopt something with a non-local basis, where there are connections between "spaces", or perhaps even a hidden variable type concept where there are other "spaces" or energies that we cannot currently measure. This "other"/unmeasured could explain particle pairs, light particle wave duality, quantum uncertainty, virtual particles, zero point energy and so forth, at least conceptually, so that the mind could hold it as a concept retaining a logical sense of causality.

I know this may seem grossly wrong or primitive, but I can't really logically, spacially or causation wise understand these phenomena well with what little explanation or conception they are usually given.

I would quite like to have another conceptual model that fits with the standard model, if anybody has any metaphors or concepts that I can achieve this with?!

Any suggestions, models or ideas would be great. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Curious45 said:
If all effects have causes, what causes these, and what causes those causes?...could we follow that truck back up the line a bit, in a way that someone not very physics math saavy can understand?

QM might help us resolve this as it hints at -
Not all causes needing to have causes.

If we assume space-time to be finite then "causes needing causes" chain comes to a full stop at the "edge/start" of space time.

It's very hard for us to visualise beyond space-time. However relativity tells us that space-time is malleable.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Could we perhaps view "beyond space time" by what it is not? Such as non-local, non-causative, non-temporal...indefinate in all ways, similar to an uncollapsed quantum field, but in a broader sense...?

"QM might help us resolve this as it hints at -
Not all causes needing to have causes. It puts a "full stop"."

If it puts a full stop, is it the "cause" originating from outside of space-time?

Do any effects really require causes then, or do they just generally tend to have them? (ie its not a rule, just a common occurance)

Do you think the standard model really has a full conceptual model of its workings, or is it more of a, this stuff happens, here's the math, bugger me if I can figure it out yet?

Perhaps I am just asking the sort of questions that the standard theory doesn't really have a veiw on.
 
  • #4
Curious45 said:
Could we perhaps view "beyond space time" by what it is not? Such as non-local, non-causative, non-temporal...indefinate in all ways, similar to an uncollapsed quantum field, but in a broader sense...?

If it puts a full stop, is it the "cause" originating from outside of space-time?

i guess so. this beyond our current knowledge and, as well as, scope of this forum...we are at the edge of knowledge vs speculation...

while we are talking about the edge of space-time, we are also skirting at the edge of the forum moderators' (..;)..) decision to put an end to this discussion...
 
Last edited:
  • #5
San K said:
i guess so. this beyond our current knowledge and, as well as, scope of this forum...we are at the edge of knowledge vs speculation...

while we are talking about the edge of space-time, we are also skirting at the edge of the forum moderators' (..;)..) decision to put an end to this discussion...

I am only trying to make sense of what standard model QM actually means, particularly with quantum foam, virtual particles, ZPE, entanglement in a way that at least a bright persons brain can actually contain (as opposed to causing a sci-fi like break down, where smoke pours out of your ears if you think about it too much)

I mean great that we can make technology, predictions etc from math, but if we don't really understand what it means, conceptually, they its leading to much more questions than answers. If so, its not my fault that's already lead to yet unanswered questions, as it would be an essential quality of the theory itself.

If its true that standard model QM, is inherently incomprehensible conceptually or even logically, rather than just having not heard it explained right, then that's something people should be upfront about too...

At least then people like me wouldn't ask how to understand it!
 
  • #6
Curious45 said:
I am only trying to make sense of what standard model QM actually means, particularly with quantum foam, virtual particles, ZPE, entanglement in a way that at least a bright persons brain can actually contain (as opposed to causing a sci-fi like break down, where smoke pours out of your ears if you think about it too much)

I mean great that we can make technology, predictions etc from math, but if we don't really understand what it means, conceptually, they its leading to much more questions than answers. If so, its not my fault that's already lead to yet unanswered questions, as it would be an essential quality of the theory itself.

If its true that standard model QM, is inherently incomprehensible conceptually or even logically, rather than just having not heard it explained right, then that's something people should be upfront about too...

At least then people like me wouldn't ask how to understand it!

Its true that all science fields at different times in history started finding answers to things to only find out they were left with more questions. Thats science! There may be an infinite or finite amount of these unanswered questions , either way science will keep moving forward. You seem to understand what's going on at the QM level and its great that you are asking these questions because you can be sure that millions of scientists are asking the same ones and testing the world to see what they come up with. Be patient and hopefully we can live long enough to see what else science reveals
 
  • #7
Curious45 said:
If its true that standard model QM, is inherently incomprehensible conceptually or even logically, rather than just having not heard it explained right, then that's something people should be upfront about too...

I would say rather, that the mathematical machinery of QM simply does not address certain questions that many people want answers to. For example, in the (in)famous double-slit experiment, "which slit does the electron really go through?"

People make up stories (called "interpretations of QM") about what goes on "behind the scenes" so to speak, but all the valid ones reduce ultimately to the same mathematical machinery, so they make the same predictions for experiments that we can conceive of.
 
  • #8
The old QM model is dieing out to make room for the new QM. Text books will be re-written.
 
  • #9
Thank you all for your honest answers recently.

So I suppose any of the interpretations that fit observation are valid, although I suppose that's arguable too, as I know some studies people claim the standard model has failed in.

I guess science is a work in progress, but the lack of real answers as to the implications is a little frustrating. At least people are asking the questions and making progress :)

micky_gta said:
The old QM model is dieing out to make room for the new QM. Text books will be re-written.

What kind of new QM?
 
  • #10
micky_gta said:
The old QM model is dieing out to make room for the new QM.
What are you talking about? Please provide a mainstream scientific reference to justify this comment.
 
  • #11
Curious45 said:
I know some studies people claim the standard model has failed in.

Such as?
 
  • #12
jtbell said:
Such as?

Well one example is the ashfar experiment. Of course lots of people object to that, but I am not sure if their objections are valid or not - I haven't looked into it.

Seems like people would object regardless because the standard model is currently popular (cultural legacy bias and all that).
 
  • #13
Circular Argument

DaleSpam said:
What are you talking about? Please provide a mainstream scientific reference to justify this comment.

This a circular argument. With all due respect, you are asking for a "mainstream argument" to support a question that deals with knowledge that is outside the "mainstream" of conventional qm thought. Seems all great physics "greats" stopped in their tracks when the "double-slit" indicated that further breakthroughs will have to include the consciousness of the observer. Only addressing ths "spooky science" [Einstein] head on will lead to the big breakthrough about the nature and power of human thought. Sorry, but I can't provide a mainstream argument as the mainstream does not acknowledge yet such a possibility. Neither did the "flat worlders" or "earth-centric" ivory tower occupants of astronomy not that long ago. Mainstream physicists had better start looking outside the box shortly before some young doctorate candidate discovers it first...perhaps start with entanglement...
 

Related to Space as not empty, non-locality, conceptual implications?

1. What is meant by "space as not empty"?

"Space as not empty" refers to the concept that empty space is not truly empty, but rather filled with a variety of particles, energy, and fields that interact with each other. This idea challenges the traditional view of space as simply a void or a backdrop for physical objects.

2. What is non-locality in relation to space?

Non-locality in relation to space refers to the idea that objects or particles can have an influence on each other even when they are separated by vast distances. This phenomenon is observed in quantum mechanics and challenges the classical notion of locality, where objects can only affect each other if they are in close proximity.

3. How does the concept of non-locality impact our understanding of space?

The concept of non-locality challenges our traditional understanding of space as a fixed, separate entity. It suggests that space is more interconnected and dynamic, with objects and particles able to influence each other regardless of distance. This has implications for our understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe and the laws that govern it.

4. What are the conceptual implications of space as not empty and non-local?

The conceptual implications of space as not empty and non-local are far-reaching and complex. They challenge our traditional understanding of space and time, and have implications for fields such as physics, philosophy, and cosmology. They also raise questions about the nature of reality and the interconnectedness of all things.

5. Are there any practical applications of these concepts?

While the concepts of space as not empty and non-locality are still being explored and understood, there are potential practical applications. For example, quantum entanglement, a phenomenon related to non-locality, has been proposed as a means for secure communication. Additionally, understanding the nature of space as not empty and non-local could potentially lead to advancements in fields such as quantum computing and teleportation.

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
434
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
785
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
677
Back
Top