- #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?
mpolo said:Does QM state that Space is made of nothing? In other words it does not exist?
mpolo said:If space is something then what does QM say space is
mpolo said:I just want a clear laymen s definition for what space is according to QM. Does such a definition exist?
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.
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.
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".mpolo said:I just want a clear laymen s definition for what space is according to QM.
mpolo said:@bhobbaHe likes to say "nothing exists, not one thing" Things just emerge when we look at them.
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.
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: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
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.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 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.mpolo said:My personal belief is that mathematics is the most precise language of reality.
I see no difference between GR and QM. They both follow the exact same scientific method you describe previously.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.
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:We now have a tool that gives us the right answers for experiments without any knowledge of how the results are happening.
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.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.
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.
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
vanhees71 said:The classical world is about coarse-grained observations, and there's always a finite resolution of space-time intervals.
bhobba said:... in understanding how the world around us emerges ...
- 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.vanhees71 said:No, it's called quantum statistics. Most philosophers won't be able to understand it ;-)).
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).AlexCaledin said:that's hardly an appropriate thing to say to an electronic (or chemical etc) researcher
AlexCaledin said:- but, wait a minute . . . This idea, of our world "emerging", is no more than philosophy and ought to be forbidden here, right?
AlexCaledin said:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l6aFEsQkT-8J:www-atlas.lbl.gov/~stapp/Quantum-Collapse.doc
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.
tomdaniels said:the empty vacuum of space … is filled with 'stuff'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.