Is a Quantum Vacuum nothing?

[MindOverMatter2]

If a Quantum Vacuum is nothing at all, to what extent does it qualify as a scientific theory? You cannot measure that which is nothing. That which is nothing is not physical.

According this wikipedia article, the Quantum Vacuum (perhaps misleadingly) is described as something. So what are we actually talking about when we speak of a Quantum Vacuum? Is this really science?

Vacuum state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”,[1] and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.”[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]

The QCD vacuum of quantum chromodynamics is the object of study in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the Large Hadron Collider, and is related to the so-called vacuum structure of strong interactions.[6]

It seems to me that electromagnetic waves are something. I have never heard of a science of nothing.

 

[rossum]

If a Quantum Vacuum is nothing at all, to what extent does it qualify as a scientific theory? You cannot measure that which is nothing. That which is nothing is not physical.

According this wikipedia article, the Quantum Vacuum (perhaps misleadingly) is described as something. So what are we actually talking about when we speak of a Quantum Vacuum? Is this really science?

Vacuum state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”,[1] and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.”[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]

The QCD vacuum of quantum chromodynamics is the object of study in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the Large Hadron Collider, and is related to the so-called vacuum structure of strong interactions.[6]

It seems to me that electromagnetic waves are something. I have never heard of a science of nothing.

Google “Quantum Foam”. In very simple terms since a particle and its antiparticle mutually annihilate we can have a lot of both quickly appearing and annihilating and averaging out to nothing. In this case “quickly” means “in a shorter time than required by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle”.

In mathematical terms (+1) + (-1) = 0. If the (+1) and (-1) terms appear and disappear very quickly, all that you see is the resulting 0.

This is not a simple question.

rossum

 

[paduard]

Is gravity a factor to consider?

 

[Soulewolf]

If a Quantum Vacuum is nothing at all, to what extent does it qualify as a scientific theory? You cannot measure that which is nothing. That which is nothing is not physical.

According this wikipedia article, the Quantum Vacuum (perhaps misleadingly) is described as something. So what are we actually talking about when we speak of a Quantum Vacuum? Is this really science?

Vacuum state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”,[1] and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.”[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]

The QCD vacuum of quantum chromodynamics is the object of study in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the Large Hadron Collider, and is related to the so-called vacuum structure of strong interactions.[6]

It seems to me that electromagnetic waves are something. I have never heard of a science of nothing.

Any point that exists within the fabric of space time can not by definition be “nothing”.

Nothing can not be described as a lack of something because a lack of something is still something.

Nothing is, strictly speaking, nothing. No time, no space, no laws through which this nothing can be measured. it is simply nothing.

 

[JohnDamian]

Any point that exists within the fabric of space time can not by definition be “nothing”.

Nothing can not be described as a lack of something because a lack of something is still something.

Nothing is, strictly speaking, nothing. No time, no space, no laws through which this nothing can be measured. it is simply nothing.

Absolutely correct.

If a space exists between two points; even if no particles or other objects are contained within it; the space itself is not nothing.

This is clearly the case; for if there is a mile inbetween two points; even in the absence of particles; there is clearly something inbetween these two points; or it could be traversed instantaneously.

 

[paduard]

Absolutely correct.

If a space exists between two points; even if no particles or other objects are contained within it; the space itself is not nothing.

This is clearly the case; for if there is a mile inbetween two points; even in the absence of particles; there is clearly something inbetween these two points; or it could be traversed instantaneously.

I agree.

Also in my opinion ‘instantaneously’ can only be applied to Almighty God.

 

[Anselm33]

If a Quantum Vacuum is nothing at all, to what extent does it qualify as a scientific theory? You cannot measure that which is nothing. That which is nothing is not physical.

According this wikipedia article, the Quantum Vacuum (perhaps misleadingly) is described as something. So what are we actually talking about when we speak of a Quantum Vacuum? Is this really science?

Vacuum state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”,[1] and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.”[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]

The QCD vacuum of quantum chromodynamics is the object of study in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the Large Hadron Collider, and is related to the so-called vacuum structure of strong interactions.[6]

It seems to me that electromagnetic waves are something. I have never heard of a science of nothing.

I’m replying to this OP at a late date, after climbing up a steep learning curve: going back to my notes on Schwinger’s advanced qm (1953), some later texts, and articles on quantum cosmology, and email questions asked of physicists whose opinion I resepct. If you look at standard quantum field theory, in which anhilation and creation operators can give rise to particle pair production as a result of an external perturbation, then you see that the raising and lowering operators contain a coordinate x and a time t, so they don’t operate on a nothing, they operate on a space; this is the inconsistency in Tryon’s orginal proposal (1970?). Vilenkin’s proposal (1988) involved quantum tunneling from a “superspace” of hypothetical universes into our universe. So there was certainly “something” preceding the creation of our universe, this superspace.
Christopher Isham discusses Vilenkin’s and other quantum theories of the origins of the universe in his article in “Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature” the CTNS compilation of on of the conferences called by JP II at Castel Gandalfo (sp?) on “Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action”.
GFR Ellis has a review article on “Philosophical Issues in Cosmology”, which I’ll be commenting on in the Magis Center group forum, very shortly. (I hope ). In this article he specifies many theories for the origination of the universe as unverifiable and therefore speculative–their domain is in philosophy and metaphysics.
In particular, IMHO, the notion of Creation via quantum fluctuations of the vacuum is not science but metaphysics, since there will be no way to verify it by measurement, direct or indirect.

Hope this helps, at least partially.
anselm

 

[centurionguard]

I’m replying to this OP at a late date, after climbing up a steep learning curve: going back to my notes on Schwinger’s advanced qm (1953), some later texts, and articles on quantum cosmology, and email questions asked of physicists whose opinion I resepct. If you look at standard quantum field theory, in which anhilation and creation operators can give rise to particle pair production as a result of an external perturbation, then you see that the raising and lowering operators contain a coordinate x and a time t, so they don’t operate on a nothing, they operate on a space; this is the inconsistency in Tryon’s orginal proposal (1970?). Vilenkin’s proposal (1988) involved quantum tunneling from a “superspace” of hypothetical universes into our universe. So there was certainly “something” preceding the creation of our universe, this superspace.
Christopher Isham discusses Vilenkin’s and other quantum theories of the origins of the universe in his article in “Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature” the CTNS compilation of on of the conferences called by JP II at Castel Gandalfo (sp?) on “Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action”.
GFR Ellis has a review article on “Philosophical Issues in Cosmology”, which I’ll be commenting on in the Magis Center group forum, very shortly. (I hope ). In this article he specifies many theories for the origination of the universe as unverifiable and therefore speculative–their domain is in philosophy and metaphysics.
In particular, IMHO, the notion of Creation via quantum fluctuations of the vacuum is not science but metaphysics, since there will be no way to verify it by measurement, direct or indirect.

Hope this helps, at least partially.
anselm

Hello Anselm;

I liked in particular what you stated here:

In particular, IMHO, the notion of Creation via quantum fluctuations of the vacuum is not science but metaphysics, since there will be no way to verify it by measurement, direct or indirect.

What human science refers to as a plausible state of nothingness or void I’m sure from time to time must give God a little smile. (“If”) there is a state of being that is void of a human understanding of anything such matter I’m sure that God is the only one who knows about it.

Peace
Chris

 

[JimG]

I agree that quantum vacuum is not nothing. Virtual particles can be created and destroyed within a quantum vacuum. Empty space itself is not nothing.

That’s physics. Physics doesn’t deal with nothing.

Theologically, nothing is the absence not only of matter and energy but also the absence of space and time, and the absence of any potential or virtual matter / energy / space / time.