What is "the fabric" of space-time?

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for or against the spiritual. That's not the topic, and this is a science thread anyway. If you want to argue in favor of giving the spiritual scientific status you should probably propose a new thread for [forum=-11]. I think we all understand that this seems like a meaningful question to you, but the field is fundamental. This is nothing more fundamental for it to "consist of". Cavediver was not arguing that mathematics is a physical thing. He's was making the same point PaulK has been making to you, that the quantum field is the most fundamental physical thing we know of.When a physicist or cosmologist is speaking for a lay audience he may give way to saying things like, "Entanglement operates outside of space and time," but in such cases he's only referring to the layperson's classical understanding of space and time. Entanglement does not operate outside of space/time. After all, entanglement was predicted by the mathematics of quantum theory, our current most fundamental model of space/time.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

This just bears repeating in case anyone is falling for some of the nonsense spouted elsewhere in this thread. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Just because something is fundamental does not mean it doesn't consist of anything. Just saying something is the most fundamental physical thing doesn't mean it is physical either. It's a circular argument.What properties normally associated with physical or material things does the quantum field, as you put it, have?Just because energy, matter, mass and space are derived from it does not mean it consists of energy, matter, mass and space, and in fact, fundamentally it does not consist of these things. So it does not consist or behave in a manner congruent with the normal limitations of physical things. It exhibits instant action at a distance regardless of time and space, for example. If you want to call that a mechanistic or physical action, fine, but it certainly defies what we know about physical things in space and time.Zeilinger says the process is outside space and time. He's not being superfluous there.

Oh, so you're an expert on quantum field theory, are you? Obviously not, as this is completely incorrect. No, he's just talking bollocks to impress his lay-audience. He's obviously suceeding.

Cavediver, can you back up your statements with some quotes or studies by quantum physicists themselves working in this field?Specifically, can you show where Zeilinger doesn't beleive what he says in the interview?Just saying it's bollocks or whatever when I have given specific quotes from a quantum physicist active in that field is not substantiating your claim it's bollocks. Please keep in mind I have read a number of his papers and discussed some of them here, which if my memory serves me state that QM violates local realism or causality or both. It's hard to see how published peer-reviewed papers by Zeilinger are "bollocks" as well when they say the same thing he does in his interviews.Edit to add a paper or perhaps part of a textbook Zeilinger wrote summarizing some basic concepts in quantum mechanics.Error 404 - Page not foundEdited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You show me where in any of Zeilinger's published papers that he states that "Entanglement operates outside of space and time,". Why would we care that QM breaks causality - it is not a relativistic theory!!! What the f'k do you expect? Why are you not pointing out that Newtonian Theory breaks causality? And who cares about Local Realism? That was abandoned long ago.The trouble, as ever, is you are so far out of your depth it's not funny. The only reason I bother posting is to ensure that the peanut-gallery isn't being taken in by your ill-informed blathering.

quote:

---

Is that really germane to the argument here?

---

It's the point of this side-branch which you chose to follow up on.

quote:

---

Think about it. How does the entangled particle know what universe which particle should be in?

---

It's in all the universes generated by the split of course. If you think about it, it would have to be. The different universes correspond to the possible states of the system before the measurement - and the particles exist in all of them.

quote:

---

But which specific laws? The laws at work here are the principles of quantum mechanics. That's the only law or rule I know of dictating that an entangled particle acts as one system with the particle it's entangled with. So once again, the Many Worlds idea doesn't change anything when it comes to entanglement except that if there is a split in the universe, there are 2 entangled particles in the other universe as well

---

And in saying that you completely ignore the point. The point is that in this interpretation there is no communication between the particles. QM rules out states where the particles are not in consistent states so there are no such universes. (They correspond to possible states - impossible states are excluded)

quote:

---

The entangled particle becomes discrete not randomly but rather dictated by what happens with the other particle. That same action occurs even if there is a split in the universe.

---

But it does not do so because of any communication from the other particle. That is the point.

quote:

---

So either way, you get action at a distance in a process outside time and space. Heck, if the universe as a whole could sense what needs to happen instantly across time and space within itself so it makes all things come out consistently, or if there is some hidden mechanism making that happen, it's still the same point I am making.

---

It isn't any of those. The universe doesn't "sense" what needs to happen. It doesn't do anything to the particles. It just splits based on the possibilities.

In this context we're using the term fundamental to mean that it is not made up of anything that's more, uh, fundamental. Our present understanding is that the quantum field cannot be deconstructed into more fundamental components. That's why we call it fundamental. If you mean classical physical properties, the quantum field doesn't possess such qualities. The quantum world is not at all like the classical world. That's why it's so difficult to understand, because the physical analogs we're so used to using don't apply there. Maybe it was Feynman who said something like, "The quantum world is not only stranger than you think, it's stranger than you can think." Nobody is making this claim. What we experience as our macro world reality is actually just expressions of the quantum field. No one is saying it is or does. The quantum world is not the physical world of everyday experience writ in miniature. It's something completely different. What we experience in everyday life as very much physical matter and energy is actually just ripples in the quantum field. That's what the physical actually is. No one is saying that entanglement is a mechanistic or physical action. We're carefully refraining from drawing such analogies. In fact, we're trying to argue that such analogies can be very misleading when trying to think at the quantum level, and we're trying to encourage you to abandon them. He's talking for laypeople trying to give them a sense of the strangeness of the quantum world. You shouldn't be trying to draw quantum level conclusions from his classical level analogies.Zeilinger isn't the only physicist or cosmologist who does this, by the way. Any such people constructing popularizations of quantum theory for unscientific laypeople will be doing this. It's why those who draw quantum connections to the mystical have such an easy time quoting scientists in their support.I'm sure there must exist scientific popularizations directed at more scientifically sophisticated laypeople, and you'd be much better served drawing your information from these rather than from run-of-the-mill popularizations or news accounts. Maybe someone can suggest a couple.--Percy

I showed you his interview. You disagree but are not willing to substantiate that with anything but your statement?Here is a link with many of Zeilinger's papers.http://www.quantum.at/publications.htmlOne of the more general articles on QM which reads more like a textbook or introductory article is a good assessment or summary of entanglement, I suspect, for most readers here at EvC.A. Zeilinger
Essential quantum entanglement
The new Physics, 2006Error 404 - Page not foundIn this article, he writes: He earlier states: I cannot cut and paste from the article and so am just presenting a couple comments above. I would recommend reading the whole article for anyone interested in a good overview of the things I am discussing here.Zeilinger's view is that "a local-realistic worldview can no longer be maintained." If we are to discuss the worldview of what constitutes the quantum field as PaulK mentioned, we should approach it with an understanding that the principle of local realism is not valid.A quote from a more technical paper. Error 404 - Page not foundEdited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You show me where in any of Zeilinger's published papers that he states that "Entanglement operates outside of space and time,". Randman, quoting the words is very easy. Understanding this is a whole 'nother ball game. Leave it to the professionals. What was it I said in my last post?

I appear to prefer my physics as I do my Coke... classic! But preference means nothing and I must press on to understand something.You mentioned Wheeler's work and it raised a question for me about quantum electrodynamics (QED). Am I wrong in thinking that much of Feynman's work (or at least QED's explanatory power) would be undercut by the current direction of physics? He seemed to have a purely statistical concept driven by particle behavior (or theoretical behaviors) rather than fields. That sounds like a metaphysical philosophy I once read, objects as nothing but their properties. I'm pretty sure I get what you are saying on this, but I want to be more sure with another example.We could for example model vibrations of atoms in a molecule using the same type of equation for balls attached to each with a spring. As accurate as that might be, there is no real "spring" between th atoms, which are not themselves balls (or even ball-like). This is where convenience is not the same as understanding what it really occurring.While I understand that we can get mathematical models which accurately depict a property, I am wondering how we discern the difference between that being the reality of the property, versus being functionally identical for use in calculations. Does that make sense? I realize you answered that such distinctions would be "unparsimonious", isn't such a distinction important to make regarding the limits of what science is discussing?In a Feynman lecture, he analogized physicists to being like ancient aztec priests using bean-counting to determine when certain celestial phenomena would occur. In the end, whatever they said was the reason for these phenomena to occur is besides the point. All they were actually doing is coming up with a system to predict the occurrence, not describe what was going on. I thought that was an important distinction for him to make, because it undercuts illusions regarding what we actually know. Is it just accurate mathematical models (bean counts) or is it an actual description of the phenomena?If this is not important to your mind, I guess I'd like to know why you feel that way. Heheheh... debate Feynman's point! Ahhhh all my trips to Fermi were for naught! In my defense, my hypothetical simply paraphrased something I saw by a physicist. In his example he imagined that the sun (its mass) suddenly disappeared. In my case I made something massive appear.I did believe that mass and energy can be converted, and so where once you had no mass, suddenly you would have it. I did think that was happening in high energy collision experiments. Even if mass is energy in a volume, isn't there a point where energy in an area moves from something that does not exert a gravitational force (aka warps space-time) to something that does? Perhaps an explanation of how mass -energy conversion occurs as it relates to "gravity" would be the best bet. You first discussed these vectors with me a while ago, and they are a fantastic tool to get my head around things. However, I am not quite sure I follow how this is working in curved space-time. I guess I'd like you to unpack the explanation of why a pure time directional arrow would be different from one place to another. This may be a good place to literally draw me a diagram.As a follow on to that, why does mass create a situation where a fully time directed vector sets two masses in physical motion towards each other. I guess this is to ask, why does my natural path through time always point toward the center of something else? And why am I increasingly moving toward that center, rather than uniformly moving (I'd assume that's due to the nature of a curve rather than a straight line)?This all gets wackier for me when I consider natural phenomena like tides. So the sea is not pulled up by the moon, but rather its motion through time is towards the moon and the earth at the same time, and the visible result is that it gains potential energy? The curvature of time itself is creating the visible changes of the sea and the energy we can harness?Aaaaaaaagh!Really though, if this is reality I need to wrap my head around it, rather than sticking same head in the sand. Well that really is astounding, and I feel sort of privileged to be in a time where we are reaching such points in physics and somewhat analogously in genetics and neuroscience (when looking at the concept of consciousness, the brain parts are it).

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

What do you think he is saying when he says entanglement violates local realism, cavediver?You claimed he was BSing on the time and space comment, but he is really just pointing out the effects of entanglement are independent of time and space (the root of this occurs because local realism is violated), and so he's not BSing at all. Note this comment from a book he published. Quantum (Un)speakables: From Bell to Quantum Information - Google Books DllY7gb8rBdXcz8A8CCys&hl=enYou can read through his published articles to find more specifics. I have shown in an interview and a book he clearly states entanglement is a process outside time and space. I have shown he says the same thing in 2 published articles using more technical language to say the same thing, namely that entanglement violates local realism. This is important because if reality is not independent of our questions of it, and so a particle in one place becomes in a location within time and space dependent on our questions of it, we are dealing with a process of something becoming within space-time from a place without any location (outside space and time). Anything within space and time has location. Understanding what he is saying about violating local realism and the process of entanglement, it's clear he's not BSing when he says the process is independent or outside time and space.It seems rather than deal with the facts of what he is saying, you choose to just claim I am somehow misunderstanding the issue. However, you do not offer any explanations of why. Leaving it up to the professionals isn't a satisfactory answer but an appeal to your personal authority.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Isn't that exactly what I have been saying and trying to get you guys to discuss the properties which indicate it is "completely different."You can call something "completely different" physical if you wish, but it's completely different than what is thought of as physical. It's description actually fits better with what men in the past have called "spiritual" but whatever you call it, the goal here is to focus on what is occuring, the process and properties, not the label.

Really? Could have fooled me. Oh, I abandoned these things (materialistic and classical assumptions) a long time ago, long before I knew about QM. QM just details knowledge that I became aware of prior to reading about QM. That's one reason it's not strange or that weird overall for me. It's what I would have expected except I was surprised to learn science had progressed so far.The way I look at this discussion is I am trying to get you guys to abandon your old worldview and accept the implications and facts of QM. No, he's doing more than that. He's actually pointing out that entanglement is a process outside time and space because it occurs independent of space-time separation.Do you agree that the process of entanglement occurs independent of (thus outside) space-time separation?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You don't see why abandoning local realism is significant to this discussion?Also, are you saying that QM violates causality? back when PaulK vehemently argued it did not on another thread, you were noticeably absent on that point but maybe you were not reading the discussion. Regardless, I think it would be helpful if you do think causality is violated, that you let the board know that so that I don't get all these comments from folks insisting I am wrong to suggest local realism and causality are being violated.So let's just get this clear, not trying to be hostile or anything but to pin down some specifics......you think QM demonstrates a violation of local realism and causality or not?Edited by randman, : No reason given.