What is "the fabric" of space-time?

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.

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.

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.

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.

When I have time, I will peruse some of his papers and of course, as I already answered, I think I've shown his views already.But on your question on local realism. I have argued local realism is violated here at EvC and have been severely ridiculed for it (despite being correct on that point), even having some claim you have "told me" that to claim such is nonsense, or at least that's what I recall.Just for the record and I asked this on another post just a minute ago, but you do agree that local realism is violated in quantum mechanics?You going on record stating that would be helpful to move the discussion forward so I am not harangued by folks insisting I am wrong to suggest that.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I could be wrong, but I thought I recalled you asking somewhere on the thread where you ever said QM or the universe was deterministic. If I am mistaken, I apologize in advance and could be confusing you with someone else.Be that as it may, I do note your comment on another thread. Message 107 on the following thread.http://EvC Forum: What is Time and Space -->EvC Forum: What is Time and SpaceObviously, in his interview, Zeilinger derides the concept that QM is deterministic.But you seem to think it is?You explain your comment further: But it's also the observation or measurement that gives a particle a definite position and location within space-time, right? That's why local realism is violated because it does not exist independently according to Zeilinger....is that how you read him?You continue: But on this thread you state: So are you saying QM breaks causality or not? Sure, I expect QM to break causality, but you had prior insisted "QM is totally causal". So of course, I thought you denied causality was violated and based on your comments about QM being wholly deterministic, I would have thought you disagreed about QM violating local realism as well.Since I knew quantum physicists do think local realism was violated, and that some think causality is violated which I think is correct, when you would say things suggesting you disagreed with that, why shouldn't have I taken issue with you? Your appeal to your education didn't hold water because it appeared you were disagreeing with mainstream QM all the while telling me I was essentially ignorant.I hope you can see that someone viewing your comments would react as I did, assuming they thought you were insisting it was nonsense to say local realism and causality were being violated.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You say: Then... Hmmmm...

I understand the nature of entanglement, cavediver, and so does Zeilinger and anyone with an interest in QM. Zeilinger says it's a process outside time and space. His words, not mine. You have shwn absolutely nothing to counter that.He reiterates the same thing in different ways, as I have quoted, showing the effect occurs independent of space-time separation.And no, I don't think any of this is new. It's standard QM, been around for 80s years, which you seem to have trouble discussing. All you do is go on and on about how I don't understand it while all the time failing to detail and substantiate any of your claims.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You expect civility with this kind of garbage? Every single thing I have stated about quantum physics in terms of the science of it, I have backed up with specific comments from quantum physicists themselves, and you guys have shown not one single link or quote from a quantum physicist to disagree with me.And yet you think I am the one in outer space?

Anyone choosing to reply to this message, please ignore the off-topic rants and just focus on the topic.

​

AbE: I had only read the first couple paragraphs when I posted the above sentence. I've now read the rest of the message, and there is almost nothing in it that is on-topic. Anyone replying to this message should take care to reply to only those portions that actually relate to the "fabric" of space/time. --AdminBy "everyone else", you mean the partisan evos here at EvC, right? Because you guys have not shown one working scientist in the area of quantum mechanics that disagrees with me whereas I have shown they do agree with me.Heck, in fact, I don't think you guys have enough decency half the time to even try to understand what others are saying. If you had, you'd realize that despite your haranguing me with all kinds of insults, breaking your own rules, etc,.....that on the science of it, you have conceded my points and agreed with me.Take for example this comment: Note your comment "so real". I am sure you will deny it, but I think a reasonable person knows what you meant. You are echoing the exact same thing I have stated, that what we think of as physical or real is a derived property, not the fundamental one, from the quantum field. You show you have not paid any attention whatsoever to my comments. Why do you guys feel so secure bashing people's ideas when you don't even understand them, percy? Are you too afraid to deal with their ideas because you are afraid you might be wrong or something?Unfortunately, in order to help further this thread, I will have to explain something a little off-topic. By "spiritual", I mean nothing related to feelings, or being in awe, or anything like that. As I have mentioned before, the biblical concept and some other tradition's concepts of the spiritual world is that it is an invisible realm intertwined and connected to the physical world in such a way that the spiritual realities are more fundamental and give rise to the physical world. Seeming physical laws are therefore more easily violated (miracles) but spiritual laws are not.The description above whether you want to accept it or not is one held by a great many religious and spiritual people. Your definition of physical would automatically include the spiritual realm since under your definition of physical, everything if it exists in the universe is physical. It's nonsensical to bash me for pointing out the quantum realm fits all the hallmarks of what people have called spiritual by you insisting it's "physical" and must be, and then snidely commenting in total ignorance I might add, you are confusing QM with classical physics.No, I am not. The definitions of physical and material are derived from classical physics. In fact, it's classical physics that led to your comment on "so real."But whether you call something spiritual or physical, if it is intertwined with the physical universe, gives rise to all things, then you have therefore defined spiritual realms as physical. So the term spiritual is a subset of physical under your definitions percy. I think that's wacked but your criticism of me here is like ypou arguing something cannot be water because it must be a liquid. It's nonsensical, and if you stopped and paid attention to what I had stated, you'd know that.Don't you think instead of pretending I am making some argument I am not, you'd do better to get past the labels and see what process is occurring.In QM, Zeilinger invokes a 3-d extra space for QM to operate. I thgink Schroedinger worked with a 2-d extra space. Either way, space and time, meaning our 3 dimensions plus time, have specific limitations, and one of those limitations is to limit action at a distance and enforce local realism. QM violates those and indicates added spaces.Even cavediver admits the added spaces, but then people like him and you have the gall to blast me for discussing what this added space is, specifically it contains no mass, nor energy, and creates effects independent of space-time separation.I have backed up every thing I have said about the science of QM with actual quantum physicists. You guys have provided not one link, not one refuting me, and yet you have the gall to accuse me of being rude despite putting up with vile insults from you and others, and dishonest attacks.Show me one actual quantum physicist that disagrees with the science comments I have made concerning quantum physics. Show me one that doesn't agree entanglement occurs independent of space-time separation, for example. If you cannot, I'd appreciate an apology for the rudeness and insults you have levied against me here.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Add moderator message.Edited by Admin, : Add additional moderator comment.

Interesting comment. I think we have.

Very good points and indeed time is not point-like, nor space-time....time we understood that.