[yor_on]

The way 'I read Matt Strassler I sincerely doubt he being unsure of the uncertainty principles existence. What he discuss there isn't whether HUP exist, it's about how to see a 'virtual particle'.

[flummoxed]

The way 'I read Matt Strassler I sincerely doubt he being unsure of the uncertainty principles existence. What he discuss there isn't whether HUP exist, it's about how to see a 'virtual particle'.

That was meant as a joke, are you certain about the uncertainty principle. Ha Ha

[yor_on]

Actually they are 'mediators' in almost anything :) Then again, you shouldn't take that as if this is the last truth of it. Try this one and see how Martin think about it. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82298/virtual-photons-as-force-mediators-in-qed-really

[yor_on]

Ah, I connected the two sentences you wrote into one statement. Sorry, sometimes I miss out on the subtleties.

[yor_on]

What is slightly confusing when using a 'field approach' instead of perturbation theory is that if you have a 'field touching a field' you would expect some time to pass before a 'signal' has been received between them. But if a 'virtual particle' indeed is 'instantaneous' (Under Planck time) then the 'fields' exchange becomes , lets call it, slightly weird :) FTL, sort of ...

[flummoxed]

Actually they are 'mediators' in almost anything Then again, you shouldn't take that as if this is the last truth of it. Try this one and see how Martin think about it. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82298/virtual-photons-as-force-mediators-in-qed-really

I think there is some confusion here, virtual particles exist and have a life time. Virtual photons might not exist and are a thing in pertubation theory, which gives accurate results.

All things are quantum fluctuations of one kind/shape or another. It is the life time, shape, intensity, and effect of quantum fluctuations that dictate what they are.

Virtual particles as predicted by the HUP and demonstrated by the Casimir effect, and more recently dynamic casimir effect, are not the virtual photons of pertubation theories. 

[flummoxed]

What is slightly confusing when using a 'field approach' instead of perturbation theory is that if you have a 'field touching a field' you would expect some time to pass before a 'signal' has been received between them. But if a 'virtual particle' indeed is 'instantaneous' (Under Planck time) then the 'fields' exchange becomes , lets call it, slightly weird FTL, sort of ...

Is that called spooky action at a distance. Or is the virtual photon in perturbation theory imaginary and a mathematical construct, that just happens to fulfil what is required by observations and the math. Perhaps there is another explanation/interpretation.

[yor_on]

Perturbation theory is a approximation done by relating a complex problem you have to a similar solvable, using it as a stepping stone for the one you try to solve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory

[yor_on]

And yes, maybe it is a sort of spooky action over a distance? I don't know, but I would like to know :)

[yor_on]

One way would be to define time as scale dependent. On very small scales it breaks down, in a similar fashion to the way decoherence is thought to exist.
=

Sorry, not time itself, but the clock.

[flummoxed]

One way would be to define time as scale dependent. On very small scales it breaks down, in a similar fashion to the way decoherence is thought to exist.

Here is three quick discussions and points of view on space time. I am currently interested in all things emergent, including space time, but it covers the others as well https://motls.blogspot.com/2004/10/emergent-space-and-emergent-time.html here is a slightly longer link searching arxiv throws up too many papers to read http://thediagonal.com/2012/05/02/spacetime-as-an-emergent-phenomenon/

[yor_on]

It's nice thoughts Flummoxed, But in the end there are two choices.
Something comes from nothing.
Or something needs something else

Which one do you think is more correct?

[yor_on]

Choosing the first one is defining a universe without a beginning
the second one is creating a never ending loop

[flummoxed]

It's nice thoughts Flummoxed, But in the end there are two choices.
Something comes from nothing.
Or something needs something else

Which one do you think is more correct?

There is always a third option

Which one of your choices is closest to space expands due to dark energy which isn't really energy because its only borrowed via the HUP. Inadvertently this causes inflation, and the hot big bang etc The universe happened because there was no alternative. It happened from nothing in a zero energy universe.