arXiv:1402.1087v2 [quant-ph] 12 Dec 2014 sra.Freeyhn le-mteaia constructs, mathematical world - classical else structures the everything states, that For quantum theory granted in the for real. recorded from take is or events I stored the relativity. 1) and of or register, the 0 macroscopic detectors, measurement (either a particle a information of of of clicks rela- (values) bit the of physics, results quantum theory the of in Examples the are upon. both entities record agree real what classical mechanics quantum is a and laboratory, “Classical” tivity the some- in trace. leave, or that or events nature - in events where classical to referring as that in need properties the those without of carriers space region. as of region objects physical certain of a can transitions) in phase created field. on ( be or effects effects radiation, particle measurable shifts, already-existing energy consequences: a testable an offers has property of theory This of attribute to quantum concept nothing an that classical be as the argue to from will seems departure there I how radical - properties, all about. any if at have talk properties described doesn’t have be it it it If it can can Does how there? is exist? and what to nothing - in said properties be is: any entity philosophical addressing have remaining The at this fields, aims can space. paper sense known of this the region that all a question matter, to from the removed corresponding all are in when particles study remains the intense what of or is object Vacuum an as physics. emerged has that entity ata)ette etil aera ata)properties, (actual) Real real of structures. have use and certainly will properties both entities I potential referring (actual) Also wouldn’t as and I “structure” actual entities. and to otherwise these “property” - to words way refer the generic to rather how a know in be” “to ntefloig iluetewr ra”o “actual” or “real” word the use will I following, the In an vacuum, the is paper this in discussed topic The h aumcmswt nebde emty n fi spossi is vacuum. it the if from and detached geometry, is geometry embedded which an part in of with theories creation comes and pertu vacuum Thu shifts certain the energy under as measured. indeed such one and effects is p observable consequences: properties, physical object has actual that the This create quant to example when objects. in for from only that properties know - fact detach We observables the i of from objects. different values stems to very difference tied is the strictly situation paper, The this in fields. ass strictly finite-amplitude are and properties classically since properties, h rsneo atr te hnti,tecasclvacuu classical the an this, matter, than of Other motion gener matter. the the of in guides example, that presence For structure the state. geometry. dynamical vacuum its the a of in is those present are be vacuum can of particles no that implies h aumi h oeteeg tt fafil nacranreg certain a in field a of state energy lowest the is vacuum The .INTRODUCTION I. etc. at nvriy ..Bx110 I006AALTO,Finland FI-00076 15100, Box P.O. University, Aalto ilue“oeit and exist” “to use will I , .V onsa aoaoy colo Science, of School Laboratory, Lounasmaa V. O. h unu vacuum quantum The .S Paraoanu S. G. e.g. rllnso netgto fti ocp,bt nphysics in both concept, philosophy. this and of sev- investigation of between few lines connections a eral and present problems I the then open to vacuum, a interesting quantum leading first of development give notion historical pos- I present the of physics. of seed sketch quantum the of brief from as level derived status existential is ontological sibilities the Its plenty beneath with matter. that lies endowed “real” is which entity paper structure, an this of is of conclusion vacuum main quantum the the see, space. will or Hilbert we geometry, the As in the cavity, modes operators a of the non-commutativity in are the field structures electromagnetic form such the eigen- can of of an observable, Examples in conjugate is canonically structures. system the the unmeasured of when the state observable as one such of dy- also properties, value But of potential law properties. or specific these virtual a law by satisfied describe the evolution latter of namical the the independent while are measurement, motion, former direct of the bracket, a that Poisson is of La- the difference result the The motion, while time structures. of properties, certain are law real a are the at particle grangian, exam- position classical For the a and of them. momentum between the relations prop- ple, of certain sets as with formally erties regarded be can structures while utb h od faosaet etkna constituents as taken be to are im- atoms was If atoms the this void. between the them left be For is must what vacuum all, not. after the or because, whether portant, concept worried well-defined be a Dem- to is and first Leucippus the were atomists Greek ocritus The itself. losophy cae ihpyia bet uha particles as such objects physical with ociated hlspia eeto bu aumi soda phi- as old as is vacuum about reflection Philosophical I RE ITRCLITRUE THE INTERLUDE: HISTORICAL BRIEF II. EEOMN FTECNETOF CONCEPT THE OF DEVELOPMENT AUMU OTEQATMERA QUANTUM THE TO UP VACUUM ce.A pnqeto si ynecessity by if is question open An icles. btosteqatmvcu produces vacuum quantum the rbations osntne r-xsigra objects real pre-existing need not does sasrcuevi fayphysical any of void structure a is m ncasclpyis h nyfeatures only the physics, classical In unu hsc.A ilshow will I As physics. quantum n ,i un ti etadcre by curved and bent is it turn, in d, lter frltvt h geometry the relativity of theory al mpyistepoete r not are properties the physics um oete oeit xsec as - existence into come roperties ,qatmpyisalw sto us allows physics quantum s, l ocntutval physical viable construct to ble o fsae hsdefinition This space. of ion etc. 2 of the world, then so must be the void. Thus the atomists the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence clearly saw that both the full (the being) and the empty arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will (the non-being) have to be postulated as the primordial be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and rel- elements. ative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.” Aristotle, following Plato’s thought, devised a num- ber of rather ingenious arguments against the existence Following the great success of Newtonian mechanics, of vacuum [1]. Some of these arguments have to do with space had become established as the universal receptacle the difficulty of making sense of motion in vacuum, as one of objects. However, the “common people” (“vulgus” in would need some reference points with respect to which the original) eventually had their way: the corpuscular to describe changes of the position. But in vacuum all view of light advocated by Newton had to yield to the points would be equivalent, therefore, worries Aristotle, wave view of his contemporary Huygens. Later in the motion cannot be defined. Moreover, motion in vacuum, XIX’th century the wave theory of light would get ex- if vacuum exists, should continue forever, in flagrant con- perimental confirmation through the work of Young and tradiction with Aristotle’s own physics that assessed that Fresnel, and will be put on solid mathematical grounds motion is due to things aiming at reaching their natural by Maxwell. But light needed a medium into which to place. Besides these physics - based arguments, Aristotle propagate as a wave, so it was conjectured that such a formulated a “logical” argument against the existence of medium called “ether”, filling the absolute space, would vacuum. Suppose one removes a body from the place it exist. At the end of the XIXth century, the experiments occupies in space. If we were to attribute any reality to of Michelson and Morley showed however that there is the emptiness left behind, we would need to refer to it as a no motion with respect to the ether. body with the characteristics of existence (being). Imag- Finally, the theory of relativity of Einstein made re- ine now that we put back the body where it was. We are dundant the concept of ether and that of absolute time now left with two bodies co-existing in exactly the same and space. The conceptual pendulum swang back to the region of space. In this case, Aristotle thinks, the vac- relationists’ side [4]. The special theory of relativity in- uum would need to have rather miraculous properties. It troduced the idea that length and time intervals are not should be more like a fluid that perfectly penetrates the absolute quantities, but, instead, they depend on the initial body, filling exactly the same amount of space. state of motion of the observer. The Lorentz transforma- The Middle Ages did not bring up any significant de- tion and the negative result of the Michelson and Mor- viation from Aristotle’s arguments. Nature’s abhorrence ley experiment were explained as a natural consequence of vacuum (horror vacui) was accepted by most thinkers. of the postulates of relativity. From now on, spacetime But what did eventually turn the tables around in favor has become defined only in relation to a reference frame, of vacuum was the experiment: in the XVIIth century a with each object dragging with it its own spacetime as series of experiments due to Torricelli, Pascal, and von it moves. It is the concept of motion that forces us to Guericke demonstrated that removing the air from an attach different vacua to objects moving with respect to enclosure is technically possible, and from that moment each other. Einstein explains it with exquisite clarity [5], on the vacuum became a legitimate object of study for science. Its ontological status remained however unclear “When a smaller box s is situated, relatively at rest, and would change several times during the next centuries. inside the hollow space of a larger box S, then the hollow As we will see below, it has remained, until nowadays, space of s is a part of the hollow space of S, and the tied with the concept of space, and as a result it would same ‘space’, which contains both of them, belongs to go through the reformulations imposed by the Newto- each of the boxes. When s is in motion with respect to S, nian mechanics, by the theory of relativity, and by the however, the concept is less simple. One is then inclined quantum physics. to think that s encloses always the same space, but a In Decartes’s philosophy the refutation of the reality variable part of the space S. It then becomes necessary of absolute space is mostly based on the association be- to apportion to each box its particular space, not thought tween extension and bodies. If bodies are removed, then of as bounded, and to assume that these two spaces are one cannot talk about extension anymore - thus absolute in motion with respect to each other.” space is absurd. What we call space is then an ensemble Finally, general relativity puts gravitation and nonin- of contiguities: the location of a body is a collection of re- ertial motion into this picture. In the theory of general lations between the body and those immediately contigu- relativity the coordinates (space and time) are even more ous to it. Motion is simply a change in these contiguity devoid of any physical meaning than in special relativity. relations [2]. The metric is itself a solution of Einstein’s equations - if Against this type of relationist thinking, due to this solution exists, space-time can be rightfully said to Descartes and to Leibniz as well, Newton exposes his exists. If it does not, such as in the singularities of black conception of absolute space and time in the famous holes or in the Big Bang, spacetime does not have any Scholium of Principia [3], meaning. If one somehow removes the metric, as given “Only I must observe, that the common people con- by solving Einstein’s equations, what is left is not the ceive those quantities under no other notions but from absolute flat spacetime of Newton - nothing is left. 3

In Einstein’s words [5], and so on. “There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space On this issue, the theory of relativity is not as radical without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its as one can be. As we have seen, for the thinkers before own, but only as a structural quality of the field. Thus Newton the connection between objects and spacetime Descartes was not so far from the truth when he believed was even tighter. Spacetime might not mean anything in he must exclude the existence of an empty space.” the absence of objects. However, even in this conceptual frame it still makes sense to ask what happens when we Here the word field refers to the gravitational field, attempt to remove all the objects from a certain region. which in the general theory of relativity can be seen, so There are three possible answers: the first, that the prob- to say, almost co-substantial with the metric gµν (that is lem is logically ill-defined. This seems to be what Aris- why it is also called a metric field). This is, in brief, the totle preferred to believe. Another possibility is to view great conceptual shift introduced by the general theory of the objects and their associated spacetime as analogous relativity: that spacetime is a field with a dynamics of its to fluids: attempting to remove a part of the fluid is hope- own, as determined by the configuration of matter, and less because it will be immediately replaced by another not just a fixed background attached to each reference part of the fluid. Finally, the third view could be called frame, as in the special theory of relativity. In modern a “ceramical” view of spacetime: much like the tiles in mathematical parlance, we say that general relativity is a glass mosaic, any attempt to remove one part of the a background-independent theory (due to diffeomorfism drawing results in the breaking of the glass, extracting invariance), meaning that the theory is not built on a objects from the spacetime could result simply in some fixed spacetime geometry that exists behind the scenes, type of nothingness. In this case, because spacetime is so unaffected by matter. Einstein’s equations tell us explic- rigidly attached to the physical objects, it makes sense to itly that there can be no such background that is left wonder if a spacetime structure is useful at all or it is just unbent by the action of matter. redundant. This type of conceptual structure might not allow to construct a physical theory in the usual sense: as a story that unfolds in spacetime - simply because III. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE there is no spacetime, or it is not clearly distinct from QUANTUM VACUUM the objects themselves. But there is another way out. Quantum physics offers a Three major philosophical assumptions about proper- completely different perspective that completely changes ties can be associated with the Newtonian world-view of [A1] and [A3], and softens the alternatives to [A2] by in- the world. troducing more conceptual structure. The result is essen- [A1] Properties are tied to physical objects (particles tially a probabilistic theory in which the evolution is not or non-zero fields). applied directly to probabilities, but to probability am- [A2] Space is distinct from and exists independently of plitudes [6]. This automatically means that what evolves the objects (carrying properties) one chooses to populate are not the properties of the objects, but the possibilities it with. The same is true for time. Space-time is the im- of the objects having certain properties. These proper- mense theater stage where physical processes unfold, the ties become actualized (real) only after a measurement canvas where each dot is an event. One has, in principle, of the corresponding observable. The assumption [A2] is access to any of these points. to some extend left unscathed: spacetime exists as an in- [A3] True randomness does not exist. The observed dependent entity, but it acquires more structure beyond randomness of the properties of a system is simply a re- just geometry. sult of our lack of knowledge and imperfect control over Before proceeding further, it is worth stressing out that the experiment. so far [7] there is no prediction of quantum physics that The rise of electrodynamics in the mid-19th century contradicts the general theory of relativity, or the other did not change much [A1]. It only added fields, mostly way around. Of course, we do not know the limits of through the work of Faraday, as legitimate carriers of these theories, and one may reasonably suspect for in- properties. Neither did Boltzmann’s statistical mechan- stance that quantum mechanics will forbid the point-like ics present a challenge to [A3], since there the perceived singularities of general relativity. Still, the fact that the randomness was presumed to be an effect of the motion known domain of applicability of both of these theories and collisions of many particles. It was the general theory is so vast - from elementary particles to structures of of relativity that changed [A2] to a large extend: the the- the size of galaxies - and yet no contradictory result has ory suggests that spacetime itself can be bent due to the been obtained is astonishing, especially when one looks presence of matter. A distribution of matter allows one at how different are the concepts and assumptions the to calculate the metric of spacetime. But accessing any two theories operate with. Even the combination of the of the points of spacetime is no longer taken for granted - special theory of relativity with quantum physics in the there can exist points where the theory predicts singular- form of relativistic quantum field theory, producing the ities, event horizons prevent the transfer of information very successful predictions of the Standard Model of par- from the inside of the region of space which they enclose, ticle physics, is not an easy conceptual marriage [8]. This 4 situation is rather unique in the history of science, and ticular, one expects to be able to generate a real property brings a novel twist to the discussion on falsifiability [9], - a value for an observable - in the same way as for any paradigm shifts [10], confirmation, etc., which would be other state: by perturbation, evolution, and measure- worth investigating further in the philosophy of science. ment. The picture that quantum field theory provides Another remark is that the assumptions [A1]-[A3] are is that both particles and vacuum are now constructed not exhaustive. I left aside for example the very impor- from the same “substance”, namely the quantum states tant supposition that interaction is strictly local (there is of the fields at each point (or, equivalently, that of the no action-at-a-distance), a feature which is essential when modes). What we used to call matter is just another considering the dynamics of systems. This assumption is quantum state, and so is the absence of matter - there maintained in standard quantum field theory - when writ- is no underlying substance that makes up particles as ing the interaction Hamiltonian between two fields, it is opposed to the absence of this substance when particles taken for granted that one field couples only to the other are not present. One could even turn around the tables field defined at the same point in spacetime. This, how- and say that everything is made of vacuum - indeed, the ever, does not make quantum physics local in the classical vacuum is just one special combination of states of the sense, because once they have interacted the particles (or quantum field, and so are the particles. In this way, the fields) can be separated in space and some of the proper- difference between the two worldviews, the one where ev- ties that one ascribes to them via measurements cannot erything is a plenum and vacuum does not exist, and the result from local probability distributions. This type of other where the world is empty space (nonbeing) filled quantum non-locality, as famously put first in evidence with entities that truly have the attribute of being, is by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, is best expressed by completely dissolved. Quantum physics essentially tells Bell inequalities, but, interestingly, it can also be put in us that there is a third option, in which these two pic- evidence as a purely logical contradiction [11]. tures of the world are just two complementary aspects. In quantum physics the objects inhabit at the same time the world of the continuum and that of the discrete. A. The ontological status of the quantum vacuum Incidentally, the discussion above has implications for the concept of individuality, a pivotal one both in phi- In quantum physics, vacuum is defined as the ground losophy and in statistical physics. Two objects are dis- state of a quantum field. It is a state of minimum energy, tinguishable if there is at least one property which can corresponding to zero particles. Note that this definition be used to make the difference between them. In the of vacuum uses already the conceptual and formal ma- classical world, finding this property is not difficult, be- chinery of quantum field theory. It is justifiable to ask cause any two objects have a large amount of properties weather it is possible to give a more theory-independent that can be analyzed to find a different one. To establish definition with lesser theoretical load. In this situation if a painting is fake or it is the original is only a mat- vacuum would be an entity which is explained - not just ter of practical difficulty. But, because in quantum field defined within and then explored - by quantum field the- theory objects are only combinations of modes, with no ory. For example, one could attempt an operational def- additional properties, it means that one can have objects inition of vacuum as the state in which no particles are which cannot be distinguished one from each other even detected. But then we have to specify how to detect the in principle. For example, two electrons are perfectly particles, with what efficiency, etc., that is, we need a identical. To use a well-known Aristotelian distinction, model for the particle detector. Such a model, known as they have no accidental properties, they are truly made the Unruh-DeWitt detector, is constructed however from of the same essence. A very important related problem within quantum field theory. Therefore nothing seems to is that of the distinguishability of non-orthogonal states, be gained in explanatory power by an operational defini- which has attracted a lot of attention in quantum infor- tion. mation. The vacuum is simply a special state of the quantum Another spectacular application of the idea that prop- field - implying that quantum physics allows the return of erties are detached from objects is quantum computing. the concept of ether, although in a rather weaker, modi- Unlike in classical computing, quantum processors do not fied form. This new ether - the quantum vacuum - does need to use objects (for example memory elements) as not contradict the special theory of relativity because the physical support for each of the intermediate result of a vacuum of the known fields are constructed to be Lorentz- calculation [12]. The re-attachment of properties in the invariant. In some sense, each particle in motion carries form of the result of a calculation is done only at the end with it its own ether, thus Lorentz transformations act in of a series of unitary operations, when the registers are the same way on the vacuum and on the particle itself. measured. Otherwise, the vacuum state is not that different from To see in a simple way why quantum physics requires any other wavefunction in the Hilbert space. Attaching a re-evaluation of the concept of emptiness the follow- probability amplitudes to the ground state is allowed to ing qualitative argument is useful: the Heisenberg uncer- the same degree as attaching probability amplitudes to tainty principle shows that, if a state has a well-defined any other state with nonzero number of particles. In par- number of particles (zero) the phase of the corresponding 5

field cannot be well-defined. Thus, quantum fluctuations vacuum energies have observable effects provided some of the phase appear as an immediate consequence of the of the earliest experimental confirmations of quantum very definition of emptiness. physics. For example, one possibility is to measure the Another argument can be put forward: the classical vibrational spectra of molecules and to search for iso- concept of emptiness assumes the separability of space in tope effects (a change in the mass of a nuclei will change distinct volumes. Indeed, to be able to say that nothing the zero-point energy, thus the transition frequencies). exists in a region of space, we implicitly assume that it The first observation of this effect was done by Mul- is possible to delimitate that region of space from the liken in 1925, using boron monoxide. Since then, the rest of the world. We do this by surrounding it with vacuum state has played an important role in countless walls of some sort. In particular, the thickness of the other experiments. For example, in X-ray scattering on walls is irrelevant in the classical picture, and, as long solids, it was shown that the zero-point fluctuations of as the particles do not have enough energy to penetrate the phonons produces an additional scattering on top of the wall, all that matters is the volume cut out from that due to thermal fluctuations. Other examples are space. Yet, quantum physics teaches us that, due to the the Lamb shift between the energies of the s and p levels phenomenon of tunneling, this is only possible to some in the hydrogen atom, and the fact that liquid helium extent - there is, in reality, a non-zero probability for a does not become solid at normal atmospheric pressure particle to go through the walls even if classically they even near zero temperature - the vacuum fluctuations are prohibited to do so because they do not have enough prevent the atoms of coming close enough so that solidi- energy. This already suggests that, even if we start with fication can occur. In nuclear physics, a related problem zero particles in that region, there is no guarantee that is that of a fundamental limit of the size of nuclei [17]. the number of particles is conserved if e.g. we change As the charge number Z increases beyond approximately the shape of the enclosure by moving the walls. This 1/α (where α is the fine structure constant), the elec- is precisely what happens in the case of the dynamical tric fields near the nucleus produce vacuum instability Casimir effect, as described below. Another consequence, [18], and particle-antiparticle pairs are generated from which I will not discuss here, is the existence of entan- vacuum due to the Schwinger effect. glement between different regions of space in the vacuum The dynamical Casimir effect was predicted theoreti- state, a somewhat unexpected effect since the concept of cally in 1970 [19] and has been recently observed in two entanglement is usually discussed for particles. There is experiments. The first one uses a SQUID terminating a yet another point of view that illustrates that in quan- coplanar waveguide [20], creating a fast-moving bound- tum physics the idea of delimitating a region of space, ary condition. The other experiment employs an array and taking the particles out of it, is tricky. The very of SQUIDs, effectively realizing a material with a fast- concept of a particle is not a local one in quantum field tunable index of refraction embedded in a cavity [21]. theory [13], and defining the number of particle opera- When the boundary condition (in the first setup) or the tor in a region of space is not trivial [14]. Particles are index of refraction (in the second setup) changes fast extended objects but the operation of removing them is enough, one observes real photons emerging from the cir- by necessity local - thus when abstractly separating an cuit, even if the system was initially in the vacuum state. empty volume of space one needs further care to ensure Quantum superfluids offer also a rich system to observe that no particle leaks in. vacuum effects: such experiments have been discussed in All these demonstrate that in quantum field theory the superfluid He [22], and recently a thermal analog of the vacuum state is not just an inert background in which dynamical Casimir effect has been reported in a Bose- fields propagate, but a dynamic entity containing the Einstein condensate [23]. seeds of multiple possibilities, which are actualized once In order to understand conceptually the dynamical the vacuum is disturbed in specific ways. This leads to Casimir effect let us go back to Einstein’s gedankenex- real effects, some of which are discussed in the next sub- periment with the two boxes S and s, as presented in the section: vacuum fluctuations result in shifts in the energy second section. Einstein realized that motion imposes on level of electrons (Lamb shift), fast changes in the bound- us the concept of a relativistic, frame-dependent space. ary conditions or in the metric produce particles (dynam- This relative space is dragged along by the box (or frame) ical Casimir effect), and accelerated motion and gravita- as it moves. As a result, space is not just a kind of fixed tion can create thermal radiation (Unruh and Hawking canvas onto which we draw reference frames, but, instead, effects). it is defined by and anchored into the reference frame. With this, we are now ready to push Einstein’s thought one step further. Because space is an entity effectively B. Observable effects due to the quantum vacuum created by some enclosure, this implies that deforming the corresponding box or boundary condition might have There are several field-theoretical and many-body ef- an effect on the space inside. For example, we can com- fects associated with the existence of vacuum fluctuations press and expand the space itself by operating the box [15, 16]. as a piston in a cylinder. The result turns out to the cre- Measurements showing conclusively that differences in ation of real particles. Einstein would have been amazed: 6 quantum physics brings his own view on space to a very ties (properties are not intrinsically attached to objects, unexpected consequence! but are created contextually, as shown by the Kochen- Finally, motion itself has an effect on the vacuum. Let Specker theorem). Because in quantum field theory the us look again back at Einstein’s boxes s and S. Each of vacuum has a structure, properties can be generated at them carry their own vacuum. As they move one with a certain point by changes of this structure, and not just respect to each other, is the vacuum of S also seen as a by bringing them in from somewhere else. As mentioned vacuum by s? The principle of relativity guarantees that above already, one cannot do this classically: if a prop- no phenomenon exists allowing to distinguish the vacua erty were to appear at some point in space, then classical of the two inertial systems, but for non-inertial motion physics would tell us that, according to [A1] there must it does not put any restriction. It turns out that if s be a real object that carries this property, and accord- is moved with respect to S at a constant acceleration, s ing to [A2] there must be a causal story, enfolding in experiences a thermal background (an environment con- the region of space-time under consideration, which one taining particles in thermal equilibrium). This is the must discover in order to have a complete description of Unruh effect [24]. Now, by the principle of equivalence, the phenomenon. To clarify this point, I can make an gravitation is equivalent to acceleration, so one expects analogy with the chairs for the public in a concert hall. a similar effect to occur in gravitational fields. This is The arrangement of chairs in rows and the numbering of the famous Hawking effect [25], consisting in emission of the chairs in each row, the association of higher prices radiation at the event horizon of a black hole. to better seats etc., provides a structure for the prob- ability distribution of spectators. For example, if one tries to buy a ticket, the options are limited by the to- C. Where do properties come from tal number of seats, by the number of already-reserved seats, and by the budget of that person. The spectators are here the properties: they might buy a certain seat We now go back to the main theme of this paper: what and show up to the concert - or not. However, to create is the origin of the properties of physical objects? As this arrangement of seats in the concert hall one needs we have seen, we have to enlarge the category of en- to bring in the chairs from outside: there must be some tities where properties can originate from, by including energy and mass to support this structure, and this en- the quantum vacuum. To make the difference more clear, ergy and mass can be recovered if for example the concert suppose that we have a region of space emptied of matter hall is renovated and the chairs are removed. This situ- and fields. Nothing real, in the sense defined in the in- ation is in contrast to the quantum vacuum, where the troduction, is there. Classically, the only way to create a structure exists as such, ready to acquire real properties, property inside that region is to bring in from outside an without being constructed beforehand by energy or mass object carrying that specific property. Note that this sim- previously brought in from elsewhere. By definition, the ple thought experiment relies on all of the assumptions vacuum is the ground state, therefore (unless the system [A1], [A2], and [A3] listed above. These are not trivial is metastable) there is no other lower-energy state where assumptions - although they look very innocuous, it is by the system would go to if one attempts to extract energy no means obvious that nature should obey them. In this from it. This feature has experimental applications, for sense, Netwonian physics appears as a strongly coerced example to verifying that systems such as nanomechan- theory, while relativity and quantum physics introduce ical oscillators have reached the ground state [26]. Note different relaxations of these assumptions. Firstly, New- that in the case of the dynamical Casimir experiments tonian physics needs to have the concept of space as in mentioned above, the energy of the particles comes from [A2], existing independently of objects and with all the the pump in a two-photon spontaneous downconversion points easily accessed. General relativity shows that this process: the vacuum only provides a structure for this does not happen if the object carrying the desired prop- process to occur, and it is not the case that the vacuum erty is too massive or if we insist of making it as much energy is converted into photons. In general, deforming, as point-like - squeezing too much energy into too little shearing, modifying boundary conditions, and changing space could result in the formation of a black hole. Sec- the index of refraction of the vacuum results in energy ondly, if [A1] and [A3] is not satisfied, then properties exchange - for example, in the static Casimir effect it could appear spontaneously in vacuum, as they do not costs energy to pull apart the two plates. The quantum require either a real object to be attached to or a causal vacuum behaves, from this point of view, almost as a chain of events that would produce them. real material. Clearly, the ontological status of an entity The experiments on generation of particles from the that is not made of real particles but reacts to external quantum vacuum mentioned above (dynamical Casimir actions does not fall straight into any of the standard effect) show that there exists another way of generat- philosophical categories of being/non-being. ing properties. Note that these experiments still use the classical concept of spacetime background as in [A2], but to explain them one needs to alter dramatically [A1] and [A3] to accommodate the quantum-mechanical account of randomness (there exists pure randomness) and proper- 7

IV. AN EMPTINESS FULL OF UNKNOWNS tensive continuum”, defined as a “relational complex” containing all the possibilities of objectification. This A significant number of important open problems in continuum also contains the potentiality for division; this physics are connected to the concept of vacuum. I will potentiality is effected in what Whitehead calls “actual briefly discuss here a few of them. entities (occasions)” - the basic blocks of his cosmology. For the pragmatic physicist, since the extensive contin- uum provides the space of possibilities from which the A. What lies beneath the continuous spacetime actual entities arise, it is tempting to identify it with manifold the quantum vacuum [29]. The actual entities are then assimilated with events in spacetime, as resulting from a quantum measurement, or simply with particles. The If the quantum vacuum displays features that make it following caveat is however due: Whitehead’s extensive resemble a material, albeit a really special one, we can continuum is also devoid of geometrical content, while the immediately ask: then what is this material made of? Is quantum vacuum normally carries information about the it a continuum, or are the “atoms” of vacuum? Is vacuum geometry, be it flat or curved. the primordial substance of which everything is made of? Such questions lead us to the very edge of our knowledge. It is reasonable to expect that the continuous differen- To make these big questions more understandable, we can tiable manifold that we use as spacetime in physics (and start by decoupling the concept of vacuum from that of experience in our daily life) is a coarse-grained manifesta- spacetime. tion of a deeper reality, perhaps also of quantum (prob- As we have seen, the concept of vacuum as accepted abilistic) nature. This search for the underlying struc- and used in standard quantum field theory is tied with ture of spacetime is part of the wider effort of bringing that of spacetime. This is important for the theory of together quantum physics and the theory of gravitation quantum fields, because it leads to observable effects. It under the same conceptual umbrella. From various the- is the variation of geometry, either as a change in bound- oretical considerations, it is inferred that this unification should account for physics at the incredibly small scale ary conditions [20] or as a change in the speed of light −35 (and therefore the metric) [21] which is responsible for the set by the Planck length, 10 m, where the effects of creation of particles. Now, one can legitimately go fur- gravitation and quantum physics would be comparable. ther and ask: which one is the fundamental “substance”, What happens below this scale, which concepts will sur- the space-time or the vacuum? Is the geometry funda- vive in the new description of the world, is not known. mental in any way, or it is just a property of the empty An important point is that, in order to incorporate the space emerging from a deeper structure? main conceptual innovation of general relativity, the the- These questions force us to go back to reexamining the ory should be background-independent. This contrasts most basic conceptual cornerstones of our physical the- with the case of the other fields (electromagnetic, Dirac, ories. That geometry and substance can be separated etc.) that live in the classical background provided by is of course not anything new for philosophers. Aristo- gravitation. tle’s distinction between form and matter is one example. The problem with quantizing gravitation is - if we be- For Aristotle the “essence” becomes a true reality only lieve that the general theory of relativity holds in the when embodied in a form. Otherwise it is just a substra- regime where quantum effects of gravitation would ap- tum of potentialities, somewhat similar to what quan- pear, that is, beyond the Planck scale - that there is no tum physics suggests. Immanuel Kant was even more underlying background on which the gravitational field radical: the forms, or in general the structures that we lives. There are several suggestions and models for a think of as either existing in or as being abstracted from “pre-geometry” (a term introduced by Wheeler) that are the realm of independently-existing reality (the thing-in- currently actively investigated (see e.g. [30] for a non- itself or the noumena) are actually innate categories of technical review). This is a question of ongoing inves- the mind, preconditions that make possible our experi- tigation and debate, and several research programs in ence of reality as phenomena. Structures such as space quantum gravity (loops, spinfoams, noncommutative ge- and time, causality, etc. are a priori forms of intuition ometry, dynamical triangulations, etc.) have proposed - thus by nature very different from anything from the different lines of attack [31]. Spacetime would then be outside reality, and they are used to formulate synthetic an emergent entity, an approximation valid only at scales a priori judgments. But almost everything that was dis- much larger than the Planck length. covered in modern physics is at odds with Kant’s view Incidentally, nothing guarantees that background- [27]. In modern philosophy perhaps Whitehead’s pro- independence itself is a fundamental concept that will cess metaphysics [28] provides the closest framework for survive in the new theory. For example, string theory formulating these problems. For Whitehead, potentiali- is an approach to unifying the Standard Model of parti- ties are continuous, while the actualizations are discrete, cle physics with gravitation which uses quantization in a much like in the quantum theory the unitary evolution is fixed (non-dynamic) background. In string theory, gravi- continuous, while the measurement is non-unitary and in tation is just another force, with the graviton (zero mass some sense “discrete”. An important concept is the “ex- and spin 2) obtained as one of the string modes in the 8 perturbative expansion. A background-independent for- ken symmetry. mulation of string theory would be a great achievement, Then, if there is an energy (the zero-point energy) as- but so far it is not known if it can be achieved. sociated with empty space, it follows via the special the- Models of emergent spacetimes can be constructed by ory of relativity that this energy should correspond to an analogy with the low-energy models used in condensed- inertial mass. By the principle of equivalence of the gen- matter physics [32]. One recent particularly simple to eral theory of relativity, inertial mass is identical with the understand such construction is the quantum graphity gravitational mass. Thus, empty space must gravitate. model of Markopoulou and collaborators [33], a model So, how much does empty space weigh? This question inspired from loop quantum gravity. In this model the brings us to the frontiers of our knowledge of vacuum - geometry emerges from a probabilistic structure which the famous problem of the cosmological constant, a prob- is itself of quantum-mechanical nature: geometrical re- lem that Einstein was wrestling with, and which is still lations are given by the links between the nodes of a an open issue in modern cosmology [36, 37]. graph, and these links are created and annihilated by Finally, although we cannot locally extract the zero- standard quantum-mechanical creation and annihilation point energy of the vacuum fluctuations, the vacuum operators. Two nodes are in a relation of spatial vicin- state of a field can be used to transfer energy from one ity only if the link between them is in the state “con- place to another by using only information. This proto- nected”, as resulting from the action of the creation op- col has been called quantum energy teleportation [38] and erator on the vacuum. Note that the graph does not live uses the fact that different spatial regions of a quantum in spacetime: it is an abstract lattice describing connec- field in the ground state are entangled. It then becomes tion relationships between nodes. The geometry is emer- possible to extract locally energy from the vacuum by gent as the overall connectivity of the graph. The con- making a measurement in one place, then communicating cept of proximity is therefore probabilistic (in the sense the result to an experimentalist in a spatially remote re- of quantum mechanics) and it allows for states that are gion, who would be able then to extract energy by making quantum-mechanical superpositions of connected or dis- an appropriate (depending on the result communicated) connected links, yielding also superpositions of geome- measurement on her or his local vacuum. tries. All of the above suggest that the vacuum is the primor- dial essence, the ousia from which everything came into existence. Some models suggests that even the spacetime B. Time, gravitation, energy, and the origin of the can be seen as an emergent structure. So does Nature try Universe to tell us something about the grand metaphysical ques- tion - why there is something rather than nothing - but The relationship between the quantum vacuum and what exactly [39]? Does vacuum play the crucial role in other fundamental concepts in physics such as time, grav- the coming into existence of the Universe as we know it itation, and energy is not easy to pin down, but some of [31, 40]? these connections are intriguing. Time is one of the most difficult concepts in physics. It enters in the equations in a rather artificial way - as an V. CONCLUSIONS external parameter. Although strictly speaking time is a quantity that we measure, it is not possible in quantum To conclude, I describe the concept of quantum vac- physics to define a time-observable in the same way as uum in close relation with the latest experimental results for the other quantities that we measure (position, mo- that show how particles can be generated by processes mentum, etc.). The intuition that we have about time is such as the dynamical Casimir effect. I then explore that of a uniform flow, as suggested by the regular ticks the Newtonian-physics assumptions behind the concept of clocks. Time flows undisturbed by the variety of events of property and show how these are to be modified by that may occur in an irregular pattern in the world. Sim- relativity and especially by quantum physics. Quantum ilarly, the quantum vacuum is the most regular state one physics allows for the vacuum state to have an intrinsic can think of. For example a persistent superconducting structure that provides the “possibility grid” for events, current flows at a constant speed - essentially forever. or for entities that we can call real with full confidence. Can then one use the quantum vacuum as a clock? This Potentialities are thus actualized as properties when the is a fascinating dispute in condensed-matter physics [34], vacuum is disturbed or measured in specific ways. formulated as the problem of existence of time crystals. The emergence of properties by this mechanism sheds A time crystal, by analogy with a crystal in space, is new light onto the intricate relation between the quan- a system that displays a time-regularity under measure- tum and the classical, but does not solve the deep clash ment, while being in the ground (vacuum) state. These between these worlds. Fundamentally, it is perhaps the systems might not exist in the form originally proposed concept of separation that would need revising. Vacuum [35], but the research into this new concept will proba- itself is possible because one can separate things from bly bring up unexpected connections between time, the one region of space into another. In quantum physics we quantum vacuum, and the concept of spontaneously bro- have the separation between the object under study and 9 the observer (the measurement apparatus). The object (and hides it very well in the formalism) the existence under study is quantum while the observer is classical - of a spacetime background in which the measuring appa- thus each of them is thought of as obeying a different ratus is placed. In other words, the distinction between dynamics, the unitary quantum evolution of the wave the object to be quantized and this background cannot function for the object, and the classical equations of be maintained when the object is the spacetime itself. motion for the observer. The interaction between the two collapses the wavefunction, resulting in a nonunitary evolution of the object. This separation does not exist as Acknowledgments such in general relativity - there everything, that is, both the object under study and the observer are part of the same dynamical equation: they experience the curvature I wish to thank Prof. I. Pˆarvu for inviting me to con- of spacetime and, by virtue of having mass, they gener- tribute to this volume and for many inspirational discus- ate the gravitational field themselves. Yet at the same sions during my studies at the Department of Philosophy time, quantum physics allows for the existence of entan- of the University of Bucharest. The title of the third sec- glement between objects that are localized at different tion of this contribution is inspired from his book, Arhi- places in space, a feature that seems difficult to accom- tectura existentei (Humanitas, Bucharest, 1990). Finan- modate with the theory of relativity. Merging quantum cial support from FQXi and from the Academy of Fin- theory with gravitation will therefore most likely require land, projects 263457 and the Center of Excellence “Low drastically new concepts, also from the direction of what Temperature Quantum Phenomena and Devices” project “ emptiness” means. A frontal approach to the problem 250280 is acknowledged. of merging gravitation and quantum physics - attempting I am grateful to Grisha Volovik, Gil Jannes, Janne for example to quantize the gravitational field - might not Karim¨aki, Iulian Toader, and Jonathan Bain for com- the best way to proceed, since quantum physics assumes ments on the manuscript.

[1] E. Grant, Much ado about nothing: theories of space and versity of Chicago Press, Chicago (1962). vacuum from the Middle Ages to the scientific revolution, [11] G. S. Paraoanu, ‘Realism and single-quanta nonlocality’, Cambridge University Press (1981). Found. Phys. 41, 734 (2011). [2] R. Descartes, Principia Philosophiae (1644), trans. V.R. [12] G. S. Paraoanu, ‘Quantum computing: theoretical pos- Miller and R.P. Miller, Reidel, Dordrecht (1983). sibility versus practical possibility’, Phys. Perspect. 13, [3] I. Newton, ‘Scholium to the Definitions’ in Philosophiae 359 (2011). Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1689); trans. A. Motte [13] D. Colosi and C. Rovelli, ‘What is a particle?’, Class. (1729), rev. F. Cajori, Berkeley, University of California Quant. Grav. 26, 025002 (2009). Press (1934), pp. 6-12. [14] M. Redhead, ‘The Vacuum in Relativistic Quantum Field [4] S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, ‘Reflections on the Ether’, Theory’, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the pp. 28-63, in S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, The philoso- Philosophy of Science Association 1994, Volume Two: phy of vacuum, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1991). Symposia and Invited Papers, 77 (1994). [5] A. Einstein, ‘Relativity and the Problem of Space’, in [15] D. W. Sciama, ‘The Physical Significance of the Vacuum Relativity - The special and the general theory (1952), State of a Quantum Field’, pp. 136-158, in S. Saunders 15th edition, Three Rivers Press, New York (1961). and H. R. Brown, The philosophy of vacuum, Clarendon [6] S. Aaronson, Quantum computing since Democritus, Press, Oxford (1991). Cambridge University Press, New York (2013), Ch. 9. [16] P. W. Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduc- [7] I leave aside Hawkings’ black hole information paradox tion to Quantum Electrodynamics, Academic Press, San and the hotly debated issue of “firewalls”, recently trig- Diego, California, U.S.A. (1994). gered by A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, and [17] P. Indelicato and A. Karpov, ‘Theoretical physics: Sizing J. Sully, ‘Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?’, up atoms’, Nature 498, 40 (2013) J. High Energy Phys. 02, 062 (2013) [arXiv:1207.3123 [18] J. Rafelski, L. P. Fulcher, A. Klein, ‘Fermions and bosons (2012)]; cf. S. L. Braunstein, ‘Black hole entropy as en- interacting with arbitrarily strong external fields’, Phys. tropy of entanglement, or it’s curtains for the equivalence Rep. 38, 227 (1978). principle’ [arXiv:0907.1190v1] published as S. L. Braun- [19] G. T. Moore, ‘Quantum theory of the electromagnetic stein, S. Pirandola and K. Zyczkowski,˙ ‘Better Late than field in a variable-length one-dimensional cavity’, J. Never: Information Retrieval from Black Holes’, Phy. Math. Phys. 11, 2679 (1970). Rev. Lett. 110, 101301 (2013), which deserve a separate [20] C. M. Wilson, G. Johansson, A. Pourkabirian, J. R. Jo- discussion. hansson, T. Duty, F. Nori, P. Delsing, ‘Observation of [8] E. P. Wigner, ‘Relativistic Invariance and Quantum Phe- the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting cir- nomena’, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 255 (1957). cuit’, Nature 479, 376 (2011). [9] K. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic [21] P. L¨ahteenm¨aki, G. S. Paraoanu, J. Hassel, and P. Books, New York, (1959). J. Hakonen, ‘Dynamical Casimir effect in a Josephson [10] T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Uni- metamaterial’, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 4234 10

(2013). land (2011). [22] G. Volovik, The Universe in a Helium droplet, Clarendon [32] J. Bain, ‘The emergence of spacetime in condensed mat- Press, International series of monographs on physics, Ox- ter approaches to quantum gravity’, Studies in History ford (2003). and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44, 338 (2013). [23] J.-C. Jaskula, G. B. Partridge, M. Bonneau, R. Lopes, [33] See A. Hamma, F. Markopoulou, S. Lloyd, F. Car- J. Ruaudel, D. Boiron, C. I. Westbrook, ‘An acoustic avelli, S. Severini, and K. Markstr¨om, ‘A quantum Bose- analog to the dynamical Casimir effect in a Bose-Einstein Hubbard model with evolving graph as toy model for condensate’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 220401 (2012). emergent spacetime’, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104032 (2010), [24] W. G. Unruh, ‘Notes on black-hole evaporation’, Phys. and references therein. Rev. D 14, 870 (1976). [34] F. Wilczek, “Quantum Time Crystals”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [25] S. W. Hawking, ‘Particle creation by black holes’, Com- 109, 160401 (2012). mun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975). [35] P. Bruno, “Impossibility of Spontaneously Rotating Time [26] A. D. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bial- Crystals: A No-Go Theorem”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, czak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, D. Sank, H. 070402 (2013). Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. [36] S. E. Rugh and H. Zinkernagel, ‘The quantum vacuum Cleland, ‘Quantum ground state and single-phonon con- and the cosmological constant problem’, Stud. Hist. Phil. trol of a mechanical resonator’, Nature 464, 697 (2010). Mod. Phys. 33, 663 (2002). [27] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy - The Revolution [37] G. E. Volovik, ‘Vacuum Energy: Myths and Reality’, Int. in Modern Science, Penguin Books (2000), Ch. 5. J. Mod. Theor. Phys. A 15, 1987 (2006). [28] A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cos- [38] N. Hotta, “Quantum measurement information as a key mology, corrected edition, edited by D. R. Griffin and D. to energy extraction from local vacuums”, Phys. Rev. D W. Sherburne, MacMillan Publishing Co. (1979). 78, 045006 (2008). [29] There exists another interpretation, which associates the [39] D. Z. Albert, ‘On the Possibility That the Present Quan- vacuum state as defined in algebraic field theory with tum State of the Universe is the Vacuum’, PSA: Proceed- Whitehead’s notion of “universal underlying activity”, ings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science see F. H¨attich, Quantum processes: A Whiteheadian Association 1988, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited interpretation of quantum field theory, Agenda Verlag, Papers, 127 (1988). M¨unster (2004); see also J. Bain, ‘Quantum processes: [40] L. M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is A Whiteheadian interpretation of quantum field theory’, Something Rather Than Nothing, Free Press, New York Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36, (2012). For the dispute that errupted between Lawrence 680 (2005). Krauss and philosopher David Albert, see e.g. D. Albert, [30] D. Meschini, M. Lehto, and J. Piilonen, ‘Geometry, pre- ‘On the Origin of Everything’, The New York Times Sun- geometry and beyond’, Studies in History and Philosophy day Book Review, 23 March 2012; L.M. Krauss, ‘The of Modern Physics 36, 435 (2005). Consolation of Philosophy’, Scientific American April 27 [31] See especially L. Boi, The Quantum Vacuum: A Sci- (2012); Sean Caroll, ‘A Universe from Nothing?’, Cosmic entific and Philosophical Concept, from Electrodynamics Variance, Discover Magazine, 28 April (2012), etc.. to String Theory and the Geometry of the Microscopic World, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Mary-