Varini Pietro

Listen to me , the only thing you can do is not understanding my work but bothering ne with your stupidity. Is that clear now?

I have to make a point very clear, if the overview of my concept is not of your likings i do not care. I didnt attack nobody, as a matter of fact the overview of my concept makes my point very clear . I dont want to be bothered anymore in relation to opinions of yours that are NOT related to my work because i respected ALL the rules , thank you.

Thank you very much for your feedback, You're right ,in the earlier version I had called the correlator “Lorentz-invariant,” which was misleading. The expression depends on invariant quantities, but the correlator itself transforms as a rank-2 tensor, so it’s properly Lorentz-covariant. That’s now fixed in the updated version,Thank you very much for pointing out this mistake. Regarding your conceptual concern, it touches directly on the interpretive shift I’m proposing. In standard QFT, the vacuum is globally pure but appears locally mixed due to entanglement. This is well known and not in question. What I suggest is that the vacuum, despite its fluctuations, behaves more like a globally coherent field than a random statistical background. Think of how a laser beam, although composed of many fluctuating photons, its ground state in the work is considered as a coherent state: its fluctuations are structured, not random. Likewise, the vacuum’s apparent indeterminacy may reflect entangled coherence, not true disorder. So when I describe it as “maximally determined,” I refer to this global structure , not to an absence of dynamics. with this said i recognize the my work is not clear enough on this point, and i will consider a modification. Thank you again for your feedback , is really appreciated. Thank you for your explanation, i guess. I provided a general description of my work , and i linked my preprint on zenodo. I provided an overview of my concept, but thank you for sharing your opinion. Please can you go somewhere else to these childish provocations?

If you dont know what electromagnetic vacuum is i dont understand why you are interested in my work , if the link is not allowed you could have told me instead of threatening me now.

Thank you, If you're genuinely interested in how my proposal differs from the standard view of the EM vacuum, I’ll be glad to explain, but i dont like the tone of your question, cause it seems to presume i dont know what the electromagnetic vacuun is , and i dont think this is respectful.

Hello everyone, I’ve recently published a preprint proposing a theoretical reformulation of the electromagnetic (EM) vacuum. The idea is to treat the EM vacuum, within standard QED and canonical quantization, as a globally pure Gaussian state that is locally mixed due to entanglement with inaccessible modes. The vacuum is considered not just as a formal background, but as a physically structured and accessible quantum state. The framework introduces a model-independent impurity parameter p (no assumed microscopic mechanism), which leads to falsifiable operational consequences: specifically, a uniform elevation in quadrature noise detectable by homodyne detection, and a finite entanglement extraction range using Unruh–DeWitt detectors. The theory is entirely grounded in standard QFT formalism (Wigner functional, canonical field quantization in Coulomb gauge) and does not rely on speculative extensions. I am sharing this here to request constructive critical feedback, if someone is interested in being my co-author for a submission to a journal or just hel me with the arxiv endormsent it would be highly appreciated. Preprint available here (open access): Link removed by moderator Thank you in advance.