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.

3 hours ago, Varini Pietro said:

the electromagnetic (EM) vacuum.

And what would the electromagnetic vacuum be please.

Can you summarise what the conventional features are and how your proposal differs.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

And what would the electromagnetic vacuum be please.

Can you summarise what the conventional features are and how your proposal differs.

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.

Just now, Varini Pietro said:

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.

Wow, not respectful ?

from someone who has clearly not read the rules he or she signed up to.

I asked very respectfully for a summary instead of a link offsite (which are prohibited in the format you have provided on this site )

What I asked for would at least put you on the right side of the rules here.

As I do not know what an electromagnetic vacuum is, conventional or otherwise I asked specifically as I do not wish to guess or discuss at cross purposes.

If you are going to be that touchy you will not fare well when the mods read this thread.

Good night.

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Wow, not respectful ?

from someone who has clearly not read the rules he or she signed up to.

I asked very respectfully for a summary instead of a link offsite (which are prohibited in the format you have provided on this site )

What I asked for would at least put you on the right side of the rules here.

As I do not know what an electromagnetic vacuum is, conventional or otherwise I asked specifically as I do not wish to guess or discuss at cross purposes.

If you are going to be that touchy you will not fare well when the mods read this thread.

Good night.

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Wow, not respectful ?

from someone who has clearly not read the rules he or she signed up to.

I asked very respectfully for a summary instead of a link offsite (which are prohibited in the format you have provided on this site )

What I asked for would at least put you on the right side of the rules here.

As I do not know what an electromagnetic vacuum is, conventional or otherwise I asked specifically as I do not wish to guess or discuss at cross purposes.

If you are going to be that touchy you will not fare well when the mods read this thread.

Good night.

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.

Hello.

Welcome to the Forums.

As I understand, you should make your point clear without people having to click on any links. But the mods will tell you in more detail.

At some point in you pre-print, you say "we arrive at the closed-form Lorentz-covariant expression:" (my emphasis). And said expression happens to be,

\[ C_{ij}\left(x,x’\right)=\frac{\hbar}{\pi²\varepsilon_{0}c³}\partial_{t}\partial_{t’}\left[\frac{\delta_{ij}\left(ct-ct’\right)²-\left(x_{i}-x’_{i}\right)\left(x_{j}-x’_{j}\right)}{\left[\left(ct-ct’\right)²-\left|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{x}’\right|²\right]²}\right] \]

Then you say, "This expression is manifestly Lorentz-invariant and[...]" (again my emphasis).

So what is it, Lorentz-covariant or Lorentz invariant? Those are different things. An invariant is a zeroth-order Lorentz tensor, while a covariant quantity is a 1st (or higher-order) Lorentz tensor.

Another concern of mine is : How can a state like the vacuum, of which you know virtually nothing (pun intended) be in a pure state (which in quantum mechanics means "a maximally determined state"). IOW: How is the most undetermined thing in the world in a state that is maximally determined in the quantum formalism?

1 hour ago, Varini Pietro said:

If you're genuinely interested in how my proposal differs from the standard view of the EM vacuum, I’ll be glad to explain,

Moderator Note

Our rules require that discussion takes place here in the open, without links or other elements that would take members offsite or to places we don't know and trust (links are usually done for supportive evidence, of course). We get an awful lot of new folks wanting us to visit their sites too, but we just want to talk about science. If you can provide an overview of your concept, it would be much appreciated.

53 minutes ago, Varini Pietro said:

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.

Settle down, please, nobody is threatening anybody here. We attack ideas, not people. If your reference is to the quantum electrodynamic vacuum, then perhaps you can forgive studiot for requesting some clarity?

+1 to joigus for doing the unpaid work of technical checking and proofreading a technical document that contained material that had no business to be there, free and gratis.

12 hours ago, joigus said:

Hello.

Welcome to the Forums.

As I understand, you should make your point clear without people having to click on any links. But the mods will tell you in more detail.

At some point in you pre-print, you say "we arrive at the closed-form Lorentz-covariant expression:" (my emphasis). And said expression happens to be,

Cij(x,x′)=ℏπ²ε0c³∂t∂t′⎡⎣⎢δij(ct−ct′)²−(xi−x′i)(xj−x′j)[(ct−ct′)²−|x−x′|²]²⎤⎦⎥

Then you say, "This expression is manifestly Lorentz-invariant and[...]" (again my emphasis).

So what is it, Lorentz-covariant or Lorentz invariant? Those are different things. An invariant is a zeroth-order Lorentz tensor, while a covariant quantity is a 1st (or higher-order) Lorentz tensor.

Another concern of mine is : How can a state like the vacuum, of which you know virtually nothing (pun intended) be in a pure state (which in quantum mechanics means "a maximally determined state"). IOW: How is the most undetermined thing in the world in a state that is maximally determined in the quantum formalism?

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.

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

Our rules require that discussion takes place here in the open, without links or other elements that would take members offsite or to places we don't know and trust (links are usually done for supportive evidence, of course). We get an awful lot of new folks wanting us to visit their sites too, but we just want to talk about science. If you can provide an overview of your concept, it would be much appreciated.

Settle down, please, nobody is threatening anybody here. We attack ideas, not people. If your reference is to the quantum electrodynamic vacuum, then perhaps you can forgive studiot for requesting some clarity?

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.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

+1 to joigus for doing the unpaid work of technical checking and proofreading a technical document that contained material that had no business to be there, free and gratis.

Please can you go somewhere else to these childish provocations?

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.

2 hours ago, Varini Pietro said:

Thank you for your explanation, i guess.

I guess you're welcome?

2 hours ago, Varini Pietro said:

I provided a general description of my work , and i linked my preprint on zenodo.

It wasn't enough for discussion, obviously, so I requested a bit more, for which you're giving me a LOT of pushback. You seem ultra-sensitive about the subject, too much so for an objective approach, imo.

I'm so sorry you can't understand why we're skeptical about a new member joining to reformulate mainstream science. I sense you've been given some criticism about this before.

2 hours ago, Varini Pietro said:

I provided an overview of my concept, but thank you for sharing your opinion.

What I shared was a moderator request for more clarity, NOT my opinion. We've already uncovered some misleading (your words) information, so what is your real objection here? You requested critical feedback, and some of the members think that should start with a better understanding of your concept. Is that really difficult?

1 hour ago, Varini Pietro said:

I have to make a point very clear, if the overview of my concept is not of your likings i do not care.

Then discussion about it is pointless, yes? Why do we bother with constructive criticism if you don't care? Why are you making such a big deal about clarity?

1 hour ago, Varini Pietro said:

I didnt attack nobody, as a matter of fact the overview of my concept makes my point very clear .

Did someone accuse you of attacking them? And obviously, since there were calls for more information and explanation, your overview wasn't as clear as you think. You understand it because you've been working on this for a while. We're TRYING to understand, but we're getting a great deal of pushback.

1 hour ago, Varini Pietro said:

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.

EVERYTHING posted here so far has been related to your work. We're trying to understand it, and you aren't helping to make your explanation clear. Can you do better, please?

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I guess you're welcome?

It wasn't enough for discussion, obviously, so I requested a bit more, for which you're giving me a LOT of pushback. You seem ultra-sensitive about the subject, too much so for an objective approach, imo.

I'm so sorry you can't understand why we're skeptical about a new member joining to reformulate mainstream science. I sense you've been given some criticism about this before.

What I shared was a moderator request for more clarity, NOT my opinion. We've already uncovered some misleading (your words) information, so what is your real objection here? You requested critical feedback, and some of the members think that should start with a better understanding of your concept. Is that really difficult?

Then discussion about it is pointless, yes? Why do we bother with constructive criticism if you don't care? Why are you making such a big deal about clarity?

Did someone accuse you of attacking them? And obviously, since there were calls for more information and explanation, your overview wasn't as clear as you think. You understand it because you've been working on this for a while. We're TRYING to understand, but we're getting a great deal of pushback.

EVERYTHING posted here so far has been related to your work. We're trying to understand it, and you aren't helping to make your explanation clear. Can you do better, please?

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

Just now, Varini Pietro said:

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

Quite.

Moderator Note

Best of luck elsewhere. There are quite a few science discussion sites with few rules and no moderation, but this isn't one of them.