Talk:Quantum foam

message: anyone know why the "other universes" link points to "star wars"? 147.154.235.51 20:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Why cannot this article be merged with "quantum fluctuations"? I hestitate to do it because I am no great physicist... however, I fail to see the difference and only view this as a sndikeihenjnjendejndnejndejndnjednj "pop-sci" article. 96.50.10.234 (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because quantum fluctuation is a broader term for a behavior of many different things in quantum physics.  In fact, what I know of quantum fluctuations has nothing to do with quantum foam or cosmology but in fact and quantum vortixes.  Quantum fluctuations and quantum i am a person vortices are loosely related because both are situations in where you have to combine the theories of stochastics or even deterministic choas with general quantum theory.Physics16 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged

message: The article looks fine now; it is vastly improved over the May 2005 version (Star Wars have gone too :) ), so I'm removing the cleanup tag. GregorB 22:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up

message: If anyone is interested, here are a few extra citations:
* Spacetime foam by Stephen Hawking (from Nuclear Physics B, Volume 144, Issues 2-3, 13 November-20 November 1978, Pages 349-362)
* Algebraic Description of Spacetime Foam by Ioannis Raptis et al 2001 Class. Quantum Grav. 18 4187-4212
* Space-Time Foam from Non-Commutative Instantons by Harry W  Braden and Nikita A. Nekrasov Communications in Mathematical Physics Volume 249, Number 3 / August, 2004 (pgs 431-448).
* Quantum Evolution in Spacetime Foam (preprint) by Luis J. Garay
Just thought I'd add some extra reading materials in the discussion section, since they are tangential to the article. If anyone thinks they deserve to be in the article go ahead and add them. pqnelson  —Preceding comment was added at 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra Citations

message: The first time I ever heard of Quantum Foam, it was in the (very popular) book Timeline by Michael Crichton (a well-known Sci-Fi author who likes to put real science in his books).  Should this connotation be noted on here?  67.176.199.134 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention ''Timeline'' connection? 

message: Ridiculous!! Remove it at once.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.72.23.67 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foam illustration 

message: Could someone knowledgeable edit the introductory paragraph please? The fact that the last two sentences both start with "However" renders their meaning a little too opaque to me. Presumably the penultimate sentence is slightly contradictory to that which precedes it and then the final sentence is contradictory of that one?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedmarynicz (talk • contribs) 08:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  However? 

message: "the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles which then annihilate back to energy without violating physical conservation laws."
It does not. That's a wrong (although frequently encountered) popscience interpretation of Heisenberg time-energy uncertainty, with in itself is already very different from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for actual observables (time isn't one). This whole article reeks pseudoscience. It's a historical model and it should be completely rewritten to better represent this fact - instead of adding popscience salt and pepper to it to make it "more easily understandable" as is done by citing HUP wrongly here. 92.196.78.139 (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad article

message: "Fluctuations due to quantum mechanics"!?!?! QM is just a theory trying to describe reality. It does not cause any fluctuation!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence makes me laugh! 

message: the article currently lists two different definitions for quantum foam, with one describing it as the creation and annihilation of virtual particles while the other describing it as spacetime itself fluctuating at small scales. I am not fully sure which one is correct but if someone does could you fix this please.
thanks
- Roboprince (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: postscript: if both of these are correct, could the article clarify this more? Roboprince (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  actual definition of quantum foam 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TvRWskImBk Doug youvan (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Visualization of the Quantum Foam 

message: Would it ever be possible to make a computer using it's fluctuations, since it's the smallest thing that exists we know of? ANd, would that be the ultimate computer, nothing can possibly be faster because nothing exists that is smaller? 173.76.166.185 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: What could be done with it