Mordred

Ah ok I seem to recall a paper written along those but don't have a copy of it atm. If I recall the pop media coverage didn't properly describe it. Big surprise there. If I recall the paper is on arxiv. The unfortunate reality is heuristic descriptions really mislead what is really going on in ads/cft. Though in this case the heuristic descriptions in the paper itself was somewhat misleading until you examined the math itself. edit: thinking about that paper, the author stated he required ads/cft which is reasonable he did not describe local hidden variables in the paper itself Here you can read it for yourself. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0605073&ved=0ahUKEwij1_mDtMnRAhVE3WMKHVUWBjIQFgglMAE&usg=AFQjCNEROK4hF20BcjKCWD0Ci2e4NxZUdg&sig2=b6ecyvnULRh4PMGyfZO47Q "When we study properties of a given quantum field theory (QFT), it is common to first investigate behaviors of correlation functions of local operators in the theory. However, properties of non-local quantities are equally important, especially for understanding of its quantum mechanical phase structure. One basic such example of non-local physical quantities is the Wilson loop operators in gauge theories, which is a very useful order parameter of confinment" If you recall I mentioned these correlation functions earlier. but I don't think you believed me lol. Lets continue Oh an operator adds and subtracts a quanta of energy. Locality under QFT is a boundary confinement I should mention that it is not local as in nearby, which people tend to think but different overlapping manifolds those manifolds have the minimal number of dimensions with minimal reduced degrees of freedom to describe the state under examination which is why I included that in the quote above "As its name suggests, we expect that the entanglement entropy is directly related to the degrees of freedom. Indeed, the entanglement entropy is proportional to the central charge in two dimensional conformal field theories (2D CFTs)" recall I mentioned degrees of freedom above Ah equation 2.2 page 6 mentions Hilbert space which I also described briefly above. Hilbert space is a type of manifold, in this case a 2d manifold as it takes a minimal two dimensions to describe a sinusoidal wave rotation I could continue but the article speaks for itself. https://www.google.ca/search?site=&source=hp&ei=Qyx-WMzSLsqmjwPGpJPYAg&q=ads%2Fcft+and+entanglement+pdf&oq=&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.35i39k1l3.0.0.0.167666.2.1.1.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.mobile-gws-hp..1.1.24.3.bxqVVx-UH5U The last link simply shows my search parameters just to show I didn't pick and choose a specific article but litetally chose the first article that matched both criterias I set on the search engine. That should clear up that the holographic principle isn't overlapping universe/dimensions as per science fiction/pop media analogies but mathematical dimensions. ie mathematical manifolds When you get right down and into the math each manifold describes a specific interaction. it is a useful technique to describe complex multi simultaneous interactions by using manifolds and sub manifolds. Simply confine each individual interaction its own manifold space. Define its boundary conditions then decribe that particular interaction. This holds true in string theory/ M-theory even relativity

Both the medium and the medium wave will have equivalency of mass in the mass/energy relations. [latex]E^2=(pc)^2+(m_o c)^2 [/latex] Even a gravitational wave will generate its own self gravity via the stress/momentum tensor in the Einstein field equations. The invarient mass [latex]m_o [/latex] is the minimal. Any object including waves gain inertial mass above its minimal via the stress/tensor [latex]T_{\mu\nu} [/latex] I wonder if the term rest mass is appropriate for what you may be trying to describe? the problem may be just terminology usage

Have you ever considered why QM requires statistical mechanics Itereo ie the Heisenburg uncertainty itself. The more you determine a particles momentum the less you know it's position and vise versa ? Please provide a reference that the holographic principle involves entanglement/hidden variables. the extra dimensions are degrees of freedom ie independant variables of key different dynamics. The holographic principle use ADS/cft anti-DeSitter space/ conformal field theory. These extra dimensions are not some hidden dimension but correspond to a key term "degrees of freedom" Here is an excellent article on the holographic principle https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0203101&ved=0ahUKEwjzhu3yqMfRAhVM9GMKHXXFDpAQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNErDQF4tJOXXA9mdOj3RyiCyRbzXQ&sig2=fIS628S6LNodthWxrfiGBQ and no my argument is not strictly based upon complexity. One must first learn what a particle is in the first place. As well as understanding key terminologies. Though complexity is one of primary reasons we use statistical averaging. It isn't entirely the only reason. Ie the HUP I mentioned above I know Prometheus is currently studying degrees of freedom though his current subject isn't strictly stating so Lets try a simple example. Take a robot arm that can only go up and down. There is two possible directions that arm can move. This arm has orthogonal symmetry the only difference between going up and going down is the direction itself. Everything else about that robot arm is identical (symmetric) so we can reduce this two directions to simply a change in sign. Plus or minus. For Prometheus benefict an inner product. Its range of motion is 1 dimensional. As Prometheus has posed a related question in spin I will add another type of symmetry example. A mounted fan can either spin clock wise or counterclockwise. The fan blade itself doesn't change only the direction of motion "Rotational symmetry" so once again we can reduce the number of possible directions to an inner product. As rotation requires 2 dimensions to describe its range of motion inner product space is two dimensional ie spin space (I know you are having difficulty visualizing inner products Prometheus these two examples will help) Its not an attempt to call attention to you but an effort to assist you get past all the fancy mathematical terminology such as complex conjugates/ operators etc.(though these are also extremely important terms) This is in essence what the holographic principle is doing. Finding ways to take a huge number of degrees of freedom and reducing them via symmetry relations. PS By the way I really couldn't care what goes on with my reputation points. They rarely reflect quality of answers but opinions. I've posted hundreds of far better quality answers than many of the posts I have recieved reputation votes on lol. For that matter I can't recall ever giving neg rep points. Just as I really couldn't care if someone feels the universe is deterministic or not. Provided they take the time to properly understand what they are talking about. That is my only purpose on this thread. To help everyone better understand what is involved instead of making baseless and incorrect assertions. When I see someone that doesn't understand what they are talking about. I try to help them better understand what they are talking about. Nor do I expect anyone to take my word on anything. That is precisely why I always try to supply supportive materials. Lol for that matter I don't visit forums to ask questions. I don't need to, I literally can research my own questions without outside help in physics.

To start with your Hilbert space/inner product space is a function space. An inner product takes two vectors and computes a scalar. Two vectors are orthogonal if there inner product is zero [latex]a\cdot b=0 [/latex] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_product_space https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.math.ust.hk/~mabfchen/Math111/Week13-14.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjBsZPp78bRAhUfHGMKHTxEA4wQFghiMBA&usg=AFQjCNF76FS1ZmkRS9-t2ozicCwdjrMPSA&sig2=lorcxcv37fWKzyg_ooOWjg Spin up being orthogonal to spin down The only difference being a change in sign. In this case treat up/down as equivalent to + or - In spin ask yourself this question "how many dimensions are required to describe rotation?" ie a sine wave ? with an electron, the electron whether or not is spin up or spin down has Rotational symmetry. The ie its angular momentum. This should provide the clues you need Particularly on Hilbert space/inner product space. Here this will greatly help with complex conjugates. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.matha.rwth-aachen.de/de/lehre/ws07/calculus/Lecture_1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi6y7S2xsfRAhVU0mMKHRMxCHg4ChAWCBwwAQ&usg=AFQjCNGRt0Bmjd43cIBybgNLXOY2TPWCCQ&sig2=0xMcr8MDGr9VL4y1g-wjiA On this post the above is the best article and the most pertaining directly to your question. A more simplified coverage here though far lacking the details of the previous link https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.phas.ubc.ca/~mav/p200/complex.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwia_aTVy8fRAhVQVWMKHRcDC4g4ChAWCCMwBA&usg=AFQjCNGQLX9ted9jjkd_JWx3h-Yv22lSUw&sig2=vye_DwLruXuw34TvidZIvg

Actually very little of this is in QFT format. I did this using the FLRW metric with some GR. Its far easier to learn the FLRW metric than QFT. These are your classical field equations If you look at the last two links they are literally free textbooks. Also QFT isn't string theory.

Now the reason why this is so difficult to answer is that all the above doesn't include quantum corrections. [latex]V(\phi_o)=1/2m^2\phi^2_o+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi^4_o[/latex] this is the 0 loop correction the 1-loop correction is [latex]+\frac{M^4}{64\pi^2}(ln\frac{m^2}{u^2})-\frac{3}{2})-\frac{\tilde{m}^4}{16\pi^2}(ln(\frac{\tilde{m}^2}{\mu^2})-\frac{3}{2}[/latex] it is the quantum corrections which is the real issue specific to the vacuum catastrophe. However even this is an approximation which is what Swansont referred to here. In order to explain the above would literally require a course in QFT. Edit my apologies these are the corrections on the Higgs field itself. I thought something was off so had to recheck. It was [latex]\tilde{m}^4[/latex] that clued me in as the Higgs field has a quartic dependence on mass

I did respond. You must literally study the meaning of the terminology you are ignoring. Like I said it is simple to google the terminology to confirm everything I have stated. Unless you understand the very terminology itself. It would be impossible to understand Bell's inequality. Quite frankly I'm not even sure you understand what a deterministic system means in physics. The very minute you determine a system state that system is no longer in superposition. The very term action has specific requirements in physics. ie spooky action at a distance. No action occurs it is a misnomer in and of itself

Yes shorthand for virtual particles. I will type in the rest later. as your OK with the above we can move on. First a vacuum is ideally a state void of all particles however due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle the field energy can never be exactly zero. The best we can ever hope for is a minimal value. This minimal value is the true vacuum. Any higher value is a false vacuum state. See image here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum#/media/File:Falsevacuum.svg Now first we require a metric that conforms to GR to describe our universe. The FLRW metric is handy for that. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex] [latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sin r/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sin r/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex] Our universe is extremely close to flat so the curvature constant k which is also dimensionless as is r as r is a commoving volume. It is a(t) that carries the dimensions of length above. to get better details you can read an article I wrote on this topic http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page two is http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Now a vacuum is a scalar field we can describe this with an equation of state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) see scalar modelling at the last link however a missing key detail on that link is how energy density and pressure defined under that equation. [latex]\rho=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2+V(\phi)[/latex] [latex]p=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V(\phi)[/latex] now if our field varies slowly as it does the interesting consequence is that [latex]p=-\rho[/latex] so it behaves like a cosmological constant term in the Einstein field equations [latex]R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}=0[/latex] for a flat universe [latex]\Lambda=G_nV \phi[/latex] the Einstein field equations reduce to the FLRW equation [latex]H^2=\frac{8\pi G_n}{3}\rho\rightarrow \frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi G_nV(\phi)}{3}}[/latex] now we can further set a function of time [latex]\phi=\phi(t)[/latex] where the resulting stress tensor becomes [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{\mu\phi}\nabla_{v\phi}-1/2g_{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\rho\phi}\nabla^\rho_\phi-g_{\mu\nu}V(\phi)[/latex] The Hamiltonian- density for a scalar field is given by [latex] H=\frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(\nabla\phi)^2+V(\phi)[/latex] Anyways now you have some of the more useful tools to model a scalar field without getting too intense in QFT treatment. This should significantly improve your understanding. The above can be applied to any scalar field. I figure this is a better approach than detailing the Higg's field. To assist you further http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwibsrjQxMXRAhVH-mMKHYvcDY0QFgglMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcatarina.udlap.mx%2Fu_dl_a%2Ftales%2Fdocumentos%2Flfa%2Fjuarez_a_ba%2Fcapitulo2.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFQ5u_jG9kbZx7L1RVgSnqzikYRsw&sig2=-w0qYSDm0D6ZcSZGl00E_g http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwibsrjQxMXRAhVH-mMKHYvcDY0QFggqMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit.edu%2Fviz%2FEM%2Fvisualizations%2Fcoursenotes%2Fmodules%2Fguide01.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGhjsnbi1o5pMP9SUbZvRly1MO7cw&sig2=lDXjZMU4ZC-XiuQHUkkEwg http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Hope that helps

First step we must define a field, a field is an abstract device. Fields are a way of describing a behavior of some physical nature. For example a magnetic field is not some mysterious substance filling space but a statement that objects placed near a magnetic field placed near a magnet move in a certain way. This is is the first misnomer to hurdle., I specified particular treatment. In essence fields is a way to to describe the behavior of a physical system. In order to describe a physical system you must first define the system itself. In the case of vacuum the system we must describe is its dimensions. One can arbitrarily define a system of coordinates but the preferred methodology is a coordinate independent system primary example being tensors as per GR. While fields are fundamental, they are still strictly an abstract methodology. One of the most important concepts to understand in physics is that any system described or state of a system depends upon the methodology or property being examined. At the very best more often or not this is a set of reasonable/best approximations depending upon the dynamic in question. In essence we describe any application of any collection of events/action in terms of a field. A field being heuristically treated as a collection of dynamics being examined. For example of primary importance's a collection of events as per GR Now the intuitive definition of a vacuum is that which we take away all particles, including field fluctuations ie virtual particles/fluctuations and real particles/excitation's. The primary distinction being individual fluctuations being of insufficient energy/momentum to cause "action" ie observable or individually measurable. However a group of individual VP can cause effective action under boundary confinement. I have been avoiding numerous key terminology but under careful study any dynamic under careful study, any effective action is classified as an operator, whilst a contributor to quantify as a virtual particle is a propagator. An operator adds or subtracts an effective action whilst it requires a group of propagators under a restricted confinement to cause effective action.as all real particles depends on its effective action. A virtual particle has insufficient momentum and mass to perform a quanta of action. Indeed the very term particle is a historical misnomer as all particles are field excitation's. They are not little balls colliding with one another but discrete quantities that exhibit point-like and wavelike characteristics. This equates to boundary confinement. Action equates to kinematic motion, ie scattering/interference etc. In the principle of of least action it equates to motion itself. In essence particles are just localized dynamics of a field or localized clumped dynamics. This is the rudimentary core of defining any particle. Every quantum number is under specific property treatment.. Now onto vacuum itself . A vacuum itself is what system we could take from it all particles from above. edit::ran out of time will have to post further next post, far too late to accurately describe the above in terms of vacuum lol brain is getting fried and this is by far too an important topic to make stupid mistakes. However I needed to first clarify numerous key aspects

I will do the best I can lol. It is a good question just not easy to answer

Not yet but its better to start at the beginning than jump to the end. There is a key formula involved that requires explaining. It a formula that involves all types of vacuum

The last post isn't much use unless you know how a vacuum is defined mathematically. Thats why I need to first cover that step. Then I can better detail the different types of vacuum I know I figured that much out so will try as best as possible to simplify it for you I know I figured that much out so will try as best as possible to simplify it for you

I will have to take it step by step. Particularly since it involves QFT. Simply no shorter way I can think of and be accurate. The first field I will have to detail is the Higgs field.

I will have to post my reply later. vacuum is to say the least difficult to describe. You seem to have some skill but looks like you need a proper direction which will take considerable time to latex in. The first step is to understand the very term vacuum which is not straightforward. Prior to different vacuum expectation values. I hope your ready for some very complex mathematics. Once I post how a vacuum is defined you will see just how complex answering this question really is. At the very best I can only generalize the principles and mathematics involved to give a direction for you to further research in the proper direction. It will simply be impossible to cover everything you will need to understand on a forum.

all particles including matter particles are field excitations. They all have pointlike and wavelike characteristics. One of the better quality articles detailing this is. "There is no particles, there is only fields". This article has an excellent coverage of Wave-particle duality. https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_148435658654413&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=ixwjkyqa010009we000MAki55j4ju&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-7&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D9%26ved%3D0ahUKEwiNgcSLubfRAhWogVQKHRtBBLEQFgg1MAg%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Farxiv.org%252Fpdf%252F1204.4616%26usg%3DAFQjCNEqAKaDGcbyMG2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26sig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-6&title=The%20Vacuum%20Fluctuation%20Myth%20-%20Comments%20%7C%20Page%207%20%7C%20Physics%20Forums%20-%20The%20Fusion%20of%20Science%20and%20Community&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26amp%3Bsourc...G2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26amp%3Bsig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ

Went off my charts as well considering I provided the literal definition from wiki. Tell me can you not be bothered to even google a terminology? Well here is a simple QM application https://www.miniphysics.com/principle-of-superposition.html http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/superposition That took less than 30 seconds Now google Superposition correlation function https://www.google.ca/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&q=superposition+correlation+function&gfe_rd=cr&ei=EKt6WKuIKOjs8wfSwJ1A All possible states not all states. Greens function is also involved though moreso in your creation/annihilation operators. (Part of the Feyman diagrams incoming/outgoing legs) Particles are complex objects that simply cannot be properly described by heuristic views. For example read Prof Strasslers site in regards to a proton. He mentions that a proton is literally a cloud of quarks and gluons in a bound state. Just a mere 7 of those quarks lead to 22,543 possible outbound legs on a feyman diagram. So we use S-matrix to simplify this into approximations. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/ So tell me how deterministic is the mere act of smashing two protons together, when you have trillions of quarks and gluons involved? Go ahead predict the scattering path each quark and gluon takes from smashing two protons together. Yet its even more complex as individual quarks will not remain seperate but form new bound states ie other particles Hopefully you know what a function is in mathematics. Now electrons are either spin up or spun down. You only have those two possibilities. When you generate two entangled particles via a decay conservation of spin states the total spin must sum to zero. While in superposition you don't know the spin of either. Once you measure the spin of one. The other must be the opposite. There is other quantum numbers that can also be entangled. The most commonly referred to example though is spin. Charge can also be entangled in matter/antimatter examples. Which also involves conservation of charge. The thing is you keep arguing the universe is deterministic but have absolutely no idea just how complex a particle really is welcome to the world of QM/QFT At the very best you can only determine an approximation, not an absolute Spinors are also complex they are neither scalar,vector, nor tensors. So even spin isn't possible to accurately determine but can only be approximated like I stated learn whats really involved before drawing conclusions. Anyone claiming the universe is deterministic has no clue of the complexities involved. We can't even determine all the possible scattering of two protons colliding The mere act of greater momentum increase of a proton ie at the LHC greatly enhances the complexities involved

I highly suggest you actually study statistical mechanics. In particular the very term Superposition. Before you try to tackle the connection coefficient in entanglement. As it stands your argument above is baseless. Your literally arguing against QM without the slightest understanding of QM. It would be impossible for you to understand Bells inequalities unless you understand basic QM. Superposition is a sum of all possible states/vectors/spinors in regards to spin etc In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle, also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems, the net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually your welcome

It will be far easier if you simply recall the basic definition of mass. mass=resistance to inertia. Massless particles have no resistance to inertia change A massive particle cannot ever have less than its invariant (rest mass). So a wave of massive objects will never become massless at any stage of your wave. You can only increase its resistance to inertia change not decrease it below its rest mass.

there is no hidden variable. There isn't any need for a hidden variable. Have someone place two different colored balls into a bag. To anyone else that has not opened the bag the balls are in superposition. There is however only two possibilities for which color ball each person recieves. Once one person opens either bag the superposition correlation function collapses. The other bag must be in the opposite state. Same thing applies to creating entangled particle pairs. When they are created the must follow numerous conservation laws. Conservation of spin/charge/lepton number/parity etc. This forms your correlation function. Once either particle is measured the superposition collapses. The other particle must be the opposite spin. No hidden variable required just application of the conservation laws themself and the correct understanding of superposition. It is the superposition itself that is indeterministic. Treat the bag holder as the observer and the bag itself as the system state. The bag holder cannot detetmine which ball he is holding until he or the other bag holder examines his bag. That is the correct meaning of an indeterministic system state. With particles it gets more complex as particles are not balls but field excitations. This is why all quantum numbers are wavefunctions including the correlation wavefunction. With correct understanding of excitations even wave particle duality itself is no mystery. Read this article. "There is no particles there is only fields " https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_148435658654413&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=ixwjkyqa010009we000MAki55j4ju&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-7&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D9%26ved%3D0ahUKEwiNgcSLubfRAhWogVQKHRtBBLEQFgg1MAg%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Farxiv.org%252Fpdf%252F1204.4616%26usg%3DAFQjCNEqAKaDGcbyMG2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26sig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fthe-vacuum-fluctuation-myth-comments.892500%2Fpage-6&title=The%20Vacuum%20Fluctuation%20Myth%20-%20Comments%20%7C%20Page%207%20%7C%20Physics%20Forums%20-%20The%20Fusion%20of%20Science%20and%20Community&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26amp%3Bsourc...G2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ%26amp%3Bsig2%3DOLrYE7fyEIHsA3zMw400rQ In essence were stuck with the term particle due to previous historical understanding. The very term particle is a nisnomer. The very term Superposition didn't originate from QM. It originated from statistical mechanics itself. The vast majority of every formula in QM is probablistic in nature. This is precisely what seperates QM from the classical views. QM is based upon probabilities which requires statistical mechanics. As far as a particle state is concerned the only states that equates to a real particle must haveva mimimum of a quanta of energy. A state state can be observered. A virtual particle is not observable. You require a collection of virtual particles whose sum of energies within a finite volume to cause any action/interferance etc. Individually virtual particles cannot cause action as they are too short lived due to having insufficient energy (less than a quanta)

No there is no true rigid rod. Information is still transmitted particle to particle. So if you have a rod 1 lightyear in length it will take at least a light year before the other end responds. longer than a light year including the medium causing delays.

did sonething happen to the mobile version I can't find the mobile switch on bottom left ? edit never mind found the problem

mediator bosons in general with various conservation laws

Unfortunately Itoero you don't understand how entanglement works if you did you would realize hidden variables are 100% unnecessary. There is no communication required between two entangled superposition particles. The quantum correlation function generated when the entangled particles are first created see to that

lol even the best experts can make foolish mistakes.

Well not quite true as some experiments where this occured in regards to particle decays indicated we were missing something as the conservation of energy was violated by the experiment. This in turn made us realize their must be another interaction going on. But directly testing conservation of energy itself showed no violations