Guest wolram Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 as i am new to this forum hi everyone, i have a question. it seems that SPACE has properties, it can be distorted by gravity,and recently discovered frame dragging,it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance, if this is correct then discribing space as the" vacuum" cannot be correct so what is it???? cheers.
fafalone Posted June 20, 2003 Posted June 20, 2003 Background microwave radiation, neutrino background
BPHgravity Posted June 20, 2003 Posted June 20, 2003 Originally posted by wolram it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance... If space has capacitance, does it have leading time, and when space has inductance, does it have lagging time? Sorry, bad electrical engineering joke! :lame:
Clown Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Spacetime is just the gravitational field. A vacuum in that case, would be devoid of energy but is not the nothingness people usually think space is.
JaKiri Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Clown Spacetime is just the gravitational field. A vacuum in that case, would be devoid of energy but is not the nothingness people usually think space is. It's not devoid of energy ('zero point energy')
Clown Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Yes, QM forbids any such concept. But the point is that even if it were possible (as that is the classic definition) it wouldn't make the vacuum any less of a thing.
JaKiri Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Clown Yes, QM forbids any such concept. But the point is that even if it were possible (as that is the classic definition) it wouldn't make the vacuum any less of a thing. Whut?
Sayonara Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Whut? He means a vacuum isn't null. In the vast majority of cases I'd imagine that's true.
JaKiri Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Clown Yes, read about fields. They didn't exist in Newtonian physics
Sayonara Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri They didn't exist in Newtonian physics I was thinking more along the lines of photons, gamma, and of course space.
JaKiri Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ I was thinking more along the lines of photons, gamma, and of course space. Gamma are photons?
Clown Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri They didn't exist in Newtonian physics Welcome to modern physics.
JaKiri Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by Clown Welcome to modern physics. If we're talking modern physics, then 'zero point energy'. Anyway, what if the vacuum's full of phlogiston?
Radical Edward Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Anyway, what if the vacuum's full of phlogiston? is that a sort of toothpaste?
superchump Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward is that a sort of toothpaste? Yes, with tartar control!
Clown Posted June 26, 2003 Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri If we're talking modern physics, then 'zero point energy'. I'm only talking about definitions here. Classically, a vacuum is just a region devoid of matter/energy. The gravitational field doesn't change that, and it's just QM that prevents this perfect vacuum from being attainable.
elfin vampire Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 Albert Einstein clarified the position of Relativity in regards to nature of the vacuo for the third time in this transcript of a 1920 paper delivered to the University of Leydon. http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html An excellent, simple explaination of space-time, as understood at this time within established physics can be found here: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/st101.html All youthful imagination aside, it would be utterly incorrect in physics theorum to describe 'space' as a vacuum, devoid of matter and dynamic in any context other than relative to humans considering EVA. Although a weak-force, according to physics space-time itself is most certainly a dynamic and yes, its physical composition would be the "gas of diffuse photons" which comprise the CBR. According to astrophysicists published in England's New Scientist journal, the correct definition of space is a plasma. This is also my position on the matter. According to every physicist from Newton to Einstein inclusive and their contemporaries, including Max Planck whether considered the vacuo nevertheless time-space is an ether. Only among students, journalists and hobbyists is space considered a vacuum. What I find curious is the henceforth properties then attributed to it without the individual process of arriving at logical conclusion. Come on...you know who you are.
Sayonara Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 I was under the impression that the concept of space being a 'vacuum' derived from the idea that the matter it contains is so massively dwarfed by the volume of the universe, that the universe effectively adopts a density that is infinitely close to zero. The fact that we can see stars is a good indication that, as a whole, it's not a vacuum in the truest sense.
YT2095 Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 and in addition to Sayos argument, the fact that we can see stars is also a clear indication that "Space" is largley void of particulate matter, a single spec of dust from every 10 kms would render even our nearest neighboring star 4.7 light years away, invisible
Sayonara Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 So if you could vacuum up all the interstellar dust, we'd have quite a spectacular view
elfin vampire Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 I was under the impression that the concept of space being a 'vacuum' derived from the idea that the matter it contains is so massively dwarfed by the volume of the universe, that the universe effectively adopts a density that is infinitely close to zero. The fact that we can see stars is a good indication that, as a whole, it's not a vacuum in the truest sense. Since space-time is a body sir, were the universe 100 billion light-years across its relative density would be incomprehensibly positive. However I fully appreciate your position that water-ice is cold to the touch and a day of 30 degrees celcius is rather warm indeed. However it is a standing which does not account for herefore unattributed dynamics of space-time in a physical sense. I refer you to the original topic posting: as i am new to this forum hi everyone, i have a question. it seems that SPACE has properties, it can be distorted by gravity,and recently discovered frame dragging,it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance, if this is correct then discribing space as the" vacuum" cannot be correct so what is it????
Sayonara Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 If you weren't so busy flicking through your thesaurus you'd have seen I was not aligning myself with the concept, but explaining where it came from.
YT2095 Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 then sir, allow me to quote from an Oxford Dictionary. "Vac`uum [.yoom] n. place , region containing no matter and from which all air, gas has been removed." your call
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now