If I move a box with nothing in it, does the nothing move with it?

[Intoscience]

On 7/18/2021 at 1:04 PM, studiot said:

Don't forget that the spark plug gap can actually be zero (nothing) if the electrodes are touching.
This is a different nothing from the what is in the space between them, since there is not even space between them.

 

This point however I'm not sure about. Maybe I'm being pedantic and taking it out of context, but I'm not sure this statement is strictly true?

I liked the rest of your post, it made some good points!

At the quantum level, what does it mean for the electrodes to be touching? 

[studiot]

13 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This point however I'm not sure about. Maybe I'm being pedantic and taking it out of context, but I'm not sure this statement is strictly true?

I liked the rest of your post, it made some good points!

At the quantum level, what does it mean for the electrodes to be touching? 

Fair question.

What does touching mean, particularly at the quantum level ?

Well in one sense, from a quantum point of view, everything in the universe is touching everything else in the universe, since the quantum integrals extend over all space.

But is that a useful point of view in this case ?

I submit that it is not.

Instead, I offer the notion that includes the ability to exert a direct force on the object being touched, or to exchange momentum with it.
That is how gas molecules exert a pressure on their container, tables support objects placed on them and so on.

Back to the spark plug and its gap.

Say there is 25thou between the bendy electrode and the fixed central pin one.
That is 25thou of space.

Can the  bendy electrode exert any force on the pin electrode ?

No there is space between them.

Now slowly tap the gap closed.

As the gap closes can the bendy electrode exert (transmit) any force to the pin electrode ?

No, there is still space between them.

Finally the gap closes and the bendy electrode touches the pin electrode.

Can it now transmit the force of the tapping to the pin electrode ?

Yes.

Yet there is nothing between them.

 

 

[Intoscience]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Fair question.

What does touching mean, particularly at the quantum level ?

Well in one sense, from a quantum point of view, everything in the universe is touching everything else in the universe, since the quantum integrals extend over all space.

But is that a useful point of view in this case ?

I submit that it is not.

Instead, I offer the notion that includes the ability to exert a direct force on the object being touched, or to exchange momentum with it.
That is how gas molecules exert a pressure on their container, tables support objects placed on them and so on.

Back to the spark plug and its gap.

Say there is 25thou between the bendy electrode and the fixed central pin one.
That is 25thou of space.

Can the  bendy electrode exert any force on the pin electrode ?

No there is space between them.

Now slowly tap the gap closed.

As the gap closes can the bendy electrode exert (transmit) any force to the pin electrode ?

No, there is still space between them.

Finally the gap closes and the bendy electrode touches the pin electrode.

Can it now transmit the force of the tapping to the pin electrode ?

Yes.

Yet there is nothing between them.

 

 

I find this an interesting perspective. The force exerted, would this be the repulsion of the orbiting electrons between the atoms of each electrode? Would there still not be space between these atoms, at least at Planck scales?

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I find this an interesting perspective. The force exerted, would this be the repulsion of the orbiting electrons between the atoms of each electrode? Would there still not be space between these atoms, at least at Planck scales?

The size of the atom is of the order of  10^-10 metres.
The Planck length is of the order of 10^-35 metres.

So the distance from the centre of the atom to the edge is of the order of 10²⁵ metres.

As a comparison the distance from Earth the the observable horizon is of the order of 10²⁶ metres, or not much further comparatively speaking.

 

Now the surfaces of the electrodes is rough at the order of 10^-7 metres, so there will be mutual interpenetratration of the 'touching' surfaces long before the atomic scale is reached, let alone the Plank scale.
 

As an aside, you should not be talking of obits in relation to quantum theory and Plank scales.

Remember also that the purpose of this part of the discussion is to establsih that the 'nothing' between touching electrodes is different from the 'nothing' between separated ones.

One obvious difference is that touching electrodes supprt electrical continuity, separated ones do not.

 

[Intoscience]

53 minutes ago, studiot said:

The size of the atom is of the order of  10^-10 metres.
The Planck length is of the order of 10^-35 metres.

So the distance from the centre of the atom to the edge is of the order of 10²⁵ metres.

As a comparison the distance from Earth the the observable horizon is of the order of 10²⁶ metres, or not much further comparatively speaking.

 

Now the surfaces of the electrodes is rough at the order of 10^-7 metres, so there will be mutual interpenetratration of the 'touching' surfaces long before the atomic scale is reached, let alone the Plank scale.
 

As an aside, you should not be talking of obits in relation to quantum theory and Plank scales.

Remember also that the purpose of this part of the discussion is to establsih that the 'nothing' between touching electrodes is different from the 'nothing' between separated ones.

One obvious difference is that touching electrodes supprt electrical continuity, separated ones do not.

 

Yes, I appreciate that using the term "orbits" in relation to QM is not technically accurate. However I was just trying to get an understanding of what is actually happening in this scenario at the quantum level.

I guess I'm thinking, maybe to talk about nothing, between any 2 physical objects  is more complex than it may appear at first glance , even if from a macroscopic perspective the items are touching. 

There is obviously interaction between the atoms of each object at the quantum level.

At the quantum level would there be a clear distinction between the surfaces of each object? 

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

At the quantum level would there be a clear distinction between the surfaces of each object? 

No it is graduated.

I have already noted that the equations run out to infinity from the nucleus of any atom.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Fair question.

What does touching mean, particularly at the quantum level ?

Well in one sense, from a quantum point of view, everything in the universe is touching everything else in the universe, since the quantum integrals extend over all space.

But is that a useful point of view in this case ?

I submit that it is not.

When we are talking about QM for atoms and molecules we are really talking about chemical bonding.

Sub atomic QM is a whole different ball game (I always wanted to make that pun).

The point is not to mix your metaphors (models).

Here is Buggs Bunny on this

Quote

Buggs Bunny

A rabbit walked into a cafe-bar and ordered a cheese toastie, a bacon toastie and a sasparilla.
He ate the toasties, drank the sasparilla and then fell backwards on to the floor, dying, where he gasped his last,

"That's what I get for mixing my toasties."

 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So the distance from the centre of the atom to the edge is of the order of 10²⁵ metres.

Sorry I noticed a small error in my last post^..

It should of course read

So the atom is some 10²⁵ times a big as the Planck length.

[Intoscience]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

No it is graduated.

I have already noted that the equations run out to infinity from the nucleus of any atom.

When we are talking about QM for atoms and molecules we are really talking about chemical bonding.

Sub atomic QM is a whole different ball game (I always wanted to make that pun).

The point is not to mix your metaphors (models).

Here is Buggs Bunny on this

 

 

Sorry I noticed a small error in my last post^..

It should of course read

So the atom is some 10²⁵ times a big as the Planck length.

Ok, thanks 

Glad you got to make the pun 😉 

Sorry to dwell on this, I'm just trying to get an understanding of the physical reality (Don't want to get into the definition of reality) of what is going on at the extremely small scales. If there are 2 physical objects separated by a Planck length what is in-between those objects, nothing, space, quantum "foam" etc...?

[studiot]

49 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, thanks 

Glad you got to make the pun 😉 

Sorry to dwell on this, I'm just trying to get an understanding of the physical reality (Don't want to get into the definition of reality) of what is going on at the extremely small scales. If there are 2 physical objects separated by a Planck length what is in-between those objects, nothing, space, quantum "foam" etc...?

Perhaps a sketch will help.

Take tow of the smallest objects available   -   two atoms.

Two objects (atoms) separated by a small gap.

The relative size of each object to the size of the proposed gap is roughly the same as the relative size of the whole universe to a one metre ruler.
And you have two of them.

No one really knows what goes on at the Planck scale.

 

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Perhaps a sketch will help.

Take tow of the smallest objects available   -   two atoms.

Two objects (atoms) separated by a small gap.

The relative size of each object to the size of the proposed gap is roughly the same as the relative size of the whole universe to a one metre ruler.
And you have two of them.

No one really knows what goes on at the Planck scale.

 

Thanks for the sketch,

I already understand this.

I realise and appreciate your point on the scales involved.  I also appreciate that a Planck length defines the smallest size that could be observationally probed and we have no idea of what might go on at those sizes. I think the point I'm trying to make is concentrating around whether space is continuous or not. So I'm coming from this perspective, in an attempt to understand whether "nothing" is a valid notion that could be attributed to a definition at the smallest scales.  

Basically would it be reasonable to suggest that below the Planck limits there could be nothing?  

[Conscious Energy]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, thanks 

Glad you got to make the pun 😉 

Sorry to dwell on this, I'm just trying to get an understanding of the physical reality (Don't want to get into the definition of reality) of what is going on at the extremely small scales. If there are 2 physical objects separated by a Planck length what is in-between those objects, nothing, space, quantum "foam" etc...?

Good question, I would say it is still space in between on the Planck level with eventual recognisable energy distribution. Space with the information of 0 is there. Like signing One Planck unit of Space with 0 and everything is measurable in proportion to this fundamental information.

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

Good question, I would say it is still space in between on the Planck level with eventual recognisable energy distribution. Space with the information of 0 is there. Like signing One Planck unit of Space with 0 and everything is measurable in proportion to this fundamental information.

This thread is about 'nothing'.

One Planck unit can't be 'nothing' since it can be measured in metres, albeit a very small number of them.

[Conscious Energy]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

This thread is about 'nothing'.

One Planck unit can't be 'nothing' since it can be measured in metres, albeit a very small number of them.

Yet that something(basic information) is physically nothing. 0. 
 

You can not hand a bucket of it to me.

That is why I think the nothing in the box, the empty part of space, does not move when the box moved.
 

When I move the box, the emptiness will move with it, but the new empty space is a different part of the universe than the space of the original position.

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Yet there is nothing between them.

If you look at the atoms of the closing electrodes, do they fuse or they still maintain some “quantum” level of space in between one another? 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

space is continuous or not.

I think Space is continuous because of Time (1D vector pointing strict to the future in every point of existing space)

Edited July 21, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Conscious Energy said:

If you look at the atoms of the closing electrodes, do they fuse

I wish they did.

I'd be richer than Bezos, Branson and Pinchai put together.

1 hour ago, Conscious Energy said:

When I move the box, the emptiness will move with it, but the new empty space is a different part of the universe than the space of the original position.

I have already showed how to move a 'box' containing nothing so the same nothing is still inside after the move.

On 7/18/2021 at 1:04 PM, studiot said:

Mathematically the question of what is in your box is answered by theorem 1 which says that it must be the same nothing as there is only one empty set.

 

1 hour ago, Conscious Energy said:

When I move the box, the emptiness will move with it, but the new empty space is a different part of the universe than the space of the original position.

In other words you agree there is more than one 'nothing'.

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by studiot

[Conscious Energy]

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

In other words you agree there is more than one 'nothing'.

100%.

There are a very large number of fundamentally empty dots of space out there. Still finite if it starred by Time.

I imagine it as a 4D matrix. Basic information. True from every point you observe in it, that it’s physically value is 0. Just information.
 

Edited July 21, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[joigus]

If Churchill were here, he'd probably say,

Never so much was said by so many about something that worries so few.

 

[Conscious Energy]

On 7/18/2021 at 2:04 PM, studiot said:

Mathematically the question of what is in your box is answered by theorem 1 which says that it must be the same nothing as there is only one empty set.

One empty set with a finite number of members.

I tried to visualise what I mean:

[studiot]

36 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

One empty set with a finite number of members.

I tried to visualise what I mean:

Since the empty set has no boundary points you can't draw a Venn diagram for it.

Since the empty set also has no interior points you can't position your green square, "relative to other points in the set".

 

 

[Conscious Energy]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Since the empty set has no boundary points you can't draw a Venn diagram for it.

Time is a boundary point. The moment you recognise the 0 set (space now). 

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Since the empty set also has no interior points you can't position your green square, "relative to other points in the set".

Why? How? What about this:

 

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

Time is a boundary point. The moment you recognise the 0 set (space now). 

I understand what you are saying, but

As I stated when I introduced the empty set into this thread, I am talking strictly mathematically.

I think I implied, if not actually stated, that there are other points of view.

Philosophers, Mathematicians and Logicians have long debated the meaning of nothing and the role of the empty set.

So  strictly mathematically, the empty set has no boundaries.

(It is not the only set with no boundaries for which therefore Venn diagrams are inappropriate. The most densely packed set available -   the real numbers, R, also has no boundaries)

 

I will leave you with this bit of logic about nothings.

 

Nothing is better than eternal happiness.

A ham sandwich is better than nothing.

Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

[Conscious Energy]

49 minutes ago, studiot said:

1, Nothing is better than eternal happiness.

2, A ham sandwich is better than nothing.

3, Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

1: Not a thing (no-thing) is better than eternal happiness, so eternal happiness is the Best.

2: A ham sandwich is a thing, it is better than nothing, but it is not the best.

3: Therefore a ham sandwich is better than nothing, but it is not better(less), than the best eternal happiness 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[John Cuthber]

I may have missed some of the details, but is this essentially a three page discussion between those ho think nothing moves and those who think "The nothing" moves?

[Conscious Energy]

“I may have missed some of the details, but is this essentially a three page discussion between those ho think nothing moves and those who think "The nothing" moves?”

No. This is a discussion about: can you move a part of space(time) or not. 

Can you quote please the section, where from you got the conclusion, that somebody think, that nothing moves.

Everything is in progress, even space(time)…

Edited July 24, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[Conscious Energy]

On 7/22/2021 at 12:37 PM, studiot said:

So  strictly mathematically, the empty set has no boundaries.

That is what I doubt, since there is always a boundary:time now which gives space now (the empty set) and for me it seems strictly mathematically expressible (graphically, informatically). 

[joigus]

On 7/23/2021 at 7:08 PM, John Cuthber said:

I may have missed some of the details,

Oh, it's... nothing.  

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, joigus said:

Oh, it's... nothing.  

Lol 😂 +1 batman...