aommaster Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 This is a question from my friend. We were having a debate about it in school. My friend was giving a speech about it. He said that a vacuum can be stretched. I countered it by telling him that there is basically no matter to be stretched, so how can it strectch. I also added that a vauum can spread. For example, if a vacuum was put in a syringe, you can pull the plunger part of it and the vacuum will spread. Can anyone shine some light on this?
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 the Tor value can be altered in a "vacuum" certainly. but a perfect vacuum couldn`t actualy exist other than on paper, due to the vapor pressures on that ever material were to try and contain it
aommaster Posted April 1, 2004 Author Posted April 1, 2004 Could u please xaplin what you mean by the Tor value?
Sayonara Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 Rather than explaining it in terms of the vacuum spreading, which some people might have difficulty differentiating from stretching, explain it in terms of the boundary getting bigger.
Sayonara Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 Could u please xaplin what you mean by the Tor value? If you're talking about theoretical perfect vacuums, Tor value won't be involved in explaining your scenario.
aommaster Posted April 1, 2004 Author Posted April 1, 2004 Well, the boundary gets bigger in this case.
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 a Vacuum cannot be said to have a boundry, an area of "low pressure" certainly can as compared to it`s surroundings however
aommaster Posted April 1, 2004 Author Posted April 1, 2004 oh. So saying 'can a vaccuum be stretched?' is wrong?
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 a vacuum IS. it`s really as black and white as that a low pressure area can be manipulated in higher pressure ares within the confines of it`s zone, but it`s not a true vacuum, it`s only an area of low pressure
Sayonara Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 I thought it was implied he's talking about a hypothetical true vacuum, in which case it has a boundary. "Stretching" is simply a poor use of words.
aommaster Posted April 1, 2004 Author Posted April 1, 2004 oh ok. I'll ask my friend about it for more details on what he meant. Thanx guys!
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 AOM, yeah man, get that sucker pinned down 1`st I thought it was implied he's talking about a hypothetical true vacuum, in which case it has a boundary. "Stretching" is simply a poor use of words. if by "Hypothetical" you mean on paper, then sure, it can be any shape you want. In REAL terms though, it could not exist above fractions of a second depending upon it size in space, IE/ 1 light year across sperical, would take .5 of a year to fill, and then cause all manor of problems as it reached the center! )
Sayonara Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 I think you're overcomplicating things. If you say "there's no such thing as a vacuum" and instead start talking about filling volumes or what have you, then you no longer addressing the original question.
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 if he`s to win this debate, then all facts must be known he should counter with there is no such thing (as I`ve stated) and follow up with containerised low pressure can be manipulated (as I`ve stated). he needs to define his argument correctly 1`st (we`de established that). you mentioned "Hypothetical" as opposed to "True" vacuum, I responded with same as I`de already stated, "it will work on paper"
Sayonara Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 I don't see how he's going to win this debate by adding information and arguments involving things that are not related to the question. :-?
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 because the question itself is invalid by it`s nature, and so TRUE deffinitions must be sought firstly, because without comonality in this area, there can be no debate. I pointed out a few potential flaws of incongruity in the original arg and provided reasons as to why it was such. from this basis, AOM is now armed with extra data with which he may share with his opponant in debate and then discuss on the same level ov understanding or withhold this information and totaly destroy him in the debate class, that`s his personal choice
aommaster Posted April 1, 2004 Author Posted April 1, 2004 lol! stop arguing! ill find out the facts about what he is trying to say, give them to u, and then, you all can deal with it!
Sayonara Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 The question isn't invalid at all, it's just ill-defined. You even said as much in reply #14.
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 lol! stop arguing! ! we ain`t arguing ) at least I ain`t, and I`m fairly sure sayo ain`t
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 hehehehehehe getting angry`s a good motivator, let him be mad, then kick some butt in his debate class, he`ll have us pair to thank then [edit] I just realised something, what the hell am I doing in the "Quantum Mechanics" area!??? ROFLOL 1
aman Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 If you look at a quantum vacuum, the space between an electron in its orbital shell and the proton, then the space or vacuum can be compressed as in a neutron star by gravity. That is if you equate space and vacuum. If it can be compressed than why not stretched? Just aman
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2004 Posted April 1, 2004 because by what mechanism would you try and "stretch" it? certainly anything material would be subject to vapor pressure
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