Rainman Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 If all existing "things", matter/energy,or whatever, are actually touching when it comes to infinitely small volumes, then how can there be movement in the Universe? It's an accepted fact that there is motion in the Universe so shouldn't we be concluding that, in infinitely small volumes of the Universe there is the pure vacuum of "nothing" that allows for this movement of everything else?
swansont Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 If all existing "things", matter/energy,or whatever, are actually touching when it comes to infinitely small volumes Is anyone saying that they are?
ydoaPs Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 The vast majority of solid matter is empty space. If a Hydrogen nucleus was the size of a paperclip and sitting in the centre of an American football stadium, the electron would be outside the stadium.
J.C.MacSwell Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 The vast majority of solid matter is empty space. If a Hydrogen nucleus was the size of a paperclip and sitting in the centre of an American football stadium, the electron would be outside the stadium. Couldn't afford a ticket?
swansont Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 Couldn't afford a ticket? They only take cash.
Rainman Posted August 23, 2009 Author Posted August 23, 2009 There is much debate over the existence of "pure vacuum" but not over the existence of motion. How can motion of any kind exist without pure vacuum or "nothing"? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedso you are siding with me?....pure vacuum is necessary for movement? inside or outside a stadium.
insane_alien Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 not a pure vacuum, just not a true plenum.
swansont Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 How can motion of any kind exist without pure vacuum or "nothing"? Why is that required? So far your argument appears to be based on a false premise.
Rainman Posted August 24, 2009 Author Posted August 24, 2009 Imagine the smallest unit of matter, energy, "matter/energy", or whatever, and have it move. The space it moves into must be vacant. What I am saying is that this vacant space must be a pure vacuum. There can not be any matter, energy, "matter/energy" occupying that space or no movement can occur.
insane_alien Posted August 24, 2009 Posted August 24, 2009 only if the other particle cannot be in the same space as the other particle. photons can exist in the same place at the same time as well as some other particle types. it seems you are trying to apply classical thinking to quantum phenomenon. this means your wrong.
Rainman Posted August 24, 2009 Author Posted August 24, 2009 A "pure vacuum" is not simply the opposite of a scientific plenum. A "pure vacuum" is absolutely nothing...if you will. Philosophically, pure vacuum would be the opposite of all things that exist. I think the concept of "pure vacuum" is a bit scary for physicists because it cannot be found using science since science can never detect all matter/energy down to infinitely small sizes. However, I think pure vacuum has to exist not only as a mere concept (like time), but as a non-detectable piece of the universe simply because without it we can not have movement. If all matter/energy is touching then we can have no movement...but we have movement....so "pure vacuum" has to exist.
swansont Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 insane_alien has already given the photon as an example; any particle with integer spin (thus following Bose-Einstein statistics) can coexist with another particle at the same point. I think the concept of "pure vacuum" is a bit scary for physicists because it cannot be found using science since science can never detect all matter/energy down to infinitely small sizes. However, I think pure vacuum has to exist not only as a mere concept (like time), but as a non-detectable piece of the universe simply because without it we can not have movement. If all matter/energy is touching then we can have no movement...but we have movement....so "pure vacuum" has to exist. Circular reasoning. Try again.
Rainman Posted August 25, 2009 Author Posted August 25, 2009 There is a big difference between two protons existing in the same space at the same "time" and at the same "instant" as far as I can figure it out. Using "time" the way science uses "time" is using time as a concept or a measurement and doesn't necessarily mean that time "exists" thus it is theoretically possible for two protons to be in the same position at the same "time" but could never happen in the real Universe. I use the word "instant" which is less mathmatical and much less precise but much more realistic. Beyond the world of mathmatics two "things" of any type can never exist in the same place at the same instant. To do so leads to absurdities and, for sure, the universe is not absurd.
insane_alien Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 the universe is very absurd. and it doesn't care if you think it shouldn't be absurd, its going to do what it wants either way. it is also not up for debate as it has been observed.
Rainman Posted August 25, 2009 Author Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) insane_alien has already given the photon as an example; any particle with integer spin (thus following Bose-Einstein statistics) can coexist with another particle at the same point. So, let me get this straight, you are saying that any number of photons with integer spins can coexist at the same point... which means an infinite number of photons with the same integer spin can coexist at the same point. Help me understand how this can have real meaning in this universe other than to point out that sometimes science predicts absurdities? Wouldn't that absurdity make you rethink the "proof"? It does to me. Something is fishy here. It might be in the defintions of photon, point, and co-existence. Confuses the hell out of me. Edited August 25, 2009 by swansont fix quote tag
insane_alien Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 all photons have the same spin. and its not only a prediction, but an observation.
swansont Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 So, let me get this straight, you are saying that any number of photons with integer spins can coexist at the same point... which means an infinite number of photons with the same integer spin can coexist at the same point. Help me understand how this can have real meaning in this universe other than to point out that sometimes science predicts absurdities? Wouldn't that absurdity make you rethink the "proof"? It does to me. Something is fishy here. It might be in the defintions of photon, point, and co-existence. Confuses the hell out of me. Yes I am. Ever notice how light can be bright or dim? A larger or smaller number of photons. At any given point. Probably best thought of with a coherent source, in this case, so a laser or photons in a power buildup cavity, so they are all in phase — that way you don't have some distractions to worry about.
Mr Skeptic Posted August 26, 2009 Posted August 26, 2009 If all existing "things", matter/energy,or whatever, are actually touching when it comes to infinitely small volumes, then how can there be movement in the Universe? It's an accepted fact that there is motion in the Universe so shouldn't we be concluding that, in infinitely small volumes of the Universe there is the pure vacuum of "nothing" that allows for this movement of everything else? Well, I have no problem moving through air, water, and a few other substances. The material part of them is pushed aside or compressed as I move thorough their space.
Bob_for_short Posted August 26, 2009 Posted August 26, 2009 In QM and QFT the vacuum is just the ground state of a compound system. If there is no system, there is no vacuum.
Rainman Posted August 26, 2009 Author Posted August 26, 2009 Yes I am. Ever notice how light can be bright or dim? A larger or smaller number of photons. At any given point. Probably best thought of with a coherent source, in this case, so a laser or photons in a power buildup cavity, so they are all in phase — that way you don't have some distractions to worry about. Wow. So you believe in some of the absurdities? You believe that there can be an infinite number of photons residing at any given point in this Universe and between that infinite number of photons and the next possible infinite number of photons residing in the Universe at the next point there is no Perfect Vacuum. This whole infinite mess is all touching? and you would never think that there might be something wrong with the actually experimentations themselves that SEEM to prove this? Your concept of a universe seems to me to allow infinite "fullness" and zero motion. We seem to be living in different universes. It must be a problem with our definitions.
swansont Posted August 26, 2009 Posted August 26, 2009 Wow. So you believe in some of the absurdities? You believe that there can be an infinite number of photons residing at any given point in this Universe and between that infinite number of photons and the next possible infinite number of photons residing in the Universe at the next point there is no Perfect Vacuum. This whole infinite mess is all touching? and you would never think that there might be something wrong with the actually experimentations themselves that SEEM to prove this? Your concept of a universe seems to me to allow infinite "fullness" and zero motion. We seem to be living in different universes. It must be a problem with our definitions. I know you can make a standing wave laser cavity, and basically put in an arbitrary amount of energy, up until a mirror (or some other physical part) fails. I'm a scientist, so I follow the evidence. Evidence will change my mind. Appeal to ridicule and argument from personal incredulity will not.
Rainman Posted August 31, 2009 Author Posted August 31, 2009 I would never ridicule good science. I would, however, ridicule absurd deductions made from good science. To me, the science is good but the mathmatics is what is failing us when we are discussing infinities, both large and small.
sananda Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 As many mass-less particles as you want can exist in one place if they are waves. Rainman, something gives matter (with mass) momentum. Also, the resistance to change in direction shows that there is something going on in the universe behind the scenes... matter is clutching to something that it can move freely in one direction through... The Dirac Sea is an interesting concept that I'm sure some of the members here get excited about in it's QFT form... I believe Dirac described this as aether too This field exists, we know that right? So matter has to travel through it, so where's the drag? What if the field has a pattern and atoms configure themselves to roll along it nicely? I know, I know, speculation... so sue me!
purintjp Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 The vast majority of solid matter is empty space. If a Hydrogen nucleus was the size of a paperclip and sitting in the centre of an American football stadium, the electron would be outside the stadium. Just how empty is space, really. There are all the various radiation spectra and things like neutrinos and other exotic particles rushing through space pretty much everywhere. Not to mention stuff we probably can't even detect. Maybe the idea of 'nothing' does not even exist. I think that the proof of nothing is tied to the proof of infinity. Is not the best definition of infinity as 'something' divided by 'nothing' ? They both could be just pure mathematical concepts. I know you scientists are dead set on using mathematics to describe everything but I doubt you will. I often wonder if mathematics is not a victim of it's own precision. Everything seems to break down around 0 and infinity. What is it that is exactly equal that is larger than quantum level ? Are we 100% sure that even quantum level stuff is equal down to the most infinite detail ?
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