Empty Evidence

[Mitch Bass]

There is a book called the "Holographic Universe" which contains the concept that humans are wrong to consider that most of reality consists of empty space but rather, there is no empty space. The book compares humans to fish that cannot see the water it swims through. I am wondering first, has anybody heard of, or read "The Holographic Universe" and can either testify to the books validity or lack thereof, and second, what is the evidence for there being empty space? I have it in my head that a scientist once said that there was an experiment done at the beginning of the last century which produced conclusive evidence for the existence of empty space. Does anyone have any knowledge of such an experiment?

[Phi for All]

Are you talking about empty space, or empty Space?

 

I've seen an experiment done to show that the inside of a van isn't empty. Hang a plumb bob from the ceiling of the van, and tape the string of a helium balloon to the floor of the van (they should both hang in the middle, but not obstruct each other's forward/backward movement).

 

If the van was truly empty, when you accelerate you should see both the balloon and the plumb bob move backwards. Instead, you see the bob move backwards, but the balloon's helium is displaced forward as the air in the van moves back like the plumb bob. Looks empty, really full of air.

[Strange]

 

I have it in my head that a scientist once said that there was an experiment done at the beginning of the last century which produced conclusive evidence for the existence of empty space.

 

You may be thinking if the Michelson-Morley experiment. This, and a number of similar experiments, failed to find any evidence for the existence of a hypothetical "aether" that supposedly formed the medium for the propagation of light. However, as Maxwell's equations made clear, that was pretty much the expected result.

 

I don't know if that has anything to do with the notion of empty space. It depends on your definitions of "empty" and "space".

[swansont]

AFAICT, the holographic universe is more of an interpretation of science than science. I'm not aware of any actual way to test it

[Mitch Bass]

 

You may be thinking if the Michelson-Morley experiment. This, and a number of similar experiments, failed to find any evidence for the existence of a hypothetical "aether" that supposedly formed the medium for the propagation of light. However, as Maxwell's equations made clear, that was pretty much the expected result.

 

I don't know if that has anything to do with the notion of empty space. It depends on your definitions of "empty" and "space".

I already have a lot of thoughts to each person's response to my initial post. For this I thank each person who responded as I live to think (or do I think to live). I have about two minutes before I have to attend to a personal matter but I only need a few moments to thank the poster "Strange" because I am positive that it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that my mind was striving to recall. If, Strange, you have the desire to go into a few specific details about that experiment that would be excellent since have no recollection as to what that experiment actually entailed. However, that being said, if when I return, no specifics are given about that experiment I can tell you now, at any moment I have fewer absolute beliefs than I have fingers...beyond that all I have are educated guesses, conjectures. This being said I can tell you that my absolute belief is that by copying and pasting the name of the experiment you provided for me into a bing search engine I will without a doubt become well informed as to what that experiment was all about and then I will be able to discuss the specifics and what they in theory indicate.

Are you talking about empty space, or empty Space?

 

I've seen an experiment done to show that the inside of a van isn't empty. Hang a plumb bob from the ceiling of the van, and tape the string of a helium balloon to the floor of the van (they should both hang in the middle, but not obstruct each other's forward/backward movement).

 

If the van was truly empty, when you accelerate you should see both the balloon and the plumb bob move backwards. Instead, you see the bob move backwards, but the balloon's helium is displaced forward as the air in the van moves back like the plumb bob. Looks empty, really full of air.

To the poster "Phi for All"...the experiment you described with the van the ballon and hanging plum bob, I will have much to write, but for now I am also guessing that to answer your question...if I am understanding it correctly, when you are asking me if I am talking about empty space or empty Space...hmm...well...i'm not sure...if by empty Space...I'm really not sure how you are differentiating empty space versus empty Space...I'd like you to maybe if you desire, explain how you are differentiating empty space versus empty Space but for now what at least I can say is ...if I am packing to go on a trip there is only so much that will fit in my luggage because of the limited "empty space"....however....hmm....well for now I will suggest that I have heard for example that a sub-atomic particle,,,a basic one,,,with the electrons, neutrons, protons..is 99 percent empty space so here for example I would like to know what the evidence is to prove this.

AFAICT, the holographic universe is more of an interpretation of science than science. I'm not aware of any actual way to test it

 

First let me make my ignorance understood so that I can ask you what might be a common expression that I do know. You wrote AFAICT. Will you please tell me what that means. Second, as far as the holographic universe book...it seems like you might remember more than me because I am not sure what it is you are thinking about specifically when you write there is no way to actually test it. Are you responding to a premise in the book that in some way the universe is in essence a hologram?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[swansont]

 

First let me make my ignorance understood so that I can ask you what might be a common expression that I do know. You wrote AFAICT. Will you please tell me what that means. Second, as far as the holographic universe book...it seems like you might remember more than me because I am not sure what it is you are thinking about specifically when you write there is no way to actually test it. Are you responding to a premise in the book that in some way the universe is in essence a hologram?

 

As Far As I Can Tell

 

Yes. I would be interested in how one might determine that we are in a hologram.

[studiot]

Do you normally feel the ground under your feet as you walk?

 

 

The book compares humans to fish that cannot see the water it swims through

 

Of course the fish can sense the water in just the same way since both your walking and the fish swimming rely on the frictional contact and (reaction) pressure.

[Mitch Bass]

 

As Far As I Can Tell

 

Yes. I would be interested in how one might determine that we are in a hologram.

 

Hmmm....I agree....to think that the universe is a hologram is something I have no recollection of the book giving any kind of empperical evidence that the universe is a hologram and certainly no means of determining a way to prove it. This being said...here is something I find highly intriguing as a possibility based on what I know about the brains neurology and our perceptions. I at least know that our visual perception of the world is a creation that our brain puts together as a consequence of optical stimulation. If a person is standing in front of a tree and the Sun is offering a source of illumination, a person might forget that the image of the tree is all in the skull. When I consider the similarities between holographic film and the neural construct of the brain, it now occurs to me that perhaps, and i would be interested in getting your thoughts about this possibility, that our brain is "manufacturing" a spectacular hologram which a person experiences and moves within, navigates through. Does our brain not produce a hologram in which we are immersed. This suggests nothing in terms of saying that the universe is a hologram but our visual perception, I almost certain, is a result of our brains ability to generate a hologram that is directly a result of the actual external world and the effect it has in terms of optical nerve stimulation. For most humans when a person is standing in front of a tree the mind generates a hologram of a tree. There are of course those minds that have what might be considered defects and have a brain in which the hologram that, say, a schizophrenic's mind creates is further from reality than our own most likely very close to accurate subjective perception of the objective external reality that surrounds us. So in one sense we are both agree that there is no way to determine that we are living within a hologram, but could it not at least be said that our brain does create a hologram of the world around us and this hologram we do exist very much within the moment we open our eyes when we awake and I am guessing, at all points in which we are dreaming?

[pzkpfw]

You may also be thinking about Rutherfords experiments, where he flung stuff at atoms (thin gold sheets, if I recall right) and saw they mostly passed right through. That showed the insides of the atoms were mostly empty.

 

(For some reason I can't copy/paste into this edit box; go see Wikipedia under Rutherford, then "Rutherford and the Gold Foil Experiment".)

Edited July 2, 2014 by pzkpfw

[swansont]

I don't think the holographic universe proposes everything is literally holograms as we can create optically. It's that the universe is 2 dimensional, and that, like a hologram, the third dimension is recreated with a phase (or analogous to that) rather than an actual dimension.

[Phi for All]

To the poster "Phi for All"...the experiment you described with the van the ballon and hanging plum bob, I will have much to write, but for now I am also guessing that to answer your question...if I am understanding it correctly, when you are asking me if I am talking about empty space or empty Space...hmm...well...i'm not sure...if by empty Space...I'm really not sure how you are differentiating empty space versus empty Space...I'd like you to maybe if you desire, explain how you are differentiating empty space versus empty Space but for now what at least I can say is ...if I am packing to go on a trip there is only so much that will fit in my luggage because of the limited "empty space"....however....hmm....well for now I will suggest that I have heard for example that a sub-atomic particle,,,a basic one,,,with the electrons, neutrons, protons..is 99 percent empty space so here for example I would like to know what the evidence is to prove this.

 

I was trying to see if you wanted a distinction between any "space" and Outer "Space".

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I am wondered if two dimensions ( like a hologram ) was more the information. Say an engineers drawing of what he/she intends to have manufactured.

 

In moving the project into the third dimension , in effect means giving substance to the drawing or information , and manufacturing reality, substance.

 

Thus two dimensions is as thick as the graphine layer of a drawing . ( vaporous ) . Three dimensions is reality , substance .

 

Mike

Edited July 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I am wondered if two dimensions ( like a hologram ) was more the information. Say an engineers drawing of what he/she intends to have manufactured.

 

In moving the project into the third dimension , in effect means giving substance to the drawing or information , and manufacturing reality, substance.

 

Thus two dimensions is as thick as the graphine layer of a drawing . ( vaporous ) . Three dimensions is reality , substance .

 

Mike

 

The equivalent representation would be a 2D drawing with the height value somehow encoded at every point. But that only works for a solid. Holograms aren't quite that simple.

[Strange]

I thought that the holographic universe was an extrapolation from the fact that the entropy (crudely, information content) of a black hole is proportional to its area, rather its volume. I think someone just thought, "what if the same is true of the universe!"

[swansont]

I thought that the holographic universe was an extrapolation from the fact that the entropy (crudely, information content) of a black hole is proportional to its area, rather its volume. I think someone just thought, "what if the same is true of the universe!"

 

I think that's the no hair conjecture

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

[Mitch Bass]

I don't think the holographic universe proposes everything is literally holograms as we can create optically. It's that the universe is 2 dimensional, and that, like a hologram, the third dimension is recreated with a phase (or analogous to that) rather than an actual dimension.

I am nearly certain you are correct about the Holographic Universe proposes nothing in terms of the universe being a result of holograms we create optically. I only meant to suggest that I do find it interesting, intriguing, fascinating...that although optic stimulation certainly does not create the universe, and certainly does not create a holographic universe...well...let me try to figure out why I wrote what I wrote....hmm......the reality is that our minds do not create a holographic universe...rather, quite the opposite....the universe creates the holograms in our head....

You may also be thinking about Rutherfords experiments, where he flung stuff at atoms (thin gold sheets, if I recall right) and saw they mostly passed right through. That showed the insides of the atoms were mostly empty.

 

(For some reason I can't copy/paste into this edit box; go see Wikipedia under Rutherford, then "Rutherford and the Gold Foil Experiment".)

pzkpfw, I will wikipedia as you suggested...yet...let me ask you...in this experiment of which you speak...I am glad you brought this up...as the name of this post implies I am searching (and I searching for a very specific reason that I might at some point write about in the part of this forum in which theories that people develop on their own can be spoke of, a theory which explains all activity from the quantum to the cosmic level with only two postulates and three variables,one of the postulates being there is zero empty space in all the universe)....well...let me ask you this...it has been said that the Rutherford Gold Foil Experiment indicates empty space because of how stuff was flung at atoms and they mostly passed right through. Of course I cannot condemn the conclusions made by this experiment until I do the research about this experiment, yet...is it not true that a boulder dropped into a lake will pass to the lake's bottom despite the water which fills the lake?

Do you normally feel the ground under your feet as you walk?

 

 

Of course the fish can sense the water in just the same way since both your walking and the fish swimming rely on the frictional contact and (reaction) pressure.

 

studlot....I agree that the fish can sense the water due to frictional contact and (reaction) pressure...I never said that a fish cannot sense the water...but rather...if the water was pure...that the fish could not see the water. The point of this metaphor, the question I am raising in this post, is what is the "evidence for empty space"? I am not asking this question in a small way. I am not asking about the idea that there is less empty space in the universe than previously considered....I am asking this question in terms of...how do we know there is any empty space at all. The fish is "blind" to the water it swims through. Are humans "blind" to what fills what is considered empty space?

 

In a former post I started...I asked if the universe had no empty space could there still be movement? For the most part people seemed to indicate there could be and it made sense to me what they said. If I thought movement would be impossible without empty space than this post, that I began, would not exist.

 

Ultimately, at some point, in the part of this forum where original ideas can be expressed, there might be a post by myself that explains why everything in the universe moves as it does. I will do so with two postulates and three variables. I will need nothing besides this. One of the postulates is that there is no empty space. At all . So in this part of the forum...I am searching for a reason why or why not there is conclusive evidence for empty space. If there is definitive evidence for the existence of empty space I will accept the flaw in my theory.

 

So...to anyone reading this...I am not starting a new theory in this part of the forum (as I mentioned before, and I promise will not do again)...but...I am searching for the answer to my question from people who have evidence for empty space and then to see if what they write is something I can object to and in so doing wait for an objection to my objection (if I have one) and so on until through deductive reasoning and the laws or rationality, if I can have someone agree with me that the conclusions either do or do not have validity.

 

Right now those who are considered the smartest scientist would most likely mock me for even asking about searching for empty space evidence. I know experiments have been done and conclusions have been reached. Unless I am mistaken it was Aristotle who, considered at the time to be perhaps one of the greatest thinkers/scientists, thought through observation that the Earth was the center of the universe. Than along came, if I am not mistaken, Galileo, now thought to be one of the greatest thinkers of his time and he proved Aristotle wrong. Galileo thought that comets were an optical illusion based on his observations. He was wrong. And then Newton came along and although considered the smartest of his time, thought it possible to transform mercury into gold and died as a result of...well I actually am not sure about the Newton part...my point is that throughout history...that just because the considered smartest humans at any one point history will make an observation followed by a conclusion...

 

I apologize for going into more than just the reason I started this post. I know there are reasons that humans consider empty space to exist....the experiments, the observations....fortunately...this forum format exists because what has been concluded can be discussed and questioned and examined until....I am hoping a final conclusion becomes evident that will be agreed upon by those, me one of them, who can only accept what logic allows me to.

 

I was trying to see if you wanted a distinction between any "space" and Outer "Space".

When you speak of outer "space' are you simply speaking of areas between celesestial bodies?

[studiot]

 

studiot, on 02 Jul 2014 - 7:37 PM, said:

Do you normally feel the ground under your feet as you walk?

 

 

Of course the fish can sense the water in just the same way since both your walking and the fish swimming rely on the frictional contact and (reaction) pressure.

 

studlot....I agree that the fish can sense the water due to frictional contact and (reaction) pressure...I never said that a fish cannot sense the water...but rather...if the water was pure...that the fish could not see the water. The point of this metaphor, the question I am raising in this post, is what is the "evidence for empty space"? I am not asking this question in a small way. I am not asking about the idea that there is less empty space in the universe than previously considered....I am asking this question in terms of...how do we know there is any empty space at all. The fish is "blind" to the water it swims through. Are humans "blind" to what fills what is considered empty space?

 

 

I was rather gently observing that I find your proposal a bit like complaining you cannot see sound, or taste light. You are simply be focusing on the wrong sense.

 

That is why we (and fish) have a bunch of senses to interact with our environments and our brain selects the appropriate one for the job in hand.

 

[Mitch Bass]

 

 

I was rather gently observing that I find your proposal a bit like complaining you cannot see sound, or taste light. You are simply be focusing on the wrong sense.

 

That is why we (and fish) have a bunch of senses to interact with our environments and our brain selects the appropriate one for the job in hand.

 

 

LOL. No, I was not complaining, I understand the fish not seeing the water is not a perfect metaphor. I am glad you just wrote what you wrote because it will perhaps help me to get to the essence of what , in this post I started, I am attempting. I understand we have many senses to observe and interact with our environment... this being said, with all our senses, with all or deductive reasoning....why does it make sense due to our senses to be so certain of empty space. Well...check out my what I will write next in this post ....it might help to make this more clear.

Already scientists are considering "dark matter". If I am not mistaken the reason for this is that if there was as much empty space as was once the theory..,then there is a flaw in the way the universe is moving according to calculative conclusions. Dark Matter is called Dark Matter I am guessing because we have no means of detecting the existence of this substance. I am searching for people to explain to me why this "dark matter" is not detectable. Why could it not be that this same kind of "dark matter" fills every bit of the universe although undetectable?

[studiot]

Dark matter has been proposed to explain deficiencies in astrophysical calculations.

That is it has some interaction with the rest of our universe, just not a visual one.

So, if dark matter does exist, then is is certainly not undetectable.

 

Anything that 'exists' but has zero interaction might just as well not exist, as far as we are concerned, and would be truly undetectable by us.

[Bignose]

Dark Matter is called Dark Matter I am guessing because we have no means of detecting the existence of this substance.

Most of the matter we know of is because we have seen it in one way or another. If not visible light (e.g. stars), via other signals along the light spectrum like IR or X-Rays (e.g. quasars).

 

When you sum up everything that we can see today, and then we use a model to calculate the trajectories and behavior of objects like galaxies, the model makes predictions greatly different from what is observed. But, if you add in more mass to those models, then the predictions match very well.

 

This is what has led us to dark matter -- we think that there is more mass out there, but we haven't been able to see it directly in all the traditional ways. (A very similar story can be told about dark energy. The best models we have don't agree with observations unless we add some more as-of-yet unknown energy to the balance, and hence we call that dark energy.)

 

Now, that doesn't mean we cannot detect dark matter at all. Because we can, indirectly. We can even make maps of where we think it is highly concentrated. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biggest-map-yet-of-universes/

 

But we still don't really know what it is. Not knowing what it is is different than calling it undetectable, though.

[Mordred]

 

I am searching for people to explain to me why this "dark matter" is not detectable. Why could it not be that this same kind of "dark matter" fills every bit of the universe although undetectable?

 

 

this part is easy to answer, the leading explanation for dark matter is a weakly interactive particle, the neutrino is another example.

 

dark matter is considered to only interact with gravity, and possibly other weakly interactive particles (though the last is only a conjecture that it may interact with itself)

 

particle interactions fall into several categories, covered by the 4 forces

 

so DM, does not interact with the strong force, the weak force, or the electromagnetic force. this isn't too unusual though for example the neutrino only interacts with the weak force and gravity, the photon only interacts with the electromagnetic force (it could be argued that gravity affects the photon but the photon path follows spacetime geometry but is not directly influenced by gravity)(subject for another thread), gluons only interact with the strong force, the w and z bosons interact with the weak force. The ones I mentioned are primarily the force mediator particles

 

the point is there is different particle classifications that depend on their interactions.

 

as dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic, weak or strong force, we can only measure its indirect influences due to its mass.(gravity) its due to this combination that we cannot identify what particle dark matter is. No other particle doesn't interact with all 3 forces other than gravity.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Mordred

[Mitch Bass]

Dark matter has been proposed to explain deficiencies in astrophysical calculations.

That is it has some interaction with the rest of our universe, just not a visual one.

So, if dark matter does exist, then is is certainly not undetectable.

 

Anything that 'exists' but has zero interaction might just as well not exist, as far as we are concerned, and would be truly undetectable by us.

Yet, dark matter is matter that we cannot as of yet detect and only consider to maybe exist because to explain the astrophysical calculation deficiencies it would be useful if there was more matter in the universe than we have any ability to detect. Correct? Is there any other evidence to substantiate the potential reality of dark matter aside from it being a potential solution to a mystery that has, as of yet, not been solved?

[Bignose]

Is there any other evidence to substantiate the potential reality of dark matter aside from it being a potential solution to a mystery that has, as of yet, not been solved?

Mitch, did you look at the dark matter map I linked to in my last reply to you? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biggest-map-yet-of-universes/

[swansont]

Yet, dark matter is matter that we cannot as of yet detect and only consider to maybe exist because to explain the astrophysical calculation deficiencies it would be useful if there was more matter in the universe than we have any ability to detect. Correct? Is there any other evidence to substantiate the potential reality of dark matter aside from it being a potential solution to a mystery that has, as of yet, not been solved?

 

No, that's not quite it. Dark matter is matter we can detect only via gravitational effects.

[Mitch Bass]

Mitch, did you look at the dark matter map I linked to in my last reply to you? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biggest-map-yet-of-universes/

Thank you I just now did. And I agree with this information as being valid evidence. It is valid because not only does it explain what was before unexplainable but it is based on actual observation. I started this post to see if anyone could prove to me as best as they can that there exists even a minute amount of empty space in all the universe. The article you had me read shows how there is most likely matter where there once was thought to be empty space. If someone can prove to me that there is even a little bit of empty space in all the universe than I would appreciate that so my observations which have also led me to a conclusion which explains activity at all levels, even in the so called, irrational, against common sense, impossibly strange activity that exists in the world of quantum mechanics then I could relax and no that my theory has no merit because one of the two postulates in my theory is that there is no empty space. This is about the third I mentioned my theory in this post and I apologize to any moderator who thinks I am trying to express a new theory in a part of a forum which does not allow for new theories but in now am I expressing a theory. I am only in this part of the forum trying to get from someone a rational reason to believe that there is even a minute amount of empty space in all the universe so that I would that I am wrong which I have never had a problem. If I am right, however, than...well...I would present my working model and my reason and the observations I have made to explain the unexplainable just as the article did. I have the working model and the diagrams and the "maps"just like the article you had me read. So please, before I claim to the world that there is no activity at any level that I cannot easily explain with to postulates and three variables, please someone, help me to understand why I should consider that the reality of empty space is nothing more than a myth. So far, I am getting more and more evidence to substantiate the idea that there is less empty space than once thought, as with the dark matter, I need to know only is there less empty space than once thought but if there is any empty space at all.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Mitch Bass