Moontanman Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) I could not give a citation. Space itself ''beyond'' matter has no physicality and I do not believe it has been proven otherwise, so therefore until any such proof, it remains made of nothing. Saying otherwise is at best psuedo. Quantum field fluctuations, they permeate everything and quite literally make up everything. So called empty space is a frothing mass of quantum field fluctuations... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory Yeah, i know, I don't understand it either but there are some really good lectures on you tube that explain it as well as someone with limited math skills can understand... Edited March 25, 2017 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 Quantum field fluctuations, they permeate everything and quite literally make up everything. So called empty space is a frothing mass of quantum field fluctuations... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory Yeah, i know, I don't understand it either but there are some really good lectures on you tube that explain it as well as someone with limited math skills can understand... I have still not heard anything mentioned that suggests space is made of anything? Fields occupy space ? The values are given here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c3 I do not understand that but recognise 0. "According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state Of course it can never be empty space if people keep putting things back into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) I have still not heard anything mentioned that suggests space is made of anything? Fields occupy space ? Yes, they actually are space and everything else.. I do not understand that but recognise 0. That is just it, nothing cannot exist... Of course it can never be empty space if people keep putting things back into it. The message is there cannot be empty space.. Edited March 25, 2017 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 I have still not heard anything mentioned that suggests space is made of anything? Fields occupy space ? I do not understand that but recognise 0. Of course it can never be empty space if people keep putting things back into it. epsilon with a little zero in subscript and mu with a little subscript are the symbols for the permittivity and permeability of free space (the classical vacuum). The zero in the subscript shows they are for free space and not for another substance - neither has the value zero epsilon_zero = 8.854810^-12 Farads per metre mu_zero = 4*pi *10^-7 Newtons per Amp^2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 The message is there cannot be empty space.. It seems that way. Physicist Sean Carroll, being paraphrased by somebody, referring to one of his books, said "If you take the words out of a sentence, does the sentence still exist?" Without any form of reference, 'space' becomes meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 epsilon with a little zero in subscript and mu with a little subscript are the symbols for the permittivity and permeability of free space (the classical vacuum). The zero in the subscript shows they are for free space and not for another substance - neither has the value zero epsilon_zero = 8.854810^-12 Farads per metre mu_zero = 4*pi *10^-7 Newtons per Amp^2 ok, so you are saying there is a level of permittivity and permeability of free space, this being caused by spacial fields? It seems that way. Physicist Sean Carroll, being paraphrased by somebody, referring to one of his books, said "If you take the words out of a sentence, does the sentence still exist?" Without any form of reference, 'space' becomes meaningless. Don't things move relative to each other and relative to space? Yes, they actually are space and everything else.. That is just it, nothing cannot exist... The message is there cannot be empty space.. I do not believe there is any evidence of these fields let alone these fields being actual space? I believe you are presenting psuedo to be factual unless you can provide evidence of these fields? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Don't things move relative to each other and relative to space? Yes to the first part but not the second part of your sentence. If they could move relative to space that would imply the existence of an aether but there isn't one. Movement can only be determined relative to something else within space. If here was an aether we could say there is an absolute speed, using it as a reference. In the same way, if there are no things then we can't say how big it is or even that it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 ok, so you are saying there is a level of permittivity and permeability of free space, this being caused by spacial fields? This is actually a very interesting question. As far as we know, these values just "are"; they are not caused by anything. Maybe a future theory will explain why the exist, and why they have the values the do. Don't things move relative to each other and relative to space? An important observation (originally made by Galileo) is that you can only measure motion relative to another object, not space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 ok, so you are saying there is a level of permittivity and permeability of free space, this being caused by spacial fields? Don't things move relative to each other and relative to space? I do not believe there is any evidence of these fields let alone these fields being actual space? I believe you are presenting psuedo to be factual unless you can provide evidence of these fields? I honestly thought the link I provided did show evidence, possibly this will be easier to understand, it was for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 (edited) I honestly thought the link I provided did show evidence, possibly this will be easier to understand, it was for me... I do not know what you deem to be evidence but I am sure words or somebody giving a lecture is not evidence. Everything provided this far is not evidence. In the video he says,''our theories are so beautiful they must be correct'', huh...... Edited March 26, 2017 by JohnLesser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 I do not know what you deem to be evidence but I am sure words or somebody giving a lecture is not evidence. Everything provided this far is not evidence. In the video he says,''our theories are so beautiful they must be correct'', huh...... Well, you can google the math, spend a few decades learning it or since this guy is a legitimate authority on the subject, quite possibly one of the few who really does understand it, I tend to go with his assertions. I admit I've always thought the assertion of the beauty of the theories is poor wording at best.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 (edited) Well, you can google the math, spend a few decades learning it or since this guy is a legitimate authority on the subject, quite possibly one of the few who really does understand it, I tend to go with his assertions. I admit I've always thought the assertion of the beauty of the theories is poor wording at best.. Mostly the ''action'' is observed before the maths is created, for generations we have done it this way, maths describing the ''actions''. Why do you or anyone else think that any maths is valued without the observation of ''action''? It is not hard to understand by my interpretation using a 4 dimensional 0 point energy matrix. Edited March 26, 2017 by JohnLesser -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Mostly the ''action'' is observed before the maths is created, for generations we have done it this way, maths describing the ''actions''. Why do you or anyone else think that any maths is valued without the observation of ''action''? It is not hard to understand by my interpretation using a 4 dimensional 0 point energy matrix. You realise you contradicted your self? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 26, 2017 Author Share Posted March 26, 2017 You realise you contradicted your self? Not at all, dimensions are observed unless you mean something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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