JohnLesser Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Particle/Antiparticle Pairs come into existence and vanish very quickly - they are a fluctuation that shouldn't happen according to classical physicals but must happen according to quantum field theory. Classically we can remove everything from space (the classical vacuum) - but this is a approximate situation as you will always have blackbody photons, and quantum field fluctuations. Even in a toy universe with no matter and no radiation you will still have pairs popping into existence - a zero point energy You have observation of this pair process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 You say a void empty of everything does not exist, what then do you propose is left if we could remove all the matter from a volume of space? Neutrinos and photons are passing through empty space all the time. There is flying approximately 65 bln of neutrinos (from Sun) per cm^2 area of Earth per second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Neutrinos and photons are passing through empty space all the time. There is flying approximately 65 bln of neutrinos (from Sun) per cm^2 area of Earth per second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 You have observation of this pair process? The effects of this process have been observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 The effects of this process have been observed. Intriguing, so these pairs appear then disappear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Intriguing, so these pairs appear then disappear? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Yes. ok, I assume though this could be the result of ''energy'' fields rather than of space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 ok, I assume though this could be the result of ''energy'' fields rather than of space? I don't know what being the "result" of space even means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 I don't know what being the "result" of space even means. Meaning space is a field according to some, I believe space is made of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Meaning space is a field according to some, I believe space is made of nothing. "According to some" - that's rather nebulous. Who, exactly? Nobody in this thread, AFAICT. Space is permeated by fields, but the repeated observation here is that space is not a thing, and so saying what it's made of is nonsensical. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 "According to some" - that's rather nebulous. Who, exactly? Nobody in this thread, AFAICT. Space is permeated by fields, but the repeated observation here is that space is not a thing, and so saying what it's made of is nonsensical. My apologies I have been 'mislead' and was arguing fields occupy space. Fyi you are also incorrect, space is something, it is space. Moontanman Genius Senior Members 9,532 posts LocationSouth Eastern North Carolina Posted 25 March 2017 - 06:09 PM JohnLesser, on 25 Mar 2017 - 3:56 PM, said: 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Fyi you are also incorrect, space is something, it is space. That's just a name, though. How much do you have when you have zero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 That's just a name, though. How much do you have when you have zero? I do not believe there could ever be 0 space, how can you think that space is nothing when the unique property of space is dimensions? I think space is made of 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I do not believe there could ever be 0 space, how can you think that space is nothing when the unique property of space is dimensions? So a physical object is not three-dimensional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 So a physical object is not three-dimensional? I think that might be a language problem. My guess is, he meant "the only property of space is dimensions" which, although oddly phrased, I think I would agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I think that might be a language problem. My guess is, he meant "the only property of space is dimensions" which, although oddly phrased, I think I would agree with. I probably would, too. But it's obviously not a property unique to space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 So a physical object is not three-dimensional? It's actually four dimensional , why would you think I said it was not? I probably would, too. But it's obviously not a property unique to space. An unique property of space, not to space. I think that might be a language problem. My guess is, he meant "the only property of space is dimensions" which, although oddly phrased, I think I would agree with. Well quite clearly you understood so the problem with understanding is not how I worded it. I think that might be a language problem. My guess is, he meant "the only property of space is dimensions" which, although oddly phrased, I think I would agree with. Thank you for your agreement, "the only property of space is dimensions" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Well quite clearly you understood so the problem with understanding is not how I worded it. I'm afraid I disagree. Your wording was very unclear I really wasn't sure I had guessed correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 If "things" have properties other than dimensions, then space is not a "thing" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 If "things" have properties other than dimensions, then space is not a "thing" If "things" have properties other than dimensions, then space is not a "thing" Something,anything, its seems you are in disagreement over definition rather than the observation. Do you not observe space ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Something,anything, its seems you are in disagreement over definition rather than the observation. Do you not observe space ? No, I have never observed space. The only way to personally observe it is to bounce a photon off of it. Can you bounce a photon off of space? Indirect observation methods involve similar procedures. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) No, I have never observed space. The only way to personally observe it is to bounce a photon off of it. Can you bounce a photon off of space? Indirect observation methods involve similar procedures. You don't need your eyes to observe space, do you have the ability to move freely? Photons can't bounce off nothing. Edited March 27, 2017 by JohnLesser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 You don't need your eyes to observe space, do you have the ability to move freely? Yes, to some extent, which is completely consistent with space not being a thing, especially one that restricts my movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLesser Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) Yes, to some extent, which is completely consistent with space not being a thing, especially one that restricts my movement. I never suggested space is a thing of physicality, but it is ''something'' of nothing , having dimensions but no physical body. Your yes answer confirming I and your relative observation of ''free'' space. How can empty space be a myth when we can imagine taking away everything we observe except the space? Edited March 27, 2017 by JohnLesser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) I'm hesitant to get back into this one, but I can't help noting other situations where we label physical things using coordinates. I can note that a hot object and a cold object have a "temperature separation," but I don't think that "the temperature scale" has an innate physical existence. Green and red are of different frequencies, but "the frequency scale" doesn't have an innate physical existence. Same with heavy and light objects re: "the weight scale," and so on. It really seems to me that spatial coordinates are just labels we give things that we've found useful. The difference is that we're our brains have a different way of presenting spatial separation. Our vision sense just "works in a different way" from our senses of touch or hearing. The things we perceive as "occupying space" have relationships amongst themselves which our senses have evolved to perceive, and our science has been developed to express. I think it's those relationships that are real, irrespective of the sensory structures and analytical tools we use in connection with them. "Empty space" is just what we perceive when there is nothing there to attach that range of coordinates to. It's a creation of our mind, tied tightly to the nature of vision, and it just so happens that our other senses don't operate in a way that gives us that same "it's there but empty" message. Please don't take this as denying the whole virtual particle thing - I'm very aware that we believe space is foaming everywhere with "events," but I'm not qualified to enter into that part of the discussion with you. Edited March 27, 2017 by KipIngram 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