Jump to content


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About blaile

  • Rank
  1. i have a question... maybe im just crazy, and i have no basis for this quesiton. i have no idea. 8 different physics teachers i have emailed. and nobody believes that i can be right, or they have never answered back: In science, a vacuum is hated by nature. A true vacuum is perfect nothing. Why we're able to talk about true vacuums if they aren't actually anything is a good philosophy question to bring up next time you're at a party. Scientists have decided that it is impossible to create a true vacuum. First, we can't seem to get rid of every single atom from a jar no matter how hard we try. The fact that energy and mass are equivalent doesn't help. Energy can still get into the best container, so even a jar that has no atoms or subatomic particles still isn't a vacuum because of all the energy flying through it. Quantum mechanics also won't allow a perfect vacuum, because the walls of a vacuum chamber emit blackbody radiation (energy) if they aren't at absolute zero and the uncertainty principle prevents any space from being without any sort of matter. Partial vacuums, which have some matter and energy and do exist in the real world, are often called vacuums though. For example, there is an interstellar medium between stars, but we can functionally call it a vacuum. (from http://www.slackerastronomy.org/slackerpedia/index.php/Vacuum) It means we can define a quantity c, the speed of light, which is a fundamental constant of nature. (from an einstein site: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html) now if i got my physics lessons right... i thought that: 1) everything had mass, even energy and particles, for anything with no mass is non existent, 2)nothing with mass can move the speed of light, 3) we measured the speed of light in a true vacuum, and 4) we measure things that move faster than light thru an object (such as fake, manamde elements).... now somebody correct me... if its true that everything that has mass cannot reach the speed of light, and EVERYTHING, INCLUDING PARTICLES (this would include LIGHT particles) has mass, how can light particles be going the speed of light if its physicaly impossible for anything with mass to do so? also, if einstein said it can be measured in a true vacuum (again, correct me if im wrong) but a true vacuum is impossible.... how can we accuratley measure the speed of light if particles cant go the speed of light without being in a paradoxical situation ( a true vacuum that can never exist)? finaly... since i got on the topic of false vacuums, it IS physicaly impossible to create one, (if you dont get it look at 2nd section of post)and since it is impossible i restate my question: how can we create a true vacuum (impossible), with something that has mass(that cannot go the speed of light) and go the speed of light (thus a paradox) to accuratly measure the speed of light? can someone help me with this conundrum? i have asked my teachers since freshmen high school, and i have gotten the same answer: einstien cant be wrong.... now i didnt get good grades in physics, but this seems to be a very valid and simple question.. when i brought it up with my fellow classmates, they said it seems like a very obvious flaw, if you seriously think about it. so can i please PLEASE get an explanation (not claiming to be an expert, just confused)
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.