as i am new to this forum hi everyone, i have a question.

it seems that SPACE has properties, it can be distorted by gravity,and recently discovered frame dragging,it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance,

if this is correct then discribing space as the" vacuum" cannot be correct so what is it????

cheers.

Background microwave radiation, neutrino background

Originally posted by wolram

it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance...

 

If space has capacitance, does it have leading time, and when space has inductance, does it have lagging time?

 

 

Sorry, bad electrical engineering joke! :lame:

Spacetime is just the gravitational field. A vacuum in that case, would be devoid of energy but is not the nothingness people usually think space is.

Originally posted by Clown

Spacetime is just the gravitational field. A vacuum in that case, would be devoid of energy but is not the nothingness people usually think space is.

 

It's not devoid of energy ('zero point energy')

Yes, QM forbids any such concept. But the point is that even if it were possible (as that is the classic definition) it wouldn't make the vacuum any less of a thing.

Originally posted by Clown

Yes, QM forbids any such concept. But the point is that even if it were possible (as that is the classic definition) it wouldn't make the vacuum any less of a thing.

 

Whut?

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Whut?

He means a vacuum isn't null.

 

In the vast majority of cases I'd imagine that's true.

Yes, read about fields.

Originally posted by Clown

Yes, read about fields.

 

They didn't exist in Newtonian physics

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

They didn't exist in Newtonian physics

I was thinking more along the lines of photons, gamma, and of course space.

Originally posted by Sayonara³

I was thinking more along the lines of photons, gamma, and of course space.

 

Gamma are photons?

Me in "being thorough" shocker

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

They didn't exist in Newtonian physics

 

Welcome to modern physics.

Originally posted by Clown

 

Welcome to modern physics.

 

If we're talking modern physics, then 'zero point energy'.

 

Anyway, what if the vacuum's full of phlogiston?

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

Anyway, what if the vacuum's full of phlogiston?

 

is that a sort of toothpaste?

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

is that a sort of toothpaste?

 

Yes, with tartar control!

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

If we're talking modern physics, then 'zero point energy'.

 

 

I'm only talking about definitions here. Classically, a vacuum is just a region devoid of matter/energy. The gravitational field doesn't change that, and it's just QM that prevents this perfect vacuum from being attainable.

Albert Einstein clarified the position of Relativity in regards to nature of the vacuo for the third time in this transcript of a 1920 paper delivered to the University of Leydon.

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

 

An excellent, simple explaination of space-time, as understood at this time within established physics can be found here:

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/st101.html

 

All youthful imagination aside, it would be utterly incorrect in physics theorum to describe 'space' as a vacuum, devoid of matter and dynamic in any context other than relative to humans considering EVA.

Although a weak-force, according to physics space-time itself is most certainly a dynamic and yes, its physical composition would be the "gas of diffuse photons" which comprise the CBR.

 

According to astrophysicists published in England's New Scientist journal, the correct definition of space is a plasma. This is also my position on the matter.

According to every physicist from Newton to Einstein inclusive and their contemporaries, including Max Planck whether considered the vacuo nevertheless time-space is an ether.

Only among students, journalists and hobbyists is space considered a vacuum. What I find curious is the henceforth properties then attributed to it without the individual process of arriving at logical conclusion.

 

Come on...you know who you are.

I was under the impression that the concept of space being a 'vacuum' derived from the idea that the matter it contains is so massively dwarfed by the volume of the universe, that the universe effectively adopts a density that is infinitely close to zero.

 

The fact that we can see stars is a good indication that, as a whole, it's not a vacuum in the truest sense.

and in addition to Sayos argument, the fact that we can see stars is also a clear indication that "Space" is largley void of particulate matter, a single spec of dust from every 10 kms would render even our nearest neighboring star 4.7 light years away, invisible

So if you could vacuum up all the interstellar dust, we'd have quite a spectacular view

I was under the impression that the concept of space being a 'vacuum' derived from the idea that the matter it contains is so massively dwarfed by the volume of the universe, that the universe effectively adopts a density that is infinitely close to zero.

 

The fact that we can see stars is a good indication that, as a whole, it's not a vacuum in the truest sense.

 

Since space-time is a body sir, were the universe 100 billion light-years across its relative density would be incomprehensibly positive.

However I fully appreciate your position that water-ice is cold to the touch and a day of 30 degrees celcius is rather warm indeed.

 

However it is a standing which does not account for herefore unattributed dynamics of space-time in a physical sense.

 

I refer you to the original topic posting:

as i am new to this forum hi everyone, i have a question.

it seems that SPACE has properties, it can be distorted by gravity,and recently discovered frame dragging,it also has the properties of capacitance, inductance and impedance,

if this is correct then discribing space as the" vacuum" cannot be correct so what is it????

If you weren't so busy flicking through your thesaurus you'd have seen I was not aligning myself with the concept, but explaining where it came from.

then sir, allow me to quote from an Oxford Dictionary.

 

"Vac`uum [.yoom] n. place , region containing no matter and from which all air, gas has been removed."

 

your call