Sign in to follow this  
Sunnyjosan

Hypothetically, can empty space “slice” through a solid object

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this makes sense, but I’ll just have a go at explaining it.

Just bear with me.

 

So out of curiousity: since all solids are compiled of clusters of atoms, then hypothetically speaking, will there always be empty gaps in any solid structure that would allow a hypothetical “string” of empty space to pass through it?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sunnyjosan said:

Not sure if this makes sense, but I’ll just have a go at explaining it.

Just bear with me.

 

So out of curiousity: since all solids are compiled of clusters of atoms, then hypothetically speaking, will there always be empty gaps in any solid structure that would allow a hypothetical “string” of empty space to pass through it?

 

 

 

The idea of something being 'solid' is a property of our macro-world i.e. the big stuff larger than atoms and molecules. It's the repulsive effect between the outer electrons of each atom (like charges repel) that gives us this feeling of something being solid and impenetrable. When we look more microscopically, at the components of atoms, they become composed of fields with various properties that have no sense of substance we can associate in our macro-world; they are, in effect, materially empty space. If you look at it like this, space pervades continuously through all things. You aren't far wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sunnyjosan said:

Not sure if this makes sense, but I’ll just have a go at explaining it.

Just bear with me.

 

So out of curiousity: since all solids are compiled of clusters of atoms, then hypothetically speaking, will there always be empty gaps in any solid structure that would allow a hypothetical “string” of empty space to pass through it?

 

 

 

Perhaps the best way to answer your question, would be that if a gravitational wave passed through or over you, you would elongate and stretch in line with the peak and trough of that gravitational wave. The examples of gravitational waves so far that we have discovered, are actually microscopically small so the effect is negligible. 

This short 7.5 minute video may also help to visualise and answer your question for you....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Note at the 4 m. 30 sec mark and the 5m 10 sec mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to quote a section from an article entitled "The Standard Model of particle physics" by Uwe-Jens Weise. I always liked his writing style and have studied numerous of his papers. However that aside he has an excellent section on this on pages 16 and 17

Quote

 Unfortunately, in our casual language the term “particle” is associated with the idea of a point-like object, which is not what a photon is like. Frank Wilczek’s term “wavicle” serves its purpose when it prevents us from thinking of a photon as a tiny billiard ball. At the end, only mathematics provides an appropriate and accurate description of “particles” like the photon. In themathematics of quantum field theory, particle-wave duality reduces to the fact that “particles” actually are “wavicles”, i.e. quantized wave excitations of fields.


When Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac discovered his relativistic equation for the electron in 1928, the 4-component Dirac spinor was initially interpreted as the wave function of an electron or positron with spin up or down. However, due to electron-positron pair creation, it turned out that the Dirac equation does not have a consistent single-particle interpretation. In fact, the Dirac spinor is not a wave function at all, but a fermionic field whose quantized wave excitations manifest themselves as electrons and positrons. In other words, not only photons but all elementary “particles” are, in fact, wavicles. When the Dirac field is coupled to the electromagnetic field one arrives at Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), whose construction was pioneered by Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger, and SinItiro Tomonaga. QED is an integral part of the Standard Model in which all elementary “particles”, including quarks, leptons, and Higgs particles, are quantized wave excitations of the corresponding quark, lepton, and Higgs fields. Unlike point particles, quark, lepton, and Higgs fields can interact directly in a relativistic manner, even without the mediation by gauge fields.
Although in the Standard Model all “particles” are, in fact, wavicles, one often reads that quarks or electrons are “point-like” objects. What can this possibly mean for a wavicle that does not even have a well-defined position in space? Again, this is a deficiency of our casual language, which is properly resolved by the unambiguous mathematics of quantum field theory. What the above statement actually means is that even the highest energy experiments have, at least until now, not revealed any substructure of quarks or electrons, i.e. they seem truly elementary. The same is not true for protons or neutrons, which actually consist of quarks and gluons. Interestingly, while being “point-like” in the above sense, an electron is at the same time infinitely extended. This is because electrons are charged “particles” which are surrounded by a Coulomb field that extends to infinity. In reality, this field is usually screened by other positive charges in the vicinity of the electron.
This discussion should have convinced the reader that particle physics is not at all concerned with point particles. Perhaps it should better be called “wavicle physics”. However, as long as we are aware that our casual language is not sufficiently precise in this respect, the nomenclature is secondary. In the mathematics of quantum field theory, all “particles” are indeed quantized waves.

Here is the article.

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/standard.pdf

lol I just came across it looking for a decent reference. So now I am going to study this document myself :P

(its always a good practice to keep studying regardless of how well one already knows a given subject ) much as my wife hates it lol. As an aside benefit it helps me find better ways to assist in explaining physics to others (one of the talents the Author has in his writing style)

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019 at 9:24 PM, StringJunky said:

The idea of something being 'solid' is a property of our macro-world i.e. the big stuff larger than atoms and molecules. It's the repulsive effect between the outer electrons of each atom (like charges repel) that gives us this feeling of something being solid and impenetrable. When we look more microscopically, at the components of atoms, they become composed of fields with various properties that have no sense of substance we can associate in our macro-world; they are, in effect, materially empty space. If you look at it like this, space pervades continuously through all things. You aren't far wrong.

 

this answer both frightens me and excites my curiosity all at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ALine said:

this answer both frightens me and excites my curiosity all at the same time.

Yes, it can rather push you out of your comfort zone. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this