rigney Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Is vacuum a physical thing, or a condition in which our universe began? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 An absolute vacuum would be completely empty space, so not really a physicsl thing (more the total absence of physical things) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 A volume of space that is totally devoid of any matter would be an absolute vacuum, complete and totally empty space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 An absolute vacuum would be completely empty space, so not really a physicsl thing (more the total absence of physical things) If space has no physical attributes, why should it be there at all? A volume of space that is totally devoid of any matter would be an absolute vacuum, complete and totally empty space. Tell me, is space; even wihout having matter in it, not something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 An absolute vacuum would be completely empty space, so not really a physicsl thing (more the total absence of physical things) A useful idealization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) . Edited January 23, 2012 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If space has no physical attributes, why should it be there at all? It has physical attributes, it has volume. Tell me, is space; even wihout having matter in it, not something? That depends on who you ask. Philosophers have long debated that question. For me, it is a volume of nothing. That response kind of raises another question for me though. I'm wondering now, if I had a transparent, hollow sphere that had been totally evacuated of all matter I would have a container full of space at an absolute vacuum. Now, if I pass light, i.e. photons, through that sphere is it still an absolute vacuum inside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Tell me, is space; even wihout having matter in it, not something? Define "something". "Something" is not a scientific term. You are going down a path to philosophy, and you find no answers on that path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If space has no physical attributes, why should it be there at all? Imagine a sealed box with a ball inside, you pump out every bit of matter apart from the ball So you have a vacuum chamber with a ball inside. If you were to shake the box around you would see that the ball is able to move freely around the space. So the space is still there - How could you possibly remove the space?? Although, an "absolute" vacuum as you've described would be very hard to create and would also be unstable. That's where you get virtual particles messing up your nice tidy vacuum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Tell me, is space; even wihout having matter in it, not something? Space is not matter. It is something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Space is not matter. It is something else. Space is where you put your matter. Without space there'd be nowhere to put anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 Imagine a sealed box with a ball inside, you pump out every bit of matter apart from the ball So you have a vacuum chamber with a ball inside. If you were to shake the box around you would see that the ball is able to move freely around the space. So the space is still there - How could you possibly remove the space?? Although, an "absolute" vacuum as you've described would be very hard to create and would also be unstable. That's where you get virtual particles messing up your nice tidy vacuum Even without virtual particles, space itself is physical. A vacuum pump powerful enough to evacuate all space from within a chamber will collapse the chamber. Same as for a paper bag or an entire universe. If a singularity was arguably responsible for the unfurling of this universe, there must have been a tremendous vacuum capable of drawing it all down to a size less than an atom?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJ Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Define "something". "Something" is not a scientific term. You are going down a path to philosophy, and you find no answers on that path. Well, actually you do. The idea of 'Nothing' and 'Something' work no better in philosophy than in physics. That's why the Something-Nothing question of cosmogony is an intellectual dilemma. The brains of philosophers are no different to those of physicists, and to say that logic produces no answers is to throw away your reason. Yes. a lot of philosophy is pointless or badly done, but so is a lot of physics and many other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Define "something". "Something" is not a scientific term. You are going down a path to philosophy, and you find no answers on that path. Quite right. Space is a specific entity just as are atoms and their sub-particles. Only difference is, we know quite a bit about the physical sciences, but little about this unphysical aspect of the universe; other than space is there. Believe me though, philosophy goes back much farther than the test tube or telescope. Edited January 23, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Define "something". "Something" is not a scientific term. You are going down a path to philosophy, and you find no answers on that path. After looking at a few essays I found that some scientists and physicists actually do rely on the word "something" from time to time. The following link about the dynamics of physical ether was interesting. http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Even without virtual particles, space itself is physical. A vacuum pump powerful enough to evacuate all space from within a chamber will collapse the chamber. Same as for a paper bag or an entire universe. If a singularity was arguably responsible for the unfurling of this universe, there must have been a tremendous vacuum capable of drawing it all down to a size less than an atom?? You're confusing space with atmospheric pressure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 After looking at a few essays I found that some scientists and physicists actually do rely on the word "something" from time to time. The following link about the dynamics of physical ether was interesting. http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm That is crackpot, end to end. You need to watch what you read on the internet. Not taking care might steer you down the road to crackpotism. You really don't want to follow that road, do you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) That is crackpot, end to end. You need to watch what you read on the internet. Not taking care might steer you down the road to crackpotism. You really don't want to follow that road, do you? Don't know! Please define crackpot, end to end? I read just about everything to be found on the internet. Not saying everything is truth. but some of these quotes are from papers written by very distinguished scientists and physicists. Should I disregard their years of research and dedication as "crackpottery"? Edited January 24, 2012 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinW Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) A perfect vacuum would still be something. It would have pressure and potential energy. Some have talked about the possibility that the big bang was created from a perfect vacuum. But to say that space when void of matter, creating a perfect vacuum, is nothing would be incorrect. The fact is that there will never be a perfect vacuum since it is theoretically impossible to remove all matter from space.But to answer the OP, vacuum in itself is a physical thing in as much as gravity is. Invisible, yet the force can be felt and the effect can be measured. Edited January 24, 2012 by JustinW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 You're confusing space with atmospheric pressure No, I believe it's a matter of semantics. Pressure is pressure and vacuum is vacuum regardless of where the experiment is taking place. Atmospheric or barometric pressure is calculated to give you the varying degrees of vacuum or pressure we live in here on earth or in atmospheric flight. Outside that zone nothing changes, other than the scale used to calculate such change. I ask, would a container pressurized to 1 ccm here on earth, show the same reading when arriving on the moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 No, I believe it's a matter of semantics. Pressure is pressure and vacuum is vacuum regardless of where the experiment is taking place. Atmospheric or barometric pressure is calculated to give you the varying degrees of vacuum or pressure we live in here on earth or in atmospheric flight. Outside that zone nothing changes, other than the scale used to calculate such change. I ask, would a container pressurized to 1 ccm here on earth, show the same reading when arriving on the moon? Even without virtual particles, space itself is physical. A vacuum pump powerful enough to evacuate all space from within a chamber will collapse the chamber. What I'm saying here is that the effect you see collapsing the the chamber is not the removal of space but the difference in pressure between the inside and outside. The chamber is crushed by the weight of pressure outside it, not from the "removal of space" within How can you remove space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 What I'm saying here is that the effect you see collapsing the the chamber is not the removal of space but the difference in pressure between the inside and outside. The chamber is crushed by the weight of pressure outside it, not from the "removal of space" within How can you remove space? I only asked a question about the physical change of pressure or vacuum on the container, not whether it would implode or explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I only asked a question about the physical change of pressure or vacuum on the container, not whether it would implode or explode. Yes, but you were saying that space is a physical thing and that its removal would cause the chamber to collapse. I was merely pointing out that this is not the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Don't know! Please define crackpot, end to end? I read just about everything to be found on the internet. Not saying everything is truth. but some of these quotes are from papers written by very distinguished scientists and physicists. Should I disregard their years of research and dedication as "crackpottery"? From the first page of the linked article The Early Years In 1768, Christian Huygens published a treatise on light which laid the foundation for what would eventually be called the undulatory wave theory. Although Huygens' work was well founded and explained, Isaac Newton made no attempt to address the questions raised by Huygens, choosing to ignore him entirely. As is usually the case, the theory proposed by the man with the big reputation eclipsed the other and Huygens' superior theory was discarded by the majority. In 1768 ... Newton made no attempt. Not surprising as he had been dead for nearly 40 years - but even more amazing was that Huuygens was publishing 73 years after he had died. If they can make typos like the above howler then frankly I do not think the years of research and dedication have paid off. Newton believed and argued that he did not need to explain Huygens work as his own was based on experiment and Huygens he claimed was not - it was many years later that Young developed an experiment and technique to show the wave characteristics of light. Edited January 24, 2012 by imatfaal 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Yes, but you were saying that space is a physical thing and that its removal would cause the chamber to collapse. I was merely pointing out that this is not the case [/Quote]For good, bad or whatever, space is a physical entity, and regardless of where in the universe such an evacuation takes place, at some point, the container will collapse. Edited January 24, 2012 by swansont fix quote tag 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