Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: empty space??

  1. #1 empty space?? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    112
    There is no such thing as empty space.
    is that correct??

    no where is void of energy- light waves, gravity waves, neutrinos...
    Is that corect??

    Is it possible the largest volume of empty space is about the size of a photon or plank length cubed etc. A 3D area where criscrossing waves of energy have not penetrated???


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: empty space?? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by pedronaut
    There is no such thing as empty space.
    is that correct??

    no where is void of energy- light waves, gravity waves, neutrinos...
    Is that corect??

    Is it possible the largest volume of empty space is about the size of a photon or plank length cubed etc. A 3D area where criscrossing waves of energy have not penetrated???
    Implicitly, you assume that the space is autosimilar at all scales.
    This prejudice is a common place, but has never been experimentally validated.
    You presume that photons and neutrinos have a "corpuscular" character. It is commonly taught and believed, but has never been validated. Indeed it is much unvalidated...

    However, you have a bit of hope :
    Vatican is a large empty place, where the pope lives.
    An american schoolboy answered that to a science exam.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: empty space?? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Implicitly, you assume that the space is autosimilar at all scales.
    yeah implicitly maybe,
    with regard to 'our' scale of space, I'm guessing there is no such thing as empty space. I'm keen to get self righteous and pedantic the next time someone talks to me about empty space. So i wanted to check it here first.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    You presume that photons and neutrinos have a "corpuscular" character. It is commonly taught and believed, but has never been validated. Indeed it is much unvalidated...
    But not fully unvalidated. I'm still running with wave particle duality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: empty space?? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by pedronaut
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Implicitly, you assume that the space is autosimilar at all scales.
    yeah implicitly maybe,
    with regard to 'our' scale of space, I'm guessing there is no such thing as empty space. I'm keen to get self righteous and pedantic the next time someone talks to me about empty space. So i wanted to check it here first.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    You presume that photons and neutrinos have a "corpuscular" character. It is commonly taught and believed, but has never been validated. Indeed it is much unvalidated...
    But not fully unvalidated.
    Fully unvalidated.
    Quote Originally Posted by pedronaut
    I'm still running with wave particle duality.
    Folly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: empty space?? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Folly.
    How is wave particle duality "folly"? What about the photoelectric effect? De Broglie Electron Diffraction?

    Einstein's Photoelectric Equation



    De Broglie Wavelength of Electrons



    Edit : Removed error of using the reduced Planck's constant



    in equations instead of just Planck's constant; which it should've been.
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Holy duality and holy trinity, and augustinian science... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Folly.
    How is wave particle duality "folly"? What about the photoelectric effect? De Broglie Electron Diffraction?

    Einstein's Photoelectric Equation

    Extremely simple : exactly as emitters are subject to quantized conditions, between a stationnary state and a stationnary state, absorbers too, jump from a stationnary state to another stationnary state, when absorbing a quantum of action. As stated by Erwin Schrödinger in 1926, the frequency of the photon is exactly the difference of frequencies of the initial and the final state (receiver or emitter, the same laws of physics are relevant). Radio-electricians are very familiar with such beats, and changes of frequency, for instance in superheterodyne receivers.


    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    De Broglie Wavelength of Electrons

    Read the thread http://www.thescienceforum.com/Compt...ent-23279t.php. In 1927, Erwin Schrödinger could not do better than to miss the point, as the only equidistance he knew yet was twice the right equidistance for the Bragg law of diffraction. In 1930 he found the right equidistance, bot oddly enough nor himself nor anybody else completed the previous paper.

    Bad luck for everybody.

    The calculations are at
    http://deonto-ethics.org/mediawiki/i...Zitterbewegung
    Sorry, the text is in french.
    It seems I was the first, eighty years after.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: empty space?? 
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by pedronaut
    There is no such thing as empty space.
    is that correct??

    no where is void of energy- light waves, gravity waves, neutrinos...
    Is that corect??

    Is it possible the largest volume of empty space is about the size of a photon or plank length cubed etc. A 3D area where criscrossing waves of energy have not penetrated???
    It can be argued either way. It's unknown how big the universe really is, we don't know where, or even if, space ends.

    There is scale to be considered, there could for a moment be a small space, a Planck length or so, inside an atom, or out in the universe somewhere, that has no energy or mass content.

    The current theory of gravity is General Relativity. It involves the geometric warping of spacetime, and is not a quantum theory.

    You should ignore J.C. Lavau, as he seem's to have his own agenda to push.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Paranoia... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    You should ignore J.C. Lavau, as he seem's to have his own agenda to push.
    How old were you, when you began to behave in this paranoid custom ?
    Were you alone to evolve such way ?
    Was it a collective move ? Or did you join an already paranoiac group ?
    What were your benefits, so ?
    Will you encourage children to live in your paranoiac mood ? Will the benefits you expect balance the costs ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Paranoia... 
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    You should ignore J.C. Lavau, as he seem's to have his own agenda to push.
    How old were you, when you began to behave in this paranoid custom ?
    Were you alone to evolve such way ?
    Was it a collective move ? Or did you join an already paranoiac group ?
    What were your benefits, so ?
    Will you encourage children to live in your paranoiac mood ? Will the benefits you expect balance the costs ?
    Let's see here, you, J.C Lavau, are in disagreement with a planet full of professional physicists concerning a scientific concept that is applied daily on a planet wide scale in a wide range of successful technologies.
    Hmmm?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Paranoia... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    You should ignore J.C. Lavau, as he seem's to have his own agenda to push.
    How old were you, when you began to behave in this paranoid custom ?
    Were you alone to evolve such way ?
    Was it a collective move ? Or did you join an already paranoiac group ?
    What were your benefits, so ?
    Will you encourage children to live in your paranoiac mood ? Will the benefits you expect balance the costs ?
    Let's see here, you, J.C Lavau, are in disagreement with a planet full of professional physicists concerning a scientific concept that is applied daily on a planet wide scale in a wide range of successful technologies.
    Hmmm?
    Please feel free to be clear.
    What are the assumptions that you presume to be correct ?
    What are your reasons for presuming they are correct ?
    What are the assumptions that you presume to be wrong ?
    What are your reasons for presuming they are wrong ?

    Thank you for becoming clear, in the future.

    This is an elementary piece of respect for the readers and the contributers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,290
    @J.C. Lavau. Dude, get real. Your the one that came all jumping out with your pseudoscience. "Oh, but modern science is wrong. It is completely waves and not particles at all."
    Really, you need to go post that crap down in pseudo. In case you haven't noticed, this is the REAL physics section.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Paranoia... 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Please feel free to be clear.
    What are the assumptions that you presume to be correct ?
    What are your reasons for presuming they are correct ?
    What are the assumptions that you presume to be wrong ?
    What are your reasons for presuming they are wrong ?

    Thank you for becoming clear, in the future.

    This is an elementary piece of respect for the readers and the contributers.
    How about you take your own advice. Also, quit copy-pasting this every time someone calls you on your nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 splitting the vacuum in parts with fields in it, and parts w 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    @MagiMaster
    And concerning the subject of this thead, the dream of "pedronaut" of splitting the vacuum in parts with fields in it, and parts without fields, have you some ideas ?
    Please share them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If I had anything to contribute, I already would have. However, I can at least say that your interpretation of the original question is way off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 IgNobel prize ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    However, I can at least say that your interpretation of the original question is way off.
    Please feel free to prove your point.
    If you can prove that your superiority complex is founded on solid external facts, maybe you'll win an IgNobel prize !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    What are you talking about? I'm just saying you read the question wrong.

    pedronaut (why the quotes anyway?) never said anything about "splitting the vacuum." He asked whether or not the vacuum exists even when considering very small scales. I can't answer his question, which is why I haven't, but I can at least understand what he's asking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Use of subrepticious postulates. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    What are you talking about? I'm just saying you read the question wrong.

    pedronaut (why the quotes anyway?) never said anything about "splitting the vacuum." He asked whether or not the vacuum exists even when considering very small scales. I can't answer his question, which is why I haven't, but I can at least understand what he's asking.
    So "pedronaut" made use of two surrepticious postulates :

    1.
    • that he could subdivise the space ad infinitum, at some "very small scale".

    2.
    • That the photons and neutrinos should be "very small", so he could find a small bit of space without one of these corpuscles.


    These surrepticious postulates are not innocent ones.
    Their tacit acceptance is widespread, their experimental proofs are nowhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Photon's are massless and each photon is implicitly different to others.

    Neutrino's take up space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Fermions or bosons ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo
    each photon is implicitly different to others.
    If so, please explain how the astronomy with large base interferometers could be working at all.
    Fermions or bosons ?
    And how a laser could work at all ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Dust and perturbations in space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    I've got a laser and it won't do 40 yards. Let 400,000 yards?

    What is a reflection?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    What's the average density of the Ether?

    1.0 H atom per c/m?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 What is your background ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Please ! What is your level in physics ?
    What is your background ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    this is becomming a waste of good neurons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    And a waste of the Physics forum...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: What is your background ? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Please ! What is your level in physics ?
    What is your background ?
    What is yours psychologist ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: What is your background ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Please ! What is your level in physics ?
    What is your background ?
    What is yours psychologist ?
    Nothing at all is secret. All that is public knowledge, and I will not re-compile it again just for you, ō paranoiac !
    I am not hidden behind a pseudo... All is public.

    On the other side, I easily ascertain very serious lacunas with you. And I was not the first to note them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Re: Use of subrepticious postulates. 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    So "pedronaut" made use of two subrepticious postulates :

    1.
    • that he could subdivise the space ad infinitum, at some "very small scale".

    2.
    • That the photons and neutrinos should be "very small", so he could find a small bit of space without one of these corpuscles.


    These subrepticious postulates are not innocent ones.
    Their tacit acceptance is widespread, their experimental proofs are nowhere.
    Again with the quotes? What do you have against some people's usernames?

    Also, did you mean surreptitious?

    Anyway, both major theories of the universe, GR and QED treat space/spacetime as a continuum, and therefore infinitely subdivisible. You challenge me to provide proof of this, but in this case, you're the one proposing a change, so you need to provide proof of the opposite. Where's the proof that space isn't continuous?

    For #2, I'm not sure what alternative you're suggesting. Please don't hesitate to be clear.

    Finally, pedronaut isn't trying to find such a small bit of space. He's asking the community what current scientific understanding has to say about this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: What is your background ? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Please ! What is your level in physics ?
    What is your background ?
    What is yours psychologist ?
    Nothing at all is secret. All that is public knowledge, and I will not re-compile it again just for you, ō paranoiac !
    I am not hidden behind a pseudo... All is public.

    On the other side, I easily ascertain very serious lacunas with you. And I was not the first to note them.
    What is public knowledge is that you are a wacko with no claim to any real expertise in either physics or mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: Use of subrepticious postulates. 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Also, did you mean surreptitious?
    A "subreption" is a fallacious or deceptive representation, something with which Lavau is intimately acquainted -- a veritable expert.

    "Subrepticious" is of or relating to a subreption. In that context it is roughly synonymous with "clandestine" or "surreptitious".

    Lavau seems to delight in the camouflaging of lack of content through the use of flowery language. In other words "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Oh, what do you know. Google didn't seem to know anything about "Subrepticious", but I didn't think to stem it first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Oh, what do you know. Google didn't seem to know anything about "Subrepticious", but I didn't think to stem it first.
    It helps to own a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary (compact edition). Fortunately it comes with a good magnifying glass.

    What is truly ironic is the use of the term by Lavau, of all people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subreption
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: Use of surrepticious postulates. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    So "pedronaut" made use of two surrepticious postulates :

    1.
    • that he could subdivise the space ad infinitum, at some "very small scale".

    2.
    • That the photons and neutrinos should be "very small", so he could find a small bit of space without one of these corpuscles.


    These surrepticious postulates are not innocent ones.
    Their tacit acceptance is widespread, their experimental proofs are nowhere.
    ... did you mean surreptitious?
    Yes, sorry, there is a slipping in spelling from latin and french to english.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Anyway, both major theories of the universe, GR and QED treat space/spacetime as a continuum, and therefore infinitely subdivisible. You challenge me to provide proof of this, but in this case, you're the one proposing a change, so you need to provide proof of the opposite. Where's the proof that space isn't continuous?
    Please do not any more confuse continuity with separability.
    Non-separate domains remain continuous.

    The empirical and technological experience during thousands of years, was that we are so far from the atomic limit, that we will never reach it...
    All the geometry we have learned in the class-room remains based on this postulate : "We are so far from the atomic limit, that we will never reach it"...
    Hin hin !
    But in 1900 Max Planck bumped into this atomic limit which could not exist.
    This fact does not bother RR nor RG, as they were elaborated fully in the macroscopic world. They never treat the inside of atoms, and cannot.

    They are based mainly on the properties of light, provided the studied domain is not too big, not too small, compared with our hands. On the mechanical properties of our artefacts and familiar objects too, provided that they are not too big, and not too small...

    About the statistical emergence of our familiar macroscopic space, consult Roger Penrose :
    • Roger Penrose. Angular Momentum : an Approach to Combinatorial Space-Time. pp 151 - 180, in Quantum Theory and Beyond. Edited by T. Bastin. Cambridge University Press, 1971.

      Roger Penrose. Twistor theory, its aims and achievements. pp 268 - 407, in Quantum gravity, an Oxford Symposium. ed . by C.J. Isham, R. Penrose, D.W. Sciama. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1975.

      Roger Penrose. On the nature of Quantum Geometry. pp 333 - 354, in Magic without Magic : J. A. Wheeler, edited by J. R. Klander, Freeman 1972.


    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    For #2, I'm not sure what alternative you're suggesting. Please don't hesitate to be clear.
    Of course, in the macroscopic world, corpuscles and corpuscular things are easily postulated things. But if you think that at the quantic scale, some experiment that support this corpuscular ideation ever exists, please exhibit it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Can you get out from behind the flowery language and just say what you mean? Your english is obviously good enough to handle that. As it is, your previous post made no sense and in fact started to sound like buzz-talk (all buzz-words and no actual content).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Can you get out from behind the flowery language and just say what you mean? Your english is obviously good enough to handle that. As it is, your previous post made no sense and in fact started to sound like buzz-talk (all buzz-words and no actual content).
    precisely (bold added)

    No one, Roger Penrose included, has yet produced any viable geometric model for spacetime, at any scale, that is different from the usual model as a manifold in the usual sense. There have been attempts, none successful. That situation may change in the future, but the future is not the present.

    Lavau's entire post is nothing but flowery language and buzz words designed to deceive and create an impression of knowledge where none exists, a subreption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 The worst possible fork... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    As far as I knew, the Penrose's project has forked in the worst possible way : only between mathematicians, no more connections with the experimental ground, no more connections with the potential users...
    Roger Penrose himself has commuted from where he had competences to where he has no more.
    This pityful involution does not imply that the first works were bad, does not imply anything about the beginnings.
    Life - and even the development of science - is more complex than the words and rumors we put on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •