June 18th, 2011, 01:46 PM
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???
June 19th, 2011, 04:50 AM
Implicitly, you assume that the space is autosimilar at all scales.Originally Posted by pedronaut
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 :
An american schoolboy answered that to a science exam.Vatican is a large empty place, where the pope lives.
June 19th, 2011, 08:33 AM
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.
But not fully unvalidated. I'm still running with wave particle duality.
June 19th, 2011, 10:08 AM
Fully unvalidated.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.
But not fully unvalidated.
Folly.
June 19th, 2011, 10:16 AM
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.
June 19th, 2011, 11:11 AM
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.How is wave particle duality "folly"? What about the photoelectric effect? De Broglie Electron Diffraction?
Einstein's Photoelectric Equation
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.De Broglie Wavelength of Electrons
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.
June 19th, 2011, 01:13 PM
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.
June 19th, 2011, 03:26 PM
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 ?
June 19th, 2011, 04:28 PM
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.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 ?
Hmmm?
June 19th, 2011, 05:01 PM
Please feel free to be clear.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.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 ?
Hmmm?
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.
@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.
June 20th, 2011, 03:50 PM
How about you take your own advice. Also, quit copy-pasting this every time someone calls you on your nonsense.
June 20th, 2011, 04:34 PM
@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.
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.
June 21st, 2011, 01:47 AM
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 !
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.
June 21st, 2011, 04:20 AM
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.
Photon's are massless and each photon is implicitly different to others.
Neutrino's take up space.
June 21st, 2011, 06:19 AM
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 ?
Dust and perturbations in space.
I've got a laser and it won't do 40 yards. Let 400,000 yards?
What is a reflection?
What's the average density of the Ether?
1.0 H atom per c/m?
June 21st, 2011, 06:37 AM
Please ! What is your level in physics ?
What is your background ?
this is becomming a waste of good neurons
And a waste of the Physics forum...
June 21st, 2011, 01:44 PM
What is yours psychologist ?
June 21st, 2011, 02:45 PM
Nothing at all is secret. All that is public knowledge, and I will not re-compile it again just for you, ô paranoiac !What is yours psychologist ?
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.
June 21st, 2011, 04:30 PM
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.
June 21st, 2011, 07:43 PM
What is public knowledge is that you are a wacko with no claim to any real expertise in either physics or mathematics.Nothing at all is secret. All that is public knowledge, and I will not re-compile it again just for you, ô paranoiac !What is yours psychologist ?
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.
June 21st, 2011, 08:11 PM
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."
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
June 22nd, 2011, 02:50 AM
Yes, sorry, there is a slipping in spelling from latin and french to english.... did you mean surreptitious?
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.
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.
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.
June 22nd, 2011, 12:47 PM
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.
| « Is there a known particle that is responsible for gravity. | Darkness » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
