Smaller particles between the air molecules?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter theriddler876
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Air Molecules Particles
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "nothing" in the context of physical space, particularly focusing on whether smaller particles can exist between air molecules and the implications of having "nothing" in a physical sense. The scope includes philosophical considerations, theoretical implications, and interpretations of physical principles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the existence of "nothing" by suggesting that smaller particles could exist between air molecules, proposing an infinite divisibility of matter.
  • Another participant mentions the presence of 'virtual' particles in empty space, referencing the Uncertainty Principle to argue that true "nothing" cannot exist.
  • A different viewpoint states that while weak electromagnetic fields exist between molecules, there are typically no other particles present.
  • One participant argues that all sensed things exist to some degree, implying that "nothing" is merely a concept that cannot be fully realized in physical terms.
  • Another participant asserts that "nothing" can exist, contrasting physics' empirical approach with philosophical considerations, suggesting that this misunderstanding hinders progress in theoretical physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of "nothing" and the existence of smaller particles, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various physical principles and philosophical implications, but the discussion lacks clarity on definitions of "nothing" and the assumptions underlying their claims.

theriddler876
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
can you really have nothing, for example you have two balls one meter appart, you can say that there is nothing between them, however there are air molecules between them right, well couln't there be other smaller particles between the air molecules? and then smaller particles between those, in such a fashion that could go on forever, so how can nothing exsist?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are many 'virtual' particles popping in and out of existence, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principal, in any 'empty' space. So no, you can't have 'nothing'.
 
There exist weak electromagnetic and other fields between the molecules, but usually no other particles.
 
When you think of something that is matter, you can use induction to imply it is infinite. Meaning, that is has not end, it is infinitely divisible, which is to only say it exists really. You cannot think about it, if it is not sensed, therefore all things sensed direct or indirectly exist to some probability of accuracy.

Space is only understood in light of things that do exist. Nothing, therefore, is always something. It's just a bit imaginately smaller than most things.
 
Actually YOU can have nothing. Physics on the other hand sticks to what it can test and thus doesn't allow it. I think that kind of ignorant thought is what's kept us, and is still keeping us, from finding the U.F.T.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K