- #36
Gfellow
- 63
- 0
pallidin said:
Not necessarily the best source, but for general uncontroversial information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles#Manifestations"...
Last edited by a moderator:
In summary, the distance between two atoms where nothing exists, no atoms or subatomic particles, is not 'absolute' because there are virtual particles that pervade all of space.
Not necessarily the best source, but for general uncontroversial information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles#Manifestations"...
- #37
pallidin
- 2,209
- 2
Gfellow said:
I understand what that article says, BUT, be careful with interpretation. If you look at that long and well written list of "manifestations" you will note that the virtual particles THEMSELVES are not being detected.
If you at the beginning of the WIKI you will read:
"If a single particle is detected, then the consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a degree that it cannot be virtual."
That's my only point. I do believe in virtual particles to be sure, I just feel current technology in unable to acutally detect them whilst remaining virtual.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #38
Gfellow
- 63
- 0
...and that's the thrust of my cautionary previous comment: This is a realm where hard observations are few and where every musing needs be qualified so that the reader understands that much of what we talk about here is speculation.pallidin said:
One may believe that virtual particles may be possible, but - as you point out - there is more faith here than substance, which - as I think about it - is a little ironic, considering that we are discussing is the possibility of nothing.
- So I guess the thrust of my thought here is that when discussing the subject of absolute vacuums, we must keep an open mind, mull over the possibilities; trying to stick to what data there is without becoming too dogmatic.
That said, I came across an interesting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea", "Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?"
A well-written brief summery. Gordon Kane, as with many of his contemporaries places his faith in quantum mechanics with considerable justification by virtue of the fact that it has demonstrated functionality in the empirical world, and that's all good.
Imagine for a moment, god-like creatures looking down upon the Earth, creatures who's time consciousness is accelerated, so that to them our 24 hour day was no longer than that of a heart beat. They might view these glowing cities that spread over our planet as mere crystals, and could justifiably make quanta predictions on the sustainability their growth, based on the lub-dub of their pulsations: five beats caused by our 9-5 traffic, with the two pulse pause created by our weekend.
To these gods, the business of individuals could only be resolved by their mass movement along roads and freeways and the gods might - correctly so - speculate that this flow could be considered as discrete packets of mass/energy.
As with quanta mechanics, the model is limited by the belief that the only important factor is what the bulk of the packets are doing at any given moment...but you and I know that other factors are in play. Between the 9 to 5 lub-dub of our traffic flow, during the dead of night sanitation workers and vital resources that make a city run are in play. These are errant particles that quantum mechanics do not account for and consequently these gods only have a stilted picture of the actual reality.
In my opinion, this is a problem that the 21Century physics have to come to terms with. Quantum mechanics is an artificial overlay of reality, and it may well be that vital forces of nature are being overlooked because of the faith we have placed in our statistical calculations.
pallidin, you may possibly feel that I have wondered away from the thread of the topic, but I felt it was important to impart my subjective overview, so as to minimize misunderstandings in whatever further discussion we might have about absolute vacuums. Don't get me wrong; I am a firm believer in the empirical, in scientific method. However, on this topic I believe it is important for us to play in the sandbox of possibilities and see if we can uncover concepts and notions hitherto unthought of.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #39
pallidin
- 2,209
- 2
Gfellow said:
Not sure to what extent this is allowed in this particular sub-forum, but I will say that that was a most excellent statement by you! Nice!
- #40
diazona
Homework Helper
- 2,176
- 8
Technically that's true, it is important to keep an open mind, but too many people use that sort of statement to try to say that whatever crazy idea they come up with deserves recognition from the scientific community, which is why we tend to be wary of it. The fact is, most of these concepts and notions people come up with (and not just "regular people," but experienced scientists too) are either provably wrong or useless. It's important to be able to recognize when a new idea constitutes a real scientific advance and when it's just speculation. Most of this "absolute vacuum" stuff doesn't really connect to any experimental result, which (at least for now) puts it in the speculation category.Gfellow said:
- #41
Gfellow
- 63
- 0
In complete concurrence diazona. I am of the firm conviction that if one wishes to espouse an untested idea, it ought to be offered with a thumbnail prediction of either a hitherto unobserved natural phenomenon or/and include an overview of a proposed laboratory experiment.diazona said:
Last edited:
- #42
Gfellow
- 63
- 0
Quite right, palladin, and I apologize. I got quite ahead of myself, it was an entirely inappropriate thread for my posting.pallidin said:
I'll give you just ten minutes to stop that!
Similar threads
-
Other Physics Topics
-
Other Physics Topics
-
Other Physics Topics
-
Other Physics Topics
-
Quantum Physics
-
Other Physics Topics
-
Other Physics Topics