Does Vacuum Really Exist or Is It Just an Illusion?

[Zaimeen]

Question about Vacuum !

I am having this doubt in my head that the existence of the so called "vacuum" doesn't actually exist...

But, I would like to know what are the views of everyone about this entity. Does everyone believe that "empty space" (vacuum) actually exists?

I've been thinking of the movement of gravity and EM waves, and I'm having the notion that there must be some medium for them to move across.

 

[quasar987]

Yeeeesss, let's call this medium "Ether", what do you say?




(http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html)

 

[vincentchan]

Ether? DID YOU NOT STUDY SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

 

[Zaimeen]

It's true that "empty space" doesn't exist. Well, another area of study!

 

[quasar987]

"In 1887, a crucial experiment was performed by Michelson and Edward Morley in an attempt to detect the existence of the ether. The experiment, named the Michelson-Morley experiment in honor of its authors, shocked the scientific community by yielding results which implied the non-existence of ether. This result was later on used by Einstein to refute the existence of the ether and allowed him to develop special relativity without this artificial (and non-existent) constraint." (From physicsword)

Scientists nowdays think empty space exists. Me, I don't know, but I'll thrust them for now.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

space is not empty. the ether exists. i don't care what anyone says. scientists make flaws all the time. two of the biggest flaws are special relativity and general relativity. Newtons laws are in close second.

 

[dextercioby]

I agree,the space is not empty.It's filled with vacuum fluctuations of the quantum fields,electromagnetic (see Casimir effect),gravitational...

There's no such thing as vacuum.I always write this word 'vacuum'.

Daniel.

PS.The "ether" exists:etilic ether,metilic ether,etil-metil-ether,dimetil-ether...

 

[Zaimeen]

p53ud0 dr34m5 , how do you know that scientists make flaws?

 

[marlon]

ZAIMEEN

Check out this thread :

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=59103

marlon

 

[marlon]

I agree,the space is not empty.It's filled with vacuum fluctuations of the quantum fields,electromagnetic

This is incorrect. The fluctuations are the elementary particles at hand...

The vacuum is filled with virtual particles because of the fact that QFT = QM + special relativity. They exist because we can use E=mc² and Heisenberg uncertainty at once...we can combine them. The Casimir-effect shiws the existence of such virtual particles.

Don't think that these virtual particles are fluctuations of quantumfields...that is untrue. Besides you shouldn't have included gravity here because this is far too speculative and certainly no part of QFT.


marlon

 

[Zaimeen]

Thanks marlon.

So marlon, how do you explain the movement of gravity in space?

 

[marlon]

Thanks marlon.

So marlon, how do you explain the movement of gravity in space?

What do you mean ? How does gravity move. Curvature of spacetime ONLY occurs at the position of the object with mass M. There is NO action at a distance here because all is given in terms of fields...

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

well fields, manifolds that is

marlon

 

[Zaimeen]

So, what about the movement of EM waves? How do you explain there movement in space?

 

[dextercioby]

So, what about the movement of EM waves? How do you explain there movement in space?

By using the famous Maxwell equations.Their interpretation reads:a time-depending electric field will generate a time dependent magnetic field which in turn generates a time depending electric field and so on...To show that these fields really propagate (under the form of waves),u need to solve these equations.Not an easy task at HS level.

Daniel.

 

[Zaimeen]

Alright Dex, merci pour l'information mon ami!

 

[marlon]

So, what about the movement of EM waves? How do you explain there movement in space?

Em-waves move at the speed of light. You know that EM waves can also be described in terms of photons of various energies, photons always move at the speed of light. This is also consistent with the "local action" of such processes that justify the use of fields for these concepts. The dynamics of EM-waves is governed by the Maxwell-equations.

regards
marlon

ps if you want to know more on fields, just check out my journal and goto the "WHY FIELDS ARE USED"-entry. I don't know what page it is but you will find it there

 

[Zaimeen]

Thanks marlon. I'll check out your journal.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

Zamieen, its obvious that scientists make flaws in their attempts to explain what they are unable to explain. I am sure if you took a good look at the standard model, you would notice an array of flaws. the only thing the standard model is consistent with are flaws. i just like to rant in a nonsensical manner. everything is just so simple; yet, scientists complicate it with irrational claims.

 

[dextercioby]

Zamieen, its obvious that scientists make flaws in their attempts to explain what they are unable to explain. I am sure if you took a good look at the standard model, you would notice an array of flaws. the only thing the standard model is consistent with are flaws. i just like to rant in a nonsensical manner. everything is just so simple; yet, scientists complicate it with irrational claims.

Please,feel free to tell us what is "standard model" (N.B.incomplete name) full of flaws...

Daniel.

PS.Guys,if he answers,mode this thread to "Theory Subdevelopment"...

 

[marlon]

Zamieen, its obvious that scientists make flaws in their attempts to explain what they are unable to explain. I am sure if you took a good look at the standard model, you would notice an array of flaws. the only thing the standard model is consistent with are flaws. i just like to rant in a nonsensical manner. everything is just so simple; yet, scientists complicate it with irrational claims.

Please give us some examples of these mysterious (at least to me) flaws in the standard model...

This is going to be very interesting, but not refreshing i am afraid. Let me ask you first : how well are you trained in the standard model. Do you know what it is?

regards
marlon

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

you guys are sooo hott... hahahaha haaaa better to burp and taste it than fart and waste it...and now ill leave you with a song my daddy taught me when i was 4..here i sit all broken hearted paid a nickle only farted here i sit in smelly vapor the one before me left no paper no time to waste no time to linger watch out jerk here comes my finger! YAYYY and there's my proof ...love, travis...sivart backwards

 

[marlon]

you guys are sooo hott... hahahaha haaaa better to burp and taste it than fart and waste it...and now ill leave you with a song my daddy taught me when i was 4..here i sit all broken hearted paid a nickle only farted here i sit in smelly vapor the one before me left no paper no time to waste no time to linger watch out jerk here comes my finger! YAYYY and there's my proof ...love, travis...sivart backwards

Please i ask you : give us some of these flaws you were talking about. They were your own words

regards
marlon

 

[dextercioby]

Darn,Marlon,i thought we were about to have fun...

I think he knows s$$$$$$$$ttttttttttttt abut SM.

Daniel.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

flaws umm flaws swalf yeah i like swalf kind of reminds me of elf but not really you know? flaws let's see I've got a lot of flaws...like i am soooo fat now that i have cellulite on my stomach hows that for a flaw or my three testicles you like that flaw? oh wait flaw kind of reminds me of floss too speaking of floss i have a missing toe also. thank you.

 

[marlon]

flaws umm flaws swalf yeah i like swalf kind of reminds me of elf but not really you know? flaws let's see I've got a lot of flaws...like i am soooo fat now that i have cellulite on my stomach hows that for a flaw or my three testicles you like that flaw? oh wait flaw kind of reminds me of floss too speaking of floss i have a missing toe also. thank you.

How good for you...

bye

marlon

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

"Dust is nice to write words in," said Mooch. Mooch's father groaned. "I think i will go back to bed -- for about a year." "A year?" asked Mooch. "Yes," said his father. Mooch crawled into bed too. He began to feel sad. "Dust makes Father sneeze," said Mooch. "So I will get rid of my dust." Mooch crawled out of bed. "Good-bye, dust messages," said mooch. "And Father will feel much better if I clean everything." Mooch tok his belts off the doors. He took his sneakers off teh table. He took his undershirts off the lamp.

"I don't trip. I don't sneeze. I don't sit on zippers. But it is time for me to go." Mooch helped his father pack his suitcase.

Mooch waved goodbye to his father. Then he went back to his hole.

storytime is fun isn't it. yea, so, yea.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

sorry about the random comments. my hott friend came to my job and decided to sit in my lap and post random stuff.

so, I am guessing the big questions is my familiarity with sm. i started studying physics this past summer. that does not mean i don't know sm. as for flaws, well, i can point out the most obvious one, and you people are left only to agree with me. physicists have failed to combine quantum and mechanical physics. their inability to connect the big with the small has left many doubts, as well as new concepts that contradict others. is the current model logical? does it really explain what it intended to explain? physicists thrive to combine the two extremes, but are unsuccessful, because they rely on illogical concepts to bring the two together. ill put more on here later. I am waiting for you people to take me serious again, i suppose.

 

[dextercioby]

We all do know the limits of the SM.But you made a general statement.I'm asking you to drop generalities and make one lucid,valid assertion as to pin point and say:"SM is not good,because it cannot account for...".

And then we'll have something to talk about...


Daniel.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

ill make use of your prompt daniel. SM is not good, because it cannot account for where gravity gets it energy from. oh, wait, i know your answer to that already. gravity does not perform work, ergo there is no need for an energy source. i guess I am not arguing about flaws. i just want better explanations. explain this to me in a way that is not illogical, and ill have more questions. for clarity, my question is where does gravity get its energy from? could you explain it classically and relativistically? id highly appreciate your help.

 

[dextercioby]

That's a simple question.SM doesn't include gravity.It cannot account for what gravity is and means and how the the gravity field's energy is not well defined and actually any subject related to gravity.

Next question.

Daniel.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

ok. higgs physics. i don't even think the particles explained in this area of physics exists. physicists made up this part of physics in attempt to explain why matter has mass. i found this area to be sketchy. why do physicists have to make up stuff to cover their blunders. the fallacies associated with their reasons are beyond ignorant. they are making things more complicated than needed.

 

[dextercioby]

ok. higgs physics. i don't even think the particles explained in this area of physics exists. physicists made up this part of physics in attempt to explain why matter has mass. i found this area to be sketchy. why do physicists have to make up stuff to cover their blunders. the fallacies associated with their reasons are beyond ignorant. they are making things more complicated than needed.

I believe that Higgs boson will be found someday and that will be as a supreme confirmation of the model.
It's not fair to make assumptions when u don't have the proof.Namely Higgs boson do not exist.

Daniel.

PS.What do you mean "they are making things more complicated than needed?"Give an example.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

theyve already lost hope in detecting the particles. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1649

The legendary particle that physicists thought explained why matter has mass probably does not exist.

thats just the first sentence.

something that is more complicated than it needs to be is the explanation of gravity. two theories are out to explain them. neither of the two answer the question; yet, they both contain much math and scientific terminology to clutter it up and appear like the theory explains what it is meant to.

 

[dextercioby]

theyve already lost hope in detecting the particles. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1649

My friend,the article is from 2001.It hardly mentions LHC.It couldn't have mentioned results regarding LHC,as it's not completely built.So until LHC particle physicists give us an answer,u may say what u want to...

something that is more complicated than it needs to be is the explanation of gravity. two theories are out to explain them. neither of the two answer the question; yet, they both contain much math and scientific terminology to clutter it up and appear like the theory explains what it is meant to.

I should say Quantum gravity is meant to be complicated,since both GR and QFT are not simple...Why do you think this theory needs to be simple??Just because Einstein thought that fundamental equations need not be wider than an inch??

Daniel.

 

[p53ud0 dr34m5]

yes, dated in 2001, but not much advancement since then. i hear now they are using the idea of quantum entanglement to try and explain mass. they leap from one theory to another. i know that what development in scientists is all about, but its annoying.

there is obviously no good model for gravity. why? with gravity being a pull, it is hard to make sense of it. why does gravity have to have two objects pulling on each other? why does gravity have to have one object falling into another objects inclination of space-time? why does gravity have to be explained as a leaking through many dimensions? I am only 17, and I am sure you can probably see i don't have much of a basis for my thinking. I am thinking and thinking and thinking, and i hope to have more backing for my thoughts.

 

[hypermorphism]

yes, dated in 2001, but not much advancement since then. i hear now they are using the idea of quantum entanglement to try and explain mass. they leap from one theory to another. i know that what development in scientists is all about, but its annoying.

there is obviously no good model for gravity. why? with gravity being a pull, it is hard to make sense of it. why does gravity have to have two objects pulling on each other? why does gravity have to have one object falling into another objects inclination of space-time? why does gravity have to be explained as a leaking through many dimensions? I am only 17, and I am sure you can probably see i don't have much of a basis for my thinking. I am thinking and thinking and thinking, and i hope to have more backing for my thoughts.

Science doesn't seek to explain "why" things happen in the manner that you want it to. It seeks to model how phenomena occur in a way that produces a measurable result that is as accurate as possible in balance with simplicity of theory. While you may point to modern string theory as a deviation from this axiom, it is really an exercise in trying to unify theories that do make accurate predictions into a framework that seems to be simpler (after a fashion) than the current splintered theories.

 

[Yapper]

I have a question? Are there particles that cause magnetic fields to attract things? Are they a result of warping of spactime? If so why then do some materials not get attracted at all? Is it like a different type of warping then gravity? Where gravity warping attracts mass and magnetic warping attacts just metal?





Im a noob