Empty Space Just a quick thought you might enjoy.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept of "empty space" in relation to quantum gravity and particle physics. It highlights the paradox of perceiving empty space, noting that what appears empty is filled with atoms and potentially smaller particles. The conversation questions the definition of emptiness, suggesting that mass should not solely define occupied space, as properties like charge could also play a role. It emphasizes the complexity of defining emptiness, especially at the Planck scale, where clear distinctions between empty and occupied space blur. Ultimately, the discussion reflects on the nature of reality and the limits of our observational capabilities in understanding the universe.
Jøhn
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
"Empty Space" Just a quick thought you might enjoy.

I was reading a book on quantum gravity the other day when I found myself having a lot of trouble grasping the idea of empty space. When you really sit back and take it in, it is so weird only because we never really experience it. Another interesting thing that I found with "empty space" is that whenever we dig deeper into smaller particles, it seems we always introduce more space, from this one might think that the smallest thing would indeed be space itself considering i do not think most have a hard time accepting it as the biggest thing also.

One other thing I thought about was how most people can look into the sky and consider it "empty", obviously we know it is full with countless atoms just too small for the human eye to see. Well taking this into perspective it would seem that the "empty space" in atoms could easily harbor smaller particles just too small to detect.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Puzzling.

Sometimes I wonder if there is any empty space at all, simply because wherever you look at there is always waves. But waves and particles are the same thing.

You may then be tempted to define emptyness as "where mass isn't", and therefore argue whether mass-less waves should not count against emptyness, however mass itself is not truly confined/shaped into something, there really isn't a point where mass begins and where mass ends even for a single particle.

And after all... why should mass define emptyness? Mass is just a property, why should it be used to define "occupied space" rather than for instance charge? What does charge have less than mass? :)

Finally. Wherever there is something, we can measure it or interact with it. Wherever there is nothing to interact with, no property whatsoever, is there really anything at all? Perhaps not even emptyness.
 
It's very difficult to define emptiness, especially once you get down to Planck scales. Then it becomes something more like "maybe empty space?" with no clear definitions for the words empty or space. Also, there is an observational (and therefore very real?) limit to how small particles can be, so in theory if we built a more and more powerful microscope, we should be able to see them all. That's very basic theory and I'm sure it could never be done, but at a very surface level there's no reason not to think that.

As far as the sky being empty... look a the average matter density and compare it to Earth. It is, indeed, very empty out there!
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Back
Top