Is There Absolute Vacuum Between Atoms?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rishav1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Absolute Atoms Vacuum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of absolute vacuum between atoms, exploring whether such a state can exist and what it entails in terms of physics. Participants delve into the implications of virtual particles, wavefunctions, and the nature of existence at atomic and subatomic levels.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the distance between atoms cannot be considered an absolute vacuum due to the presence of virtual particles that permeate space.
  • Others argue that fundamental particles and their wavefunctions complicate the notion of "nothingness," suggesting that what we perceive as empty space is filled with mathematical constructs and probabilities.
  • A participant questions the definition of "absolute vacuum," suggesting it implies total emptiness, which may not be achievable due to the existence of virtual particles.
  • Some contributions highlight that even in regions devoid of observable matter, virtual particles may still exist, challenging the idea of a true vacuum.
  • There are discussions about the universe expanding into a void, with some participants suggesting that this void might also consist of virtual particles.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about the existence of absolute vacuum, with one stating that the concept leads to contradictions regarding existence and space.
  • Some participants note that while we cannot detect virtual particles directly, their effects can be observed, which raises questions about their existence in a vacuum.
  • There is a suggestion that an absolute vacuum might not be a space with nothing in it but rather a volume devoid of space itself.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of absolute vacuum. Multiple competing views are presented, with some arguing for its impossibility due to virtual particles, while others suggest it might exist under specific definitions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in definitions and assumptions about what constitutes "absolute vacuum" are evident. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of quantum mechanics and the nature of particles and fields.

  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
So, your argument is: "absolute vacuum might exist because there are things about the universe we haven't solved yet?"
A leading question, don't you think? Do you feel it is too speculative to suggest that virtual particles appear within the presence of absolute vacuums?
I think the original question carries with it the implicit condition "in the universe as we currently understand it".
It would be prudent to make it abundantly clear to those requesting information in this string, that on the subject of absolute vacuums the caveat ought to be that we are dealing with rational quasi-explanations with few firm understandings based on sound observation and experiment. In short, there are no authorities on this subject.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
DaveC426913 said:
You say : "...until the universe expands into it."
and " ...it really does not exist to us until our universe expands. "

Both phrases suggest that you are thinking there is something into which the universe is expanding (even if there's nothing we can say to describe that something).

This is a miconception. The universe is able to increase its dimensions by expanding, but this does not require that there be a something to expand into.

Yep. Thats why I put "it" in quotations in my first post. And also why I put does not exist. But I see that my verbage could have indicated what you stated. Thanks.
 
  • #33
I am having a hard time understanding how we could even detect an absolute vacuum. Virtual particles might surround an absolute vacuum... how would that be detected?
 
  • #35
I was not aware nor believe(perhaps wrong) that virtual particles can currently be detected.

Have not yet taken the time to peruse your link, Gfellow. Will do this shortly.
 
  • #36
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
Gfellow said:
Not necessarily the best source, but for general uncontroversial information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles#Manifestations"...

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
pallidin said:
I do believe in virtual particles
...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.
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
Gfellow said:
...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.

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
Gfellow said:
...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.
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.
 
  • #41
diazona said:
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
pallidin said:
Not sure to what extent this is allowed in this particular sub-forum,
Quite right, palladin, and I apologize. I got quite ahead of myself, it was an entirely inappropriate thread for my posting.
but I will say that that was a most excellent statement by you! Nice!
I'll give you just ten minutes to stop that!:smile:
 

Similar threads

Undergrad What can we scientifically measure directly?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Undergrad Unconventional methods for pumping down a vacuum chamber?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
High School If you had to make a perfect vacuum, version #2
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
5K
High School Particles Within Atoms: Uncovering the Mystery of Forces and Vacuum
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Why are things the color they are?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Graduate Ideas in physics used for creating art
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate Could the Laws of Physics Be Proportional to Entropy?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
815
High School Dark Energy: Are We All Missing The Obvious?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School If we *had* to make a perfect vacuum....
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Schrödinger's cat question
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K