Is There Absolute Vacuum Between Atoms?

[Rishav1]

Isn't the distance between two atoms where nothing exists, no atoms or subatomic particles, absolute vacuum?

a place where nothing exists??

I am not too educated in such physics, so please do explain what you say

 

[James Leighe]

Turns out there is no such thing as 'absolute vacuum' between anything... There are things called 'virtual particles' that pervade all of space and you can see their effect in things like magnetism. Wiki virtual particles and vacuum if you want to know more.

 

[Tac-Tics]

Isn't the distance between two atoms where nothing exists, no atoms or subatomic particles, absolute vacuum?

When you get down to that level, it's not even clear what you mean by "exists". Fundamental particles aren't balls. In fact, we don't know anything about what they ARE. We only know what they do.

Physics doesn't know the answers to the universe. We create little rules for ourselves and see if they work. In electromagnetism, we make up these little arrows at each point in space called a field. In our little model, the field permeates throughout all of space. Is the field "real"? Does it "exist"? It's not really productive to even ask those kinds of questions.

The same goes for atoms and fundamental particles. An atom or a proton, according to QM, is going to have a wave function that exists all throughout space. In most places, it is damn near zero. So between any two atoms, the "empty space" is filled with mathematical constructs we have invented. It's not clear that they exist at all. It's not clear our model is even accurate. All we know is that we can predict results of experiments with them.

 

[arunma]

In addition to what others have said, I would just point out that between two atoms, you'll still have wavefunctions from atomic electrons. Some of those wavefunctions only die off as r^n e^{-r/a_0}, so you really can't even say that the wavefunction is approximately zero between atoms.

 

[Rishav1]

so that means, ultimately we know nothing

 

[Astronuc]

so that means, ultimately we know nothing

No, that's not what the statements mean.

We can describe the nature of matter and energy and predict behavior in many circumstances quite well. What applies on the macroscopic level, in terms of visualizing or conceptualizing, does not apply to the atomic and subatomic levels. We cannot 'see' subatomic particles, nucleons or quarks, or even electrons, and we do not need to 'see' them in order to understand their nature.

 

[Rishav1]

so, ultimately, we don't know whether absolute vacuum exists or not?

 

[pallidin]

IMHO, an absolute vacuum cannot exist because of the constant, virtual particle sea that james was talking about.

 

[rcgldr]

Regarding absolute vacuum, what about the void that the universe is expanding into?

 

[pallidin]

Regarding absolute vacuum, what about the void that the universe is expanding into?

Yeah, that starts to blow the mind.
My assumption, without any knowledge, is that the void also consists of virtual particles.

 

[Wallace]

Regarding absolute vacuum, what about the void that the universe is expanding into?

The Universe, as far as we know, is not expanding into a void. Rather than taking this thread off topic though, if you'd like more details there are plenty of threads on this in the cosmology forum that discuss this. Or you could ask a new question there.

 

[gmax137]

so, ultimately, we don't know whether absolute vacuum exists or not?

You have to tell us what you mean by "absolute vacuum."

 

[Char. Limit]

As far as I can tell, what he means is absolute nothingness. As in, a total and complete emptiness.

I'm also inclined to agree with James, that there is always "something" there. In addition, the wavefunction for any electron orbital never quite terminates (don't ask me to quote Schrödinger, I don't know the equation, I just know that the wavefunction is infinite), so there will always be some possibility of there being an electron or something there.

However, I'm not an actual physicist. I'm a "Wikipedia Physicist".

 

[Neo_Anderson]

IMHO, an absolute vacuum cannot exist because of the constant, virtual particle sea that james was talking about.

"Absolute vacuum" is that region of space that's devoid of observable matter and radiations. That means it's a region that doesn't have photons or any baryonic matter. For this reason, an absolute vacuum can exist where there are virtual photons, as virtual photons can't be detected in the first place.
What makes the absolute vacuum impossible? Dark matter/dark energy.

 

[Rishav1]

You have to tell us what you mean by "absolute vacuum."

by absolute vacuum, i mean sumwhere where nothing at all exists... no atoms... no subatomic particles... no nothing...

 

[Rishav1]

if you say about the virtual particles... then, what about the space between those particles?

 

[bjornmose]

by absolute vacuum, i mean sumwhere where nothing at all exists... no atoms... no subatomic particles... no nothing...

This is self contradicting ..
that "sumwhere" would not allow a absolute vacuum (what ever it was) to exist.

On the other hand you can put plenty of nothing that interacts with nothing anywhere as long as it neither takes time or space.
The other way around, it is the existence of something that generates space and time.
Space and time have no meaning if there is nothing that experiences the time elapsing or traveling from A to B.

 

[Borek]

virtual photons can't be detected in the first place

Being another wikipedia physicist I can be wrong, but seems to me that while we can't detect virtual photons, we can detect effect of their presence (see Casimir effect). If we can see effect of their presence, that means they do exist.

 

[HallsofIvy]

if you say about the virtual particles... then, what about the space between those particles?

It's virtual particles all the way down!

 

[Gfellow]

if you say about the virtual particles... then, what about the space between those particles?

Absolutely. Do not be intimidated by individuals who are by and large very well informed, but in this case have no more data or knowledge about absolute vacuums than you. At best their answers - like mine - are shots in the dark.

It's chicken and egg. Virtual particles form in the proximity to an absolute vacuum. That infers the existence - no matter how temporary - of an absolute vacuum.

 

[HammerBoy]

Isn't the distance between two atoms where nothing exists, no atoms or subatomic particles, absolute vacuum?

a place where nothing exists??

I am not too educated in such physics, so please do explain what you say

The word "Absolute" leads to nothing but a "No" to your question.

Even the tiny space between atoms/particles would be filled with radiation, for example, no matter how weak they are. Perhaps this is easier to imagine.

 

[DaveC426913]

Even the vacuum has energy. It's called vacuum energy.

It was set to a non-zero value very shortly after the Big Bang.

 

[Gfellow]

The word "Absolute" leads to nothing but a "No" to your question.
Even the tiny space between atoms/particles would be filled with radiation, for example, no matter how weak they are. Perhaps this is easier to imagine.

Speculation. Rational speculation, but still speculation.
An absolute vacuum might exist - not as a space with nothing in it, but a volume with no space in it. Keep in mind the mysterious 'dark matter' that no scientist has seriously come to grips with, at least at the time of this missive...

 

[DaveC426913]

An absolute vacuum might exist - not as a space with nothing in it, but a volume with no space in it. Keep in mind the mysterious 'dark matter' that no scientist has seriously come to grips with, at least at the time of this missive...

So, your argument is: "absolute vacuum might exist because there are things about the universe we haven't solved yet?"

While technically valid, it's a meaningless answer.

I think the original question carries with it the implicit condition "in the universe as we currently understand it".

 

[pgardn]

Regarding absolute vacuum, what about the void that the universe is expanding into?

I would say we cannot say anything about it until the universe expands into it.
From my personal perspective of science and modeling, you cannot model this therefore it really does not exist to us until our universe expands. We can call it a void or whatever but that is giving it a quality. I don't see how we can say anything about "it". I even think it is possible to say the universe creates the idea of space as it expands.

I personally have no problem with saying there is nothing beyond our universe. Just like it seems obvious to me time does not exist without events. I would like a comment to help me in my view(s) if you see an obvious flaw. This is coming from a person who was not trained as a physics guy.

 

[pgardn]

On the other hand you can put plenty of nothing that interacts with nothing anywhere as long as it neither takes time or space.
The other way around, it is the existence of something that generates space and time.
Space and time have no meaning if there is nothing that experiences the time elapsing or traveling from A to B.

Yikes.
I did not read this.
This is how I would have put it.

 

[DaveC426913]

I would say we cannot say anything about it until the universe expands into it.
From my personal perspective of science and modeling, you cannot model this therefore it really does not exist to us until our universe expands. We can call it a void or whatever but that is giving it a quality. I don't see how we can say anything about "it".

There is one thing we can say about it: it is wrong.

I even think it is possible to say the universe creates the idea of space as it expands.

Better. The universe creates space as it expands, yes. But it is not expanding into anything.

 

[pgardn]

There is one thing we can say about it: 1. it is wrong.

Better. The universe creates space as it expands, yes. But it is not expanding 2. into anything.

First bolded... Whaaa? Line drive over my head. Could you explain? What exactly is wrong? The idea of referring to anything beyond our universe as it?

Second bolded. Exactly how I would have liked to put it. many tanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

First bolded... Whaaa? Line drive over my head. Could you explain? What exactly is wrong? The idea of referring to anything beyond our universe as it?

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.

 

[Borek]

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

Could be distances don't change, we are just getting smaller and smaller, and those observing us from outside the jar have to use stronger and stronger microscopes.

But I am afraid this will be soon deleted, as personal theories are not allowed.

 

[Gfellow]

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.

 

[pgardn]

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.

 

[pgardn]

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?

 

[Gfellow]

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?

There ought to be several instances of laboratory observations in http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=2000&q="absolute+vacuum"+and+"virtual+particles""

 

[pallidin]

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.

 

[Gfellow]

I was not aware nor believe(perhaps wrong) that virtual particles can currently be detected.

Not necessarily the best source, but for general uncontroversial information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles#Manifestations"...

 

[pallidin]

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.

 

[Gfellow]

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.

 

[pallidin]

...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!

 

[diazona]

...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.

 

[Gfellow]

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.

 

[Gfellow]

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!