What is space ?
- Thread starter hansda
- Start date
Not so fast! The physics community is looking at whether or not wave-functions are real and experimentally verifiable using a method called tomography.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf
But thanks for the laugh.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf
But thanks for the laugh.
Not so fast! The physics community is looking at whether or not wave-functions are real and experimentally verifiable using a method called tomography.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3575v1.pdf
But thanks for the laugh.
Thanks for the links
Although... It reminds me of a misconception I may have... or may not.
Thanks for the links
Although... It reminds me of a misconception I may have... or may not.
No, I don't smoke pot.
I've thought about this for years. How are the laws of physics physically implemented? The answer was probably right under our noses. It had to satisfy Occam's razor. The wave-function is the most complete description of a quantum system. In its simplest state, it's just a wave in complex space. I knew that the mathematics of QM, and GR, had to be describing some part of nature. But quantum waves, a form of mathematics, can become electromagetic waves if given enough energy.
Anyway, everything that can be described with quantum mechanics (with wave-functions) is probably itself made out of naturally occuring quantum waves.
No, I don't smoke pot.
Me either; You just now got that?
Here is a way to describe space that discusses its ties to electromagnetics.
Everywhere and in every direction there is a spatial infinitesimal which transmits, or is capable of transmitting, an electromagnetic wave. It must necessarily accommodate an orthogonal pair of perturbations, one electric and the other magnetic, and to sustain the transmission in a third orthogonal direction, which is the along velocity vector c. These three characters of space, the dimensions, are not just happenstance manifestations of some arbitrary face of nature. They are the minimum bases for transmitting the three aspects of the wave.
Even in a vacuum the field disturbance is met by a resistance to the variation in polarization it imposes. Specifically, the rate of propagation is the inverse to the geometric mean of the resistances to wave perturbations on the electric and magnetic polarizations of the local space:
$$c\quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { { \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 } } } $$
The geometric mean is a centroid. On a log scale, it can simply denote the midpoint between two exponentially related quantities, such as two frequencies. Here it is a midpoint (in the sense of a spline) between two kinds of dissimilar resistance:
$$\ln {\quad}{ c } \quad =\quad -\frac { 1 }{ 2 }{\quad} \left( \ln { \quad { \mu }_{ 0 } } +\ln { \quad { \epsilon }_{ 0 } } \right) $$
How and why $${ \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 }$$ establishes the velocity is fundamental to the theory of wave propagation. That the velocity is inversely related merely says that the lower the resistance, the higher the speed. That it is a centroid in the form of a geometric mean says that the contributions of both components of resistance, magnetic and electric, are equally weighted, on the log scale, in the manner of a midpoint between two frequencies.
Space has a virtual nature, one of the least intuitive being Lorentz rotation in relativistic scenarios. The Lorentz factor
$$\gamma \quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1\quad -\quad { v }^{ 2 }/{ c }^{ 2 } } } $$
can be restated
$$\gamma \quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1\quad -\quad { \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 }{ v }^{ 2 } } } $$
which is a way of noticing that all motion is referenced to the intrinsic impedance of space.
While the simplistic pedestrian view is that space is nothing more than a vacuum, realizations such this--the relationship between characteristic impedance and the Lorentz rotation--may lend to a sense of something deeper for the casual observer. Unfortunately the pervasive notion that "there's more to the story" tends to have an adverse effect, inducing the tendency to go overboard and cross into the Twilight Zone of luminscent ether and mass-like descriptions of space.
It is more logical to look straight into the correspondence between ideas already discovered--even if only superficially treated as I have done here--than to invent and reinvent explanations known to be wildly off the mark.
Everywhere and in every direction there is a spatial infinitesimal which transmits, or is capable of transmitting, an electromagnetic wave. It must necessarily accommodate an orthogonal pair of perturbations, one electric and the other magnetic, and to sustain the transmission in a third orthogonal direction, which is the along velocity vector c. These three characters of space, the dimensions, are not just happenstance manifestations of some arbitrary face of nature. They are the minimum bases for transmitting the three aspects of the wave.
Even in a vacuum the field disturbance is met by a resistance to the variation in polarization it imposes. Specifically, the rate of propagation is the inverse to the geometric mean of the resistances to wave perturbations on the electric and magnetic polarizations of the local space:
$$c\quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { { \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 } } } $$
The geometric mean is a centroid. On a log scale, it can simply denote the midpoint between two exponentially related quantities, such as two frequencies. Here it is a midpoint (in the sense of a spline) between two kinds of dissimilar resistance:
$$\ln {\quad}{ c } \quad =\quad -\frac { 1 }{ 2 }{\quad} \left( \ln { \quad { \mu }_{ 0 } } +\ln { \quad { \epsilon }_{ 0 } } \right) $$
How and why $${ \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 }$$ establishes the velocity is fundamental to the theory of wave propagation. That the velocity is inversely related merely says that the lower the resistance, the higher the speed. That it is a centroid in the form of a geometric mean says that the contributions of both components of resistance, magnetic and electric, are equally weighted, on the log scale, in the manner of a midpoint between two frequencies.
Space has a virtual nature, one of the least intuitive being Lorentz rotation in relativistic scenarios. The Lorentz factor
$$\gamma \quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1\quad -\quad { v }^{ 2 }/{ c }^{ 2 } } } $$
can be restated
$$\gamma \quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1\quad -\quad { \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 }{ v }^{ 2 } } } $$
which is a way of noticing that all motion is referenced to the intrinsic impedance of space.
While the simplistic pedestrian view is that space is nothing more than a vacuum, realizations such this--the relationship between characteristic impedance and the Lorentz rotation--may lend to a sense of something deeper for the casual observer. Unfortunately the pervasive notion that "there's more to the story" tends to have an adverse effect, inducing the tendency to go overboard and cross into the Twilight Zone of luminscent ether and mass-like descriptions of space.
It is more logical to look straight into the correspondence between ideas already discovered--even if only superficially treated as I have done here--than to invent and reinvent explanations known to be wildly off the mark.
MisterSelmo
Registered Member
Space is what separates the words I type.
It is, by my understanding, a conceptual "nothing" between "somethings". Because in reality there's no such thing as nothing, amiright?
It is, by my understanding, a conceptual "nothing" between "somethings". Because in reality there's no such thing as nothing, amiright?
I heard that even at the atomic level atoms are mostly empty space. I've always wondered how much empty space might be in neutrons and protons or even in the quarks that make them up,
Quarks are made out of wave-functions. Why? They are described with wave-functions (QM math). Wave functions (nature) can be experimentally tested. Therefore, quarks are made out of wave-functions (nature).
A detected particle is a "currently in use" eigenstate; empty space (no detection) is an "empty" eigenstate.
Last edited:
Can you supply any links that give a bit more detail and support what you are saying?
I think of space as the result of energy and matter
inotherwords , space , energy and matter happen at the same moment
and that space per-particle actually extends beyond the particle itself to a certain circumference
inorder for the particle and/or object to behave properly , so to speak
so that space is a quality , rather than a quantity , mathematically
the consequence being , in my thinking , that if you could find where the minimum of the space needed for a atom to exist normally , as in elements in the periodic table , the multiply this space by the atoms in the Universe , you would find the expanse of the Universe as it is
inotherwords , space , energy and matter happen at the same moment
and that space per-particle actually extends beyond the particle itself to a certain circumference
inorder for the particle and/or object to behave properly , so to speak
so that space is a quality , rather than a quantity , mathematically
the consequence being , in my thinking , that if you could find where the minimum of the space needed for a atom to exist normally , as in elements in the periodic table , the multiply this space by the atoms in the Universe , you would find the expanse of the Universe as it is
It seems you are saying that each atom in the universe has it's own personal space at an undefined circumference. You can come this close- no closer.
The Line Must Be Drawn, here! This far and No Farther!
Ok, so with that undefined distance established as the limit, then that space, multiplied by all the atoms in the Universe, represents all the "space" that there is available.
This might upset the real estate market a bit...
I think you failed to account for just how VAST the distances between matter are in space, the absolute magnitude of the distances in relation to just how tightly clustered these gobs of atoms really are.
I see your point
the thing is though , we don't know how much space is needed for any atom to behave normally so to speak , by its self , with no interaction with another atom of any type
we have to think of vibration , magnetic field , electron field , geometry , spin
In relation to the size of the Universe, then- we know how much space an atom takes up.
There is still a hell of a lot more observable space than there is matter. In fact, there's not enough matter to account for the matter.
See: Dark Matter.
I think you just created some space... too...