Earlier quoted context omitted.
If atoms don't have perimeters then no objects made of atoms have perimeter.
Yes. And?
the rare perimeter denier
We are not mostly empty space
101–106 of 106 posts
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#102"The Medium is the Message" -- Marshall Mcluhan What is it about Medium that produces less than stellar articles? Because it is a paid blogging service so people just blow out some smoke and hope to make a little money?
because it resembles an old 2003 sensibility of blogs which resonated with a pseudo sensibility about certain types of New Yorkeresque/90s WIRED vibe. Medium is not good, I use it right now to create synopsis for YouTube videos I make, it's basically Myspace, which was useful for non professional and pro musicians to just get the music out.
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather than thinking of space as empty vs non-empty, it might be better to think of space as a relationship between things. I think you make less commitments of space this way.
That's also the difference between raster and vector modeling of virtual geometry. There is an area on a graph where one literally takes less space on a computer's memory than the other, for representing essentially the same information. But there are other trade-offs.
Thought you might find this interesting.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/coder-physicists-are-simulati...
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#104Empty space, by definition, is space that can be filled by something. So how closely can atoms pack together? A neutron star has a density of 10^17 kg/m^3, whereas the typical human being is about 10^3 kg/m^3. I could fit the matter of trillions more human beings in the same space I'm taking up now. So yeah, I think there's some empty space in me.
I could fit the matter of trillions more human beings in the same space I'm taking up now. Try it.
Note to self: stop making non-obviously subtle posts on HN, they always get downvoted.
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#105My understanding of quantum physics is miniscule; so a question: would it be potentially true to say that the concept of "emptiness" as we define it is essentially meaningless at the quantum level?
Yes. Concepts can stop making sense in situations that take them apart. For example, it makes sense to ask whether an apple is a fruit, but it doesn't make sense to ask whether an atom inside the apple is a fruit.
Even if you'd take just one electron, its cloud is infinite. Like, really, when people talk about things like shape of the cloud, what they mean is the density of the cloud, or the shape that you get when you only take the region where the density exceeds some arbitrary level.
So, from this perspective, as long as at least one electron exists in the universe, there is no empty place in the universe. Because, with infinitesimal probability, the electron could be anywhere.
Obviously, this is NOT what we mean by emptiness in everyday life.
(The article is okay, but its title is pure clickbait.)
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the fact that neutrinos pass through us largely validates the notion that we are in fact mostly empty space.
Well, light passes through glass so transparency doesn't seem to be a credible measure of solidity.
I think you mean that solidity is not a credible measure of space being filled.