Empty 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.
We are not mostly empty space
11–20 of 106 posts
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#12> Inside your body, you aren’t mostly empty space. You’re mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe. So we are mostly electron clouds... and clouds by definition are mostly empty space.
Call me old fashion but I don't consider anything inside the perimeter of an atom as empty space.
Atoms don’t have a “perimeter”. That’s the point.
Atoms are mostly "empty space" in the same way that the gap between a maglev train and its track is empty space (ignoring the air).
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#13> Inside your body, you aren’t mostly empty space. You’re mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe. So we are mostly electron clouds... and clouds by definition are mostly empty space.
From what I understand, the idea of "empty" no longer makes sense at that level. All you have are fields. There, everything is made out of fields and fields are everywhere. There is therefore no "empty" really anywhere, including inside yourself.
I think you put it well.
At the scales our brains are familiar with we experience "emptiness" as a kind of space which can have things placed in it. A chair is empty if you can sit on it, a box is empty if you can put something in it. The sub-atomic "empty" space is filled with fields of various kinds. You could not place something where those fields are. The spaces are not empty.
When you fill a box with things, you are filling it with sub-atomic fields.
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#14Re: We are not mostly empty space
#15> Inside your body, you aren’t mostly empty space. You’re mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe. So we are mostly electron clouds... and clouds by definition are mostly empty space.
@sporkologist
> Inside your body, you aren’t mostly empty space. You’re mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe.
> So we are mostly electron clouds... and clouds by definition are mostly empty space.
But empty space isn't .. er .. empty ...
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#16> Inside your body, you aren’t mostly empty space. You’re mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe. So we are mostly electron clouds... and clouds by definition are mostly empty space.
Call me old fashion but I don't consider anything inside the perimeter of an atom as empty space.
Then how do black holes and neutron stars work?
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#17Empty 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.
So the author is saying fields are already filling things up, right? To compare this to the "we can pack them atoms tighter" model seems to be confusing the author's model with another, separate mental model, one in which we can fill up more. But the author's model says we're full. Full of this field stuff. Not so? IANAS
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#18> Inside your body, you aren’t mostly empty space. You’re mostly a series of electron clouds, all bound together by the quantum rules that govern the entire Universe. So we are mostly electron clouds... and clouds by definition are mostly empty space.
From what I understand, the idea of "empty" no longer makes sense at that level. All you have are fields. There, everything is made out of fields and fields are everywhere. There is therefore no "empty" really anywhere, including inside yourself.
Physics is all based on predictions not arbitrary definitions. To suggest something is filling space you must be able to hit it with something else. This talk of empty space, comes from actual experiments.
Shoot a neutral particle through that cloud and you generally find it really was empty. Wave particle duality doesn’t mean a particle is in every location, just that it could be in every location. After detection you generally find all the places it was not.
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#19Empty 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.
So the author is saying fields are already filling things up, right? To compare this to the "we can pack them atoms tighter" model seems to be confusing the author's model with another, separate mental model, one in which we can fill up more. But the author's model says we're full. Full of this field stuff. Not so? IANAS
You’re not filled with fields or those fields would block neutrinos. Instead we can shoot them though the earth and detect them just fine on the other side. Fields represent possible locations, not actual locations.
Re: We are not mostly empty space
#20Empty 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.
So the author is saying fields are already filling things up, right? To compare this to the "we can pack them atoms tighter" model seems to be confusing the author's model with another, separate mental model, one in which we can fill up more. But the author's model says we're full. Full of this field stuff. Not so? IANAS
And then there are those who say that space is an emergent property, e.g.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...