We are not mostly empty space • Hacker News Board

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#91

Post by maxerickson » Sat, May 09, 2020, 1:09 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #46

themodelplumber wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, they're probability distributions, not fields. So electrons, protons and neutrons are still tiny, even though their positions are uncertain. And so atoms are still mostly empty space.

Do probabilistic interactions necessarily imply a moving particle structure?

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#92

Post by jonahbenton » Sat, May 09, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

S1arF0xFa1c0n wrote: post #85

mirimir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they're probability distributions, not fields. So electrons, protons and neutrons are still tiny, even though their positions are uncertain. And so atoms are still mostly empty space.

This is what I took from the article as well. Though, it's important to note that the 'billiard ball' particle model is just a model also. On a related note, as a physics grad, I've been looking into growing evidence that shows consciousness affecting what we observe (i.e. wave-particle duality in this case). Have you seen Steven Greer's latest film (CE5)?

As a lapsed Cognitive Scentist, I had stopped paying attention to consciousness studies and thought Penrose was full of it. This comment sparked my interest. Will look into this movie but curious for pointers for summaries of recent evidence?

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#93

Post by jonahbenton » Sat, May 09, 2020, 1:24 PM UTC

_8j50 wrote: post #83

Excellent explanation. My question after this is, at a macro level,how much of space is actual pure space. Pardon the childish question but how exactly would one measure space (nothing exists at this point) without introducing something that might be displaced by the measurement,or how can one be sure space isn't made up of lower energy qanta that are displaced by higher energy particles,much like how solids displace…

Yeah, agree with this and disagree with other comments, thought this was a very effective communication of a better thought-model for understanding- still in largely colloquial terms- what is going on.

To the point about "pure space"- I suspect the colloquial answer is that there isn't any pure/just space. I know that Wolfram is also not respected on here much but I like his- not intentionally metaphorical- arrival at a story for space being a process.

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#94

Post by mrits » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #12

mrits wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

If atoms don't have perimeters then no objects made of atoms have perimeter.

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#95

Post by GuiA » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

state_less wrote: post #87

mirimir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they're probability distributions, not fields. So electrons, protons and neutrons are still tiny, even though their positions are uncertain. And so atoms are still mostly empty space.

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.

In the model you propose, what would I think instead of “this box is full of water”?

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#96

Post by state_less » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

GuiA wrote: post #95

state_less wrote: post #87

Earlier 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.

In the model you propose, what would I think instead of “this box is full of water”?

I think it’s fine to have the usual view, “this box is full of water”.

But you might also think, “this eyebrow is hairs with not too much space between.”, or “this box is hydrogen and oxygen without too much space between.”

An eyebrow is hairs with a certain spatial density and distance (space) from the eyes. Water is hydrogen and oxygen with relatively less space between than say water vapor.

If I think of space as a magnitude, all the math and forces still work out, but there is “room” for other stuff.

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#97

Post by 100ideas » Sat, May 09, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #43

saagarjha wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the conditions, it is through that neutrinos can pass through even very degenerate matter like that which forms neutron stars. "Empty space" really doesn't mean all that much if the thing that is interacting with it does so weakly.

Does this mean a black hole is "full"?

100%

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#98

Post by Digit-Al » Sat, May 09, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

My 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?

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#99

Post by garmaine » Sat, May 09, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

mrits wrote: post #94

garmaine wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

If atoms don't have perimeters then no objects made of atoms have perimeter.

Yes. And?

Re: We are not mostly empty space

#100

Post by limomium » Sat, May 09, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

state_less wrote: post #87

mirimir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they're probability distributions, not fields. So electrons, protons and neutrons are still tiny, even though their positions are uncertain. And so atoms are still mostly empty space.

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.