5 ms·

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 aut

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

Retric 7y ago
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.
- not2b 7y ago
  For anything that responds to the electromagnetic force, you're filled with fields. For something that responds only to the weak force, you're almost entirely empty space.
  - Retric 7y ago
    If that’s how you want to look at it, everything responds to gravity. But, that’s not what people mean when they say space is filled.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    In the English-language usage I grew up with, 'occupied' means that there is something there, while 'filled' means occupied to the point where nothing more can be added. The former does not imply the latter. In this usage, space itself (the 'empty' space of the article's title) is implicitly not something. This usage may seem to be an accidental issue of language, resulting from an incomplete understanding of physics, but a lot of metaphysics seems to reach the point of hanging on such definitions. One may, of course, agree with both of the points of view expressed in this paragraph.
    - lopmotr 7y ago
      This whole idea of empty space within atoms is just nonsense using English grammar as a substitute for physics. It's a meaningless statement either way until you define the terms specifically enough. And by doing that, you can choose whatever answer you want. "occupied to the point where nothing more can be added" isn't specific enough because you can still add a lot of photons to a "filled" glass of water, so that means it's not filled by that definition even though it is by common sense. It just shows the irrelevance of everyday words and concepts at the subatomic scale. Even a neutron star is practically invisible to neutrinos which can easily pass through it despite it's being "filled" with neutrons.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Well, that space is filled, but only because of quantum interactions, and not because it's empty.
    - stephen_g 7y ago
      It’s abstract, but we experience this kind of issue with language lot. Think of a box that doesn’t have any objects in it. It’s empty, right? But if it’s sitting on the table in front of you it’s probably full of air. So in one respect it’s completely empty but in another it’s totally full.
amelius 7y ago
And then there are those who say that space is an emergent property, e.g. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=88041 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...
mirimir 7y ago
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.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  I believe there is non-zero vacuum energy. So "something" is going on, whether it be virtual particles popping in and out of existence, even in "empty space". Granted, I don't really understand the details of what this means, but that's what I remember of the current science.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Yes, vacuum energy. But that's still probability distributions, and so almost all of the vacuum is empty at any given time. Most physicists would likely say that there's no point trying to visualize this stuff in mundane terms. Or at least, that's what they were saying the last time I took a physics course.
- praptak 7y ago
  Modeling electrons as tiny objects that have probability distributions has a weakness. There is no sensible value to assign to the 'tiny'. I mean there is no experiment to determine the 'size' of the electron.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    OK, not a physicist. But what about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius
    - praptak 7y ago
      Check all the disclaimers on that concept, in particular "Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle have been described as ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic"
toohotatopic 7y ago
Do those fields extend into infinity or is there a boundary that the electrons don't cross? >If you took an atomic nucleus and bound only one electron to it, you would see the following 10 probability clouds for each electron, where these 10 diagrams correspond to the electron occupying each of the 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d and 4f orbitals, respectively. The electron is never located in one specific place at one particular time, but rather exists in a cloud-like or fog-like state, spread throughout a volume of space representing the entire atom. If there is no boundary, then the universe itself would be full by that field definition because every electron would be at any point by a very small probability.

Retric 7y ago

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.

not2b 7y ago
For anything that responds to the electromagnetic force, you're filled with fields. For something that responds only to the weak force, you're almost entirely empty space.
- Retric 7y ago
  If that’s how you want to look at it, everything responds to gravity. But, that’s not what people mean when they say space is filled.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  In the English-language usage I grew up with, 'occupied' means that there is something there, while 'filled' means occupied to the point where nothing more can be added. The former does not imply the latter. In this usage, space itself (the 'empty' space of the article's title) is implicitly not something. This usage may seem to be an accidental issue of language, resulting from an incomplete understanding of physics, but a lot of metaphysics seems to reach the point of hanging on such definitions. One may, of course, agree with both of the points of view expressed in this paragraph.
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    This whole idea of empty space within atoms is just nonsense using English grammar as a substitute for physics. It's a meaningless statement either way until you define the terms specifically enough. And by doing that, you can choose whatever answer you want. "occupied to the point where nothing more can be added" isn't specific enough because you can still add a lot of photons to a "filled" glass of water, so that means it's not filled by that definition even though it is by common sense. It just shows the irrelevance of everyday words and concepts at the subatomic scale. Even a neutron star is practically invisible to neutrinos which can easily pass through it despite it's being "filled" with neutrons.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Well, that space is filled, but only because of quantum interactions, and not because it's empty.
  - stephen_g 7y ago
    It’s abstract, but we experience this kind of issue with language lot. Think of a box that doesn’t have any objects in it. It’s empty, right? But if it’s sitting on the table in front of you it’s probably full of air. So in one respect it’s completely empty but in another it’s totally full.

amelius 7y ago

And then there are those who say that space is an emergent property, e.g. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=88041 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=...

mirimir 7y ago

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.

dwaltrip 7y ago
I believe there is non-zero vacuum energy. So "something" is going on, whether it be virtual particles popping in and out of existence, even in "empty space". Granted, I don't really understand the details of what this means, but that's what I remember of the current science.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Yes, vacuum energy. But that's still probability distributions, and so almost all of the vacuum is empty at any given time. Most physicists would likely say that there's no point trying to visualize this stuff in mundane terms. Or at least, that's what they were saying the last time I took a physics course.
praptak 7y ago
Modeling electrons as tiny objects that have probability distributions has a weakness. There is no sensible value to assign to the 'tiny'. I mean there is no experiment to determine the 'size' of the electron.
- mirimir 7y ago
  OK, not a physicist. But what about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius
  - praptak 7y ago
    Check all the disclaimers on that concept, in particular "Attempts to model the electron as a non-point particle have been described as ill-conceived and counter-pedagogic"

toohotatopic 7y ago

Do those fields extend into infinity or is there a boundary that the electrons don't cross? >If you took an atomic nucleus and bound only one electron to it, you would see the following 10 probability clouds for each electron, where these 10 diagrams correspond to the electron occupying each of the 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d and 4f orbitals, respectively. The electron is never located in one specific place at one particular time, but rather exists in a cloud-like or fog-like state, spread throughout a volume of space representing the entire atom. If there is no boundary, then the universe itself would be full by that field definition because every electron would be at any point by a very small probability.