4 ms·

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

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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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"
  - jbarrs 6y ago
    That's essentially just an approximation. In some problems it can be useful to model the electron as having a finite radius, but our current understanding is that particles like electrons are literally infinitesimal points. In that case it's generally more useful for us to use things like Dirac delta functions to model them more accurately.
S1arF0xFa1c0n 6y ago
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)?
- jonahbenton 6y ago
  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?
state_less 6y ago
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.
- GuiA 6y ago
  In the model you propose, what would I think instead of “this box is full of water”?
  - state_less 6y ago
    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.
- limomium 6y ago
  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.
  - state_less 6y ago
    Thought you might find this interesting. https://www.quantamagazine.org/coder-physicists-are-simulating-the-universe-to-unlock-its-secrets-20180612/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/coder-physicists-are-simulati...
kingkawn 6y ago
“Empty space” is a concept from our scale that becomes absurd at small scale
maxerickson 6y ago
Do probabilistic interactions necessarily imply a moving particle structure?

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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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"
- jbarrs 6y ago
  That's essentially just an approximation. In some problems it can be useful to model the electron as having a finite radius, but our current understanding is that particles like electrons are literally infinitesimal points. In that case it's generally more useful for us to use things like Dirac delta functions to model them more accurately.

S1arF0xFa1c0n 6y ago

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)?

jonahbenton 6y ago
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?

state_less 6y ago

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.

GuiA 6y ago
In the model you propose, what would I think instead of “this box is full of water”?
- state_less 6y ago
  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.
limomium 6y ago
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.
- state_less 6y ago
  Thought you might find this interesting. https://www.quantamagazine.org/coder-physicists-are-simulating-the-universe-to-unlock-its-secrets-20180612/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/coder-physicists-are-simulati...

kingkawn 6y ago

“Empty space” is a concept from our scale that becomes absurd at small scale

maxerickson 6y ago

Do probabilistic interactions necessarily imply a moving particle structure?