Does somebody know what Vacuum is ?

[s0cratus]

Does somebody know what Vacuum is ?
1.
Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
2.
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics,
this ground state, coherent quantum vacuum might be
a good place to start.’
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208 by Danah Zohar. /
3.
And Paul Dirac wrote:
‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? ‘
==.
Socratus

 

[s0cratus]

Can Perfect Vacuum as a ' Nothing' as ‘ an Infinite Space’ as
an Absolute Reference Frame have Concrete Physical Properties ?
Socratus
=.
One Concrete Physical Properties of Vacuum is Absolute Zero.
What is Absolute Zero ?
Classic Physics says: It is a dead space.
Quantum Physics says: It is not a dead space.
There are ‘ Virtual Particles’ exist.
What is Absolute Zero ?
=.
Socratus
===.
P.S.
What is Absolute Zero ?
Where is a wise answer and where is a fool answer if these
two theories ( Classical and Quantum theories) are correct ?
==.

 

[Pistoli]

can you give an example of a vacuum... like a black hole? Are black holes torrents of matter moving at such great speed, that they create a physical vacuum? Like black holes are moving so fast that time is being stopped or reversed within. The way I had it explained to me once,,,that say, if we became caught in the vacuum of a blackhole, that we would be pulled apart, into little pieces, down to the most simple form of energy or matter. It's like when something massive in space explodes, some particles get thrown super fast, and some not as fast. The fast particles spin the slower particles as they past..all of that spin accumulates into a black hole.

there is your fool's answer. I hope it was entertaining at least.

 

[Da Blob]

from my understanding, classical vacuum is merely a condition where/when no quantity of kinetic energy exists, so that expanding that idea into quantum mechanics, then quantum vacuum is the condition when/where no qualia/quality of energy exist.

 

[s0cratus]

from my understanding, classical vacuum is merely a condition
where/when no quantity of kinetic energy exists,
so that expanding that idea into quantum mechanics,
then quantum vacuum is the condition
when/where no qualia/quality of energy exist.

My opinion.

The visible world is limited in space and time by the
Perfect Vacuum by the Infinite Invisible World: T=0K.
All billions and billions galaxies exist in the Vacuum: T=0K.
More than 90% of the dark- invisible matter exist in Vacuum.
We can observe only a few % of the visible matter.
Question:
How can the more than 90% of the dark- invisible matter
create a few % of the visible matter ?

socratus

 

[Da Blob]

My opinion.

The visible world is limited in space and time by the
Perfect Vacuum by the Infinite Invisible World: T=0K.
All billions and billions galaxies exist in the Vacuum: T=0K.
More than 90% of the dark- invisible matter exist in Vacuum.
We can observe only a few % of the visible matter.
Question:
How can the more than 90% of the dark- invisible matter
create a few % of the visible matter ?

socratus

I don't that it does. The situation described is analogous to an iceberg. For an iceberg is a single thing, with a small portion 'visible' above the plane/surface and the rest invisible below the plane. It is simply a matter of defining the plane of matters, the one that matters.

I think that the concept of buoyancy can be a applied as a quality of possibilities, perhaps as one of the variables of the proposed periodic table of probabilities. For example, the process of the creation of a three dimensional protein from information recorded on a strand of DNA, would not be possible without buoyancy and the interaction between hydrophobic and hydrophyllic amino acids.

Concerning dark matter, it probably does't exist. It was a concept that was invented, once the Big Bang theory was proven to be wrong. The only way that the theory could be correct is dark matter is real. But their is this science is limited to that which can be observed and measured. Dark matter fails to meet either qualification, so the Big Bang theory is just a popular myth, not science at all.

Still and all, myths are fun to play in and if there was truth to this one and dark matter exists in a different gravitational state than luminous matter, then there exists the possibility of a new energy/propulsion source in the conversion of dark matter to 'light' matter, or vice versus. One could even speculate about FTL travel becoming possible, depending on the temporal differences between dark and light matter. Dark matter could just be the manifestation of the matter of parallel timelines, it is there in our 'space', but not in our time.

 

[BigApplePi]

Yes I don't know what a vacuum is. Never been there. I believe I read somewhere once stuff can be created in empty space but I'm highly skeptical. My skepticism probably isn't worth much.

 

[hitode-kun]

I believe I read somewhere once stuff can be created in empty space but I'm highly skeptical.

Uhh, quantum fluctuation?

 

[BigApplePi]

Uhh, quantum fluctuation?

Does somebody know what Vacuum quantum fluctuation is ?

 

[Da Blob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum

lol

Interesting point - reality is defined by some as abstracts defined by other abstracts and unverifiable hypothesis assumed to be fact. Empty sets used to define other empty sets, shared fantasy seen as shard reality.

The empty set, the vacuum is an essential component of any scientific measurement. That is - the only really valid scale is the zero ratio scale used for actual measurement. In order for something to exist 'scientifically', it must be shown that it doesn't exist. That is to say, it must be shown that it doesn't exist in at least one place in the universe. For example, The Kelvin scale is a ratio scale, whereas, the Centigrade and Fahrenheit scales are merely interval scales.

If we want to measure 'aples', we must find a place where there are no aples, for if aples were everywhere they would be impossible to see, or at least measure, being infinite. In other words, there must be a discernible boundary between aples and not aples or aples and oranges.

the various kinds of vacuums that exist in theory - not reality, can be seen as vacuum = 0. That is to say, zero is a point (volume of vacuum?) with no quantity, but with a great deal of quality. The particular quality of zero of interest is the quality of being a point of originality (originality being a quality). As an origin, zero provides the anchor/focus/fulcrum for a linear scale as the center of a number line or a more elaborate structure in Cartesian space.

Expanding the concept of zero into the concept of vacuum just allows for more sophisticated models to be constructed in the lands of Abstraction. One wonders though about the validity of the concept of the empty set. How can one draw a boundary around a generic, universal, finite "Is Not", surrounding it with that-which-"Is"? Reality seems to be the inverse, That-which-Is as a finite set is surrounded by the infinite Is-not... How can one even speak of a finite vacuum?

 

[s0cratus]

Vacuum, my opinion: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t = ∞ .
=.
Vacuum is a Kingdom of Coldness.
Vacuum is an Infinite Continuum.
Vacuum doesn’t have ‘ Time ‘, It is Eternal.
Vacuum’s density is zero.
Vacuum is an Infinite Energy Continuum.
Vacuum is the zero point of everything.
Vacuum is a Kingdom for everything.
Vacuum is a maximum ‘entropy’.
Vacuum is simply logical distance between things.
==.
Socratus

=.

 

[BigApplePi]

So a vacuum is a magical place at a magical time we cannot tell surrounded by lots of reality. I experienced one the other day as I heard a very real sucking sound when I rubbed one of them over my carpet and the dirt disappeared into it.

 

[nanook]

i have difficulty seeing a vacuum, of all things, as this uniquely nondual place.

i'd rather sympathize with the view that every point in reality can be seen from one perspective as an exit point out of reality, thus as a pointer to infinity and from there, infinity happens to be a pointer back to all points in reality.

it's sort of how i understood nassim haramein's view of things.

that would confirm some of the aspects you see in vacuum, but those aspects are not so much descriptive as they are not exclusive to vacuum.
unless vacuum is the space that is everywhere.

Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? ‘

one thought that crossed my mind is that when a vacuum can't be described properly and this difficulty implies that nothing else can be described either then maybe the problem is with the paradigm that tries to describe "some THING" - alternatively we could give up on the concept of "things" and try to describe reality through dual relations. as long as we look at relations, we will find out about infinitive relative reality and our findings will be reliable. but if we zoom in on where we expect "things", we find exits to the absolute instead. a matter of perspective.


that's how far my undifferentiated intuition goes. i don't do in physics. i'm a psychological type.

 

[BigApplePi]

Suppose we define a vacuum as we would define a black hole? That is, define it not by its own nature, but by what we see on its boundaries?

Or another example. Suppose I try to define YOU. Since I can't get inside you and describe all your ingredients, I define you by your observable behavior ... the surface.

 

[Coolydudey]

I prefer to think of a vacuum not as an entity but as an adjective that defines a section of space. Macroscopically, the definition (for me) would be the region in space in which there exists no matter.
Now if you take quantum fluctuation into account, for me it would have to be: the region in space in which an equal matter of particles and anti-particles exists at all times...

 

[s0cratus]

Does somebody know what Vacuum quantum fluctuation is ?

1
Maximum entropy – it is possibility to change
the homogenous vacuum T=0K.
2
Virtual particles can do ‘ holes ‘ in the T=0K.
3
‘ Holes’ in the vacuum we had named ‘ vacuum polarization’
or ‘zero- point energy’.
==.
socratus

 

[MissQuote]

Nothing.

No Thing. Zero is Nothing. Vacuum is No Thing. Nothing.

Without something else to stand by Some Thing is nothing. No Thing by itself is Zero.

pure existence is Zero. Zero is Vacuum.

Nothing.

 

[MissQuote]

I like what DaBlob said about science being myth built on myth, possibly.

That is something I have thought much on before. The possibility that all known is simply made up stuff added to made up stuff added to made up stuff.

Think how easy it is to fabricate a story in your head based on partial information, and how easy it is to work hard to fit every piece of new complex information into a model that fits the previous story, and how well the layers can pile and go together the further you go in this manor. Then sometimes things get so complex that you hit a dead stop in the logic of it, perhaps going back and cutting out previously assumed parts and rearranging them or throwing them out completely based on how well what you have left and what new you have made up fits together.

I think that would be a good laugh. If it ended up it was all make believe.

I don't think it is. But it would be a good laugh if it turned out to be.

 

[s0cratus]

Einstein and Socratus..
=.
Einstein, you was mistaken using your Gravitation theory
to the all Universe as a whole.
The Gravitation theory doesn’t work in the Universe as a whole.
The Gravitation theory is a local theory.
Why?
Because the detected material mass of the matter in the
Universe ( the cosmological constant / the critical density)
is so small ( the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3 ) that it
cannot ‘close’ the Universe into sphere and therefore our
Universe as whole must be ‘open’, endless, infinite.
The Universe as a whole is an Infinite Pure Vacuum: T=0K.
More concrete:
§ 1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ .
=.
We have two (2) Worlds: Vacuum and Material and we need
to understand their interaction.
==.
Socratus

 

[Da Blob]

i have difficulty seeing a vacuum, of all things, as this uniquely nondual place.

i'd rather sympathize with the view that every point in reality can be seen from one perspective as an exit point out of reality, thus as a pointer to infinity and from there, infinity happens to be a pointer back to all points in reality.

it's sort of how i understood nassim haramein's view of things.

that would confirm some of the aspects you see in vacuum, but those aspects are not so much descriptive as they are not exclusive to vacuum.
unless vacuum is the space that is everywhere.



one thought that crossed my mind is that when a vacuum can't be described properly and this difficulty implies that nothing else can be described either then maybe the problem is with the paradigm that tries to describe "some THING" - alternatively we could give up on the concept of "things" and try to describe reality through dual relations. as long as we look at relations, we will find out about infinitive relative reality and our findings will be reliable. but if we zoom in on where we expect "things", we find exits to the absolute instead. a matter of perspective.


that's how far my undifferentiated intuition goes. i don't do in physics. i'm a psychological type.

I like this idea of giving up on the concept of 'things' - maybe there has been only one thing this entire time, time as a particular, not a universal. That is to say those that claim to know state that no new thing has been created and all we observe is just the mass present at the Big Bang seen from a different perspective.