Vamphaery
First let me say that I am here to prostrate myself humbly before those wiser and more learned than I. I know much of what I'm about to say may be wrong, consist of further misconceptions, etc. So if anything I say is wrong either semantically or literally, please point it out so that I can learn as much as possible. I appreciate and respect that real physicists and astrophysicists are far more intelligent than I'll ever be, and that I don't REALLY have a comprehensive understanding of what I'm even talking about. So please bear that in mind as you read this lol.

It occurred to me today that a lot of misconceptions arise when laypeople such as myself read dumbed down explanations of things like the standard model and quantum mechanics.

For example, the universe is often described, as a consequence of the standard model, to be very likely "flat" at cosmic scales. I for a long time thought that this meant it was literally FLAT like paper, and couldn't understand how that could be. It turns out, all they mean is that the same geometry we can apply here on Earth appears to apply throughout the observable universe, so that we can still use euclidean geometry. In other words, no two parallel lines which are truly parallel will ever cross, right angles will always be right angles, etc. That's all they mean when they say "flat."

Another one is the idea of spacetime LITERALLY being like a flat, rubber sheet. That's just how they describe their calculations visually though, apparently. Spacetime is in actuality neither "flat" in the literal sense, nor "curved" in a literal sense (at least not in the way we always see in videos on the Science Channel and the like.) All they mean by flatness and curvature is that a good way to visualize the consequences of their equations is to THINK of it as a flat surface which can bend and curve. In actuality space is, obviously, three dimensional (plus time) and transcendent in all directions. The "curvature" caused by gravitation is in actuality a "field" around objects in 3D space. That's a much more literal way of thinking about it.

Another one - and this one REALLY used to drive me to confusion and perplexity - is the idea of the universe eventually expanding faster than the speed of light because space itself expands. That's another thing that never made sense to me, since nothing can travel faster than light (barring certain particles in theory,) and moreover, space isn't a tangible thing that can expand; it's just space (or is it?) Well it turns out that they don't mean that space is literally expanding itself, in any physical sense. They just mean that the AMOUNT of space BETWEEN everything in the observable space is expanding as a consequence of everything moving further and further apart. The idea of the universe eventually expanding faster than light is also an illusion brought about by the METRIC of how we calculate the expansion of that space. Galaxies won't literally be traveling faster than light on their own, but the average or net EXPANSION of the space BETWEEN all galaxies will eventually exceed the speed of light, light from distant galaxies will no longer reach us, etc.

So all of these little misconceptions led me to what I think is a very important question for a layperson's understanding of the universe we exist in, and that is this:

In quantum mechanics, the elementary particles are described as, at very small scales, actually being mere perturbations of a dynamic field in space. This dynamic field exists even in a vacuum, which is why we can never have a true, ideal vacuum, because there will always remain non-zero probability values within the dynamic field. SO... is this LITERALLY because "space" is some kind of omnipresent medium being perturbed or vibrated to create waves which we merely DETECT as particles, but which are really just "vibrating space?" OR... is this another illusion created by how it's being described semantically?

In other words: If there was NO matter, no particles, no energy, etc. ANYWHERE in space, even at very great distances, would space still remain a medium, somehow tangible and dynamic in and of itself? Or does this only appear to be the case because of the matter and energy already in the universe, so that even if it's very far away from apparent "empty space," there is still a dynamic field between all matter, energy, and particles? Because the former allows us to indulge thoughts of something ephemeral or ethereal in a sense, whereas the latter is merely a natural consequence of matter existing anywhere in space, and space in that case remains just that: empty space, but CONTAINING a field, not BEING a field.

I've asked several people with physics and astrophysics backgrounds this question, and all they can say is: We don't know yet, because even if no matter existed, for all we know, probability values would still persist in space (perhaps due to other dimensions bordering our spacetime, perhaps due to some intrinsic property of space itself.) We literally don't know yet, nor do we have a way of knowing.

Is that really true? Can anyone offer any greater insights, corrections, or better descriptions? Resources, recommended reading, viewing etc. are also welcome (preferably that someone with no mathematic, algebraic, or technical skill can comprehend.) I will take the time to actually read and/or watch them if at all possible.
NymphaeaAlba
Being a layman myself I can empathize. Analogies themselves can sometimes be more harmful even though we need them. Just look at the child like cartoon versions of Special and General Relativity.

Have you ever tried to explain to a layman the concept of the big bang theory? The Redshift, the Doppler effect, the Expansion Model, all indicating that the entire universe was derived from a single point smaller than a pin head, or even the history of how Maxwell’s equations came about. That since light is a transverse wave, we needed a semisolid substance, not just a fluid, because a fluid can’t hold a sheer force. That’s why the idea for an ether was born. I think it was Thompson who tried to build a mechanical model with rotating fluid because vortex rings can be very stable and offer more resistance. Maxwell liked this idea and begins to add to this model, which lead him to understand how light is connected to electromagnetism. He is able to calculate what the speed for a transverse wave would be in this model and is within 1% of c. Analogies never deliver airtight insight, that why we say, his physical description are the equations themselves. It was difficult for even the most well known intellectuals to grasp.

He used mostly Cartesian notations, because he did not like vector notations, and France and Germany were using laplacian notations, so it was difficult to translate. Hermann Von Holtz agreed with his results but even he could not grasp the actual physical conditions of this statement. I think Maxwell indicated that this field was primary and charges and currents secondary, the charges and currents were not physical entities themselves but a consequence of this field. Many remained in denial and did not want to give up the concept of ether. Even Einstein did not contribute to ether and there were many who never accepted General Relativity. There was no concrete payoffs to allow you to understand practical mechanics. I think Michelson and Lorentz never even came around to accepting GR. The simplicity, unity, elegance, is what came into play for those who did.

Then you come across all of the people in the history of physics who out of egotism have falsified their work, Hendricks Schon is a good example. Then there are the theories themselves which seem a little crazy, examples are parallel universes, the variable speed of light theory, and time travel, etc. We all have our favorites, and we can see the beauty in Newton’s and Kepler’s laws, but there are many with over the top imaginations. The subjects in physics are vast and even the most respected intellectuals struggle.

There is a list in this forum of recommended books, but I can't remember where it was, maybe someone else could direct you? There are several universities that offer free lectures. MIT lectures are wonderful and UC Berkley has many to offer. The Feynman lectures are also available.

Have fun
romun
Very interesting piece, I think you have outlined the unspoken confusion of physicists, as indicated by their response to your questions.

It may help to consider the historical development of the current concept of 'space'.
This was invented by Greek philosophers to explain the fluidity of gases with their ball bearing type atoms, Aristotle rejected this concept of vacuum, but it resurfaced when Torricelli was presumed to have created one in his 'barometer' experiment.
Just four years later Gassendi resurrected the Greek kinetic atomic theory, and this, together with Pascals experiments, convinced even Newton that the atmosphere of earth was finite, beyond which the vacuum of space began.
This belief in the vacuum of space continued until the mid 20th century, when space exploration showed that, at orbits of 4-500 km altitude, oxygen and nitrogen exists in the same relative proportions as at sea level, and later it was discovered that the sun has an atmosphere “that extends far beyond the orbit of earth” and that “the earth's atmosphere merges with that of the sun at 80,000 km”. It is also estimated by some that there are 5 atoms of hydrogen per cc in inter-galactic regions, and while some may object to this being described as a gas, this is just semantics.
So, while many still cling to this concept of 'the perfect vacuum of space', apparently it does not exist.
But this concept of vacuum was a core assumption of on which both relativity and quantum theories were conceived and developed.
Today thousands of highly sophisticated experiments have shown that it is not possible to isolate 'space' from matter, or vice versa, the creation of a vacuum appears to be strongly resisted, and the only thing that can resist is matter itself.
If the vacuum is a possible state, then such resistance would be finite and, if it is an impossible state, then the resistance would rise exponentially towards infinity.
Today it is accepted that 'the vacuum is a philosophical concept with no basis in reality' and this inter-atomic space is imbued with other hypothetical qualities, but it of hypothetical necessity has to retain the qualities of the vacuum of the Greek philosophers in that it cannot inhibit the eternal kinetic motion of atoms.
Thus it has to have the quality of zero-inertia, in that it cannot influence matter in any way, and accordingly it cannot resist its own expansion.
Having the hypothetical quality of zero-inertia thus means that it cannot transmit a force between two masses of any dimension, and as Newton pointed out 300 years ago (in effect) “if anyone believes this possible, they are stupid”.
So physics today is based upon two core assumptions, the (obvious) existence of matter and the (hypothetical) existence of 'space' as a separate and distinct entity, which 'space' cannot transmit the forces which are observed to be transmitted.
Granouille
QUOTE (Vamphaery+)
SO... is this LITERALLY because "space" is some kind of omnipresent medium being perturbed or vibrated to create waves which we merely DETECT as particles, but which are really just "vibrating space?" OR... is this another illusion created by how it's being described semantically?

Yes, to the illusion. And frankly, yes to the waves. There isn't really any confusion unless you're using an incorrect library of 'semantics'.

Interesting post...
AlexG
QUOTE
Today thousands of highly sophisticated experiments have shown that it is not possible to isolate 'space' from matter

And thousands of highly sophisticated experiments have shown that SR, GR, and Quantum mechanics (the three pinions of modern physics) do an excellent job of explaining and predicting the way the physical universe actually works.
romun
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 6 2010, 02:15 AM)

SR, GR, and Quantum mechanics (the three pinions of modern physics) do an excellent job of explaining and predicting the way the physical universe actually works.

Indeed? - that would not be:-

'Excellent' - if it were not for the fact that these core theories are irreconcilable, and that they cannot individually or collectively describe, either mathematically or conceptually, as to how the force that impels minuscule masses towards each other, and which holds the moon in orbit around the earth, and the planets in their orbits around the sun, and the sun in its motion around the centre of the galaxy, and the galaxy in its motion relative to adjacent galaxies, and which ties the universe together, is transmitted.

Would it ???
CrazyJesse

Mass/Inertia
Gravitation
"Dark Matter"
"Dark Energy"

LOL
Vamphaery
QUOTE (romun+Apr 5 2010, 01:33 PM)
If the vacuum is a possible state, then such resistance would be finite and, if it is an impossible state, then the resistance would rise exponentially towards infinity.
Today it is accepted that 'the vacuum is a philosophical concept with no basis in reality' and this inter-atomic space is imbued with other hypothetical qualities, but it of hypothetical necessity has to retain the qualities of the vacuum of the Greek philosophers in that it cannot inhibit the eternal kinetic motion of atoms.
Thus it has to have the quality of zero-inertia, in that it cannot influence matter in any way, and accordingly it cannot resist its own expansion.
Having the hypothetical quality of zero-inertia thus means that it cannot transmit a force between two masses of any dimension, and as Newton pointed out 300 years ago (in effect) “if anyone believes this possible, they are stupid”.
So physics today is based upon two core assumptions, the (obvious) existence of matter and the (hypothetical) existence of 'space' as a separate and distinct entity, which 'space' cannot transmit the forces which are observed to be transmitted.

I never even thought of this when making my original post, but what you're saying suggests that space itself as an ontological entity is in doubt. That's a mind blower there lol.

So, what we classically call "space" and imagine as an empty void may in reality be indivisible from matter and its volume. But that brings me to a new problem/question.

What if no matter existed? What would remain? My mind wants to automatically imagine an empty void nevertheless having dimension. Why? Because the alternative to imagining an empty void with dimension is to imagine some sort of infinite lack of dimension: literal nothingness, with no height, width, or length, and nothing moving in it so therefore no time. LESS than one dimensional. Just... nothing. But that gives rise to a new problem in my mind lol.

That lack of dimension implies that if I were to place an object - let's say, a ball - into that hypothetical nothingness having no dimension, that the ball would .... what? Be crushed into nothingness by the lack of dimension? Lose its own dimensions? What?

Any of those, at least to my uneducated layman's mind, suggest the pressence of some kind of resistance or force (if only the "force" for lack of a better term, of "lack.") But that resistance implies "something" rather than "nothing." And I already have said above that what we're trying to imagine is a universe with no matter, no energy - nothing.

So that leaves me with the notion of the infinite void, with no resistance in it. What would that void be like, though? If literally nothing existed - no matter, no energy, nothing - wouldn't what remained be what we classically think of as "space?"

If so, what would happen if we placed something in this endless expanse of "lack?" Wouldn't it be able to move through that "space?" So doesn't that imply that space itself has dimension? Doesn't that imply that space must exist in order for the matter we see in our universe to have "room to exist" so to speak? What is the volume that matter is taking up if not space? Is it merely its own volume? But if it is merely its own volume, and there is no "space" for it to exist in, why is our universe four dimensional? Wouldn't everything be crushed into having no dimension whatsoever if not for the existence of space as an ontological entity?

So that is a huge question I have never have answered which has always plagued me. Can you or anyone else here answer it?

QUOTE (Granouille+Apr 5 2010, 05:48 PM)

Yes, to the illusion. And frankly, yes to the waves. There isn't really any confusion unless you're using an incorrect library of 'semantics'.

Interesting post...

So are you saying that the perturbation of a dynamic field is ultimately what the elementary particles are, but that empty space, if such a thing exists, is not the dynamic field being perturbed? What is the field being perturbed then? Is it simply the quantized field existing between all matter, thus, created by matter itself? This is what confuses me. Is space the medium? Or is the medium simply existing in space?

Thank-you all for your wonderful posts so far. I apologize if I'm failing to grasp this all still. I'm doing my best lol.
romun
QUOTE (Vamphaery+Apr 6 2010, 07:23 AM)

What if no matter existed?

You ask the question, What if no matter existed? - Then you assume that it (matter) exists, as an object - a ball. You then speculate as to what would happen to this – non-existent – matter. ????

In my opinion, you need to start from the assumption that matter exists, as you, and I, are matter, and then ask the question, seriously - What if no 'space' exists? (i.e. no space exists without matter) and then accordingly - Is not space defined by matter?
romun
Note.

The force that is described generally as gravitation is the universal force that is the ultimate cause of all other forces and interactions, i.e. natural phenomena. Without a clear and comprehensible explanation of the cause of this force, any theory is ultimately, at best unconvincing, at worst useless.
Vamphaery
As you say, the existence of matter is obvious. So let's take the question you now pose: What if no space exists as a separate ontological entity independent of matter? What if matter and space are indivisible?

That still leaves me with the questions:

1) how can matter itself have dimension if there is no dimensional space for it to occupy?
2) IF, hypothetically, matter DID NOT exist (I know it's obvious that it does,) would what remains have dimension? Or would it have no dimension?

What I'm ultimately trying to get at though is (the above are really separate, though related and equally interesting questions) is: when physicists talk about elementary particles not really being physical things in the way we classically think about them, but instead merely being vibrations or perturbations in a dynamic field (which I have interestingly even heard called "the dynamical void,") are they saying that space, WHATEVER that is, is a dynamic field, or are they saying that a dynamic field automatically exists between all matter, and THAT is what is being perturbed?

For reference, my confusion arises in part from a video I watched recently which said, "Empty space is in reality a wildly dynamical medium."
romun
QUOTE (Vamphaery+Apr 6 2010, 08:42 AM)
1) how can matter itself have dimension if there is no dimensional space for it to occupy?
2) IF, hypothetically, matter DID NOT exist (I know it's obvious that it does,) would what remains have dimension? Or would it have no dimension?

Sorry but your first question makes no sense to me.

With respect, you have accepted the general belief in 'space' as a distinct and separate entity, so you find it difficult to understand the concept, and the possibility, of its non-existence, and you need a 'dimensional space' for it (matter) to occupy.

You, as a material object, occupy a specific volume - say that an alien arrived with something that could completely destroy all your matter instantaneously, would the volume of 'space' remain in that instant as a copy of your original volumetric entity and entirely devoid of matter?

My answer would be that, as it is observed that matter cannot allow the creation of a vacuum, it (external matter) would instantaneously fill that space.

You then talk of a current speculation as to the qualities of the hypothetical 'space' as being, in this particular case, a 'wildly dynamical medium'.

This is just another pure speculation as to the alternatives for the vacuum, or in other words, a zero-inertia medium by another name, that, hopefully for theoretical physicists, will, in essence, be able to provide a (mathematical) bridge to allow the transmission of forces.

Physics is locked in to this assumption of a distinct and separate entity to matter called 'space', and as mentioned before this cannot, by hypothetical definition, transfer action and reaction between masses.

We do not have any idea what matter 'is' ultimately, and yet physicists assert that they 'know' that it exists 'here' and not 'there', i.e. that atoms are discontinuous and that they are separated by a non-material space, which cannot be isolated and examined.
Is it impossible to consider that this intervening 'space' could be matter, (such as 'dark matter') that is invisible, or in other words does not react to any impulse directed at it?

Matter exists, 'space' as a distinct and separate entity to matter is unproven, and patently unprovable.
Vamphaery
Don't worry, I'm not being offended or frustrated by what you're saying, romun. If we indeed do not know if such a thing as "space" even exists, and we likewise do not know what matter 'is' yet, then I must accept that.

The foundation of knowledge in my opinion is the ability to accept the statement, "I do not know." That's what led me to make this thread in the first place.

I completely agree with you that any theory describing what was once called space as a "dynamic medium," is absolutely speculative, and indeed, that the very existence of space itself is speculative and hypothetical.

I guess my question should instead be, "According to those promulgating that speculative hypothesis, is hypothetical empty space the medium, or does the hypothesis posit hypothetically that the dynamic field is created and sustained by the very existence of matter in the first place?"

Or do current speculative theories and models even make any hypotheses with respect to either? Do they simply say, "We don't know?"

I'm not asking what empirically is, because as you said, it's all speculative and theoretical. I'm asking what speculation on their part says may be.

Again though, if we simply do not know, I can and will accept that too. Thanks very much for your patience.
AlexG
QUOTE
and that they cannot individually or collectively describe, either mathematically or conceptually, as to how the force that impels minuscule masses towards each other, and which holds the moon in orbit around the earth, and the planets in their orbits around the sun, and the sun in its motion around the centre of the galaxy, and the galaxy in its motion relative to adjacent galaxies, and which ties the universe together, is transmitted.

GR describes the effects and causes of gravity quite accurately. Simply because you don't understand it doesn't mean the explanation isn't correct.
romun
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 6 2010, 05:59 PM)

GR describes the effects and causes of gravity quite accurately. Simply because you don't understand it doesn't mean the explanation isn't correct.

So explain, in a few short sentences, how GR can describe the cause of the observed transmission of the force of gravitation between two massive bodies suspended against the earth's pull.
I.e. the actions and reactions transferred through the intervening, hypothetical 'kinetic atomic' gas, which is composed volumetrically of one part in a thousand atoms, while the rest is a zero-inertia 'space' (of whatever description).
AlexG
From a quantum point of view, one would say that there is an exchange of gravitons, the force carrying particle of gravity.

From a GR point of view, space/time is warping around the massive objects, which proceed to move along the paths of least resistence.

No hypothetical aether needed.
romun
QUOTE (Vamphaery+Apr 6 2010, 12:23 PM)

I guess my question should instead be, "According to those promulgating that speculative hypothesis, is hypothetical empty space the medium, or does the hypothesis posit hypothetically that the dynamic field is created and sustained by the very existence of matter in the first place?"

I agree with your sentiments entirely, with respect to 'knowing'.

I would also like an answer to your question here, I suspect however that the first option would be generally suggested.

For the second, which I would suggest to be closer to reality, we return to the question of what matter is.

Is it ultimately particulate - in my opinion no. Is it therefore a field - of what? Are (the concepts of) matter and energy inseparable, indistinguishable?

We can only speculate, but whatever it is, for the transmission of the forces of nature to occur, it has to be continuous.
Vamphaery
I must say that I owe you a debt for opening my mind to the concept of the possibility that space is not an ontological reality but instead merely an abstraction deriving from the nature of matter to fill volume and have dimension. This is yet another example of the kind of misconceptions of which I spoke in my initial post. Never before in my entire life has anyone suggested to me that "space" might not be an actual "thing" unto itself, for lack of a better term. It literally never occurred to me before, accordingly.

So, even if no one can tell me definitively what the answer to my question is, at least now I have an additional possibility to consider.
Granouille
Why didn't you just say "idea" instead of trying to impress people with crap like this:

QUOTE
concept of the possibility that space is not an ontological reality

Poser and troll.
Vamphaery
Excuse me? Have I inadvertently used a word improperly or something, causing you to think I'm trying to "impress" someone? I'm not sure what you mean. If I've used a word improperly or incorrectly, I apologize, but I assure you I am not "trolling" or trying to "impress" anyone. I came here to ask a legitimate question based on my legitimate curiosity about something I barely understand in an even rudimentary fashion, let alone comprehend fully. While I haven't really been able to find an answer to that question, I am genuinely grateful for the thought provoking replies I've received. I don't understand what I'm being accused of.
Granouille
I stated my objection clearly: Your redundant and sesquipedalian phrasing would cleanly and clearly reduce to the word "idea".

You are pretentious and boring. Do not PM me.
romun
QUOTE (Vamphaery+Apr 7 2010, 12:13 AM)
Excuse me? Have I inadvertently used a word improperly or something, causing you to think I'm trying to "impress" someone? I'm not sure what you mean. If I've used a word improperly or incorrectly, I apologize, but I assure you I am not "trolling" or trying to "impress" anyone. I came here to ask a legitimate question based on my legitimate curiosity about something I barely understand in an even rudimentary fashion, let alone comprehend fully. While I haven't really been able to find an answer to that question, I am genuinely grateful for the thought provoking replies I've received. I don't understand what I'm being accused of.

I suggest you ignore Granny, his posts are usually pointless and/or abusive. He obviously has what is politely termed as a 'personality disorder'.
Vamphaery
Evidently so. I PM'd him asking for clarification and apologizing for any offense incurred, but he did not reply other than his above post here.

For the record, I made my choice of words based on how I think, not to "impress" anyone. In my mind the word "idea" means something I or someone else has thought of. Given that this had never occurred to me before, and no one had ever suggested it to me before in my whole life, I just preferred to specifically describe it as a concept of something that may be true, rather than simply use the word "idea." In retrospect, "idea" would have conveyed what I was trying to say just as well, but I don't analyze every little choice of words on my part when posting on a message board, except in cases where I fear the meaning or context of what I'm saying might be misconstrued or misinterpreted. (Hence this, in my opinion unnecessary, clarification.)

Thanks again to everyone who responded to this thread.
romun
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 6 2010, 07:51 PM)
From a quantum point of view, one would say that there is an exchange of gravitons, the force carrying particle of gravity.

From a GR point of view, space/time is warping around the massive objects, which proceed to move along the paths of least resistence.

No hypothetical aether needed.

Your response is not an explanation for the transmission of gravitation, it is an assertion on your part that GR can explain it, and that, if a speculative particle is shown to exist, so, possibly, could quantum mechanics. And I seem to remember a few years back Hawking saying that a solution to the problem of gravitation may take decades.

Also I am not a proponent of an aether, as it would occupy the same space as the vacuum and have the same qualities of non-impedance of kinetic atoms, and so my objections to its existence are the same as for the vacuum.
NymphaeaAlba
QUOTE (Granouille+Apr 7 2010, 01:02 AM)
I stated my objection clearly: Your redundant and sesquipedalian phrasing would cleanly and clearly reduce to the word "idea".

You are pretentious and boring. Do not PM me.

Granouille,
Sesquipedalian, now that's a mouthful. Perhaps my last PM (past measurement) was inaccurate. You are dominating the field with your scintillating countercutting. It is apparent the you are no longer wielding a basket-hilted. Is that a highland claidheamh dŕ lŕimh in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Rhinoderma darwinii

The facetious stuffing was bursting my little sockpuppet seams. I had to let the hem out.
Granouille
My Irish is up!

Actually, I prefer a wazikashi, but no matter.
romun
The Principle of Excluded Middle states that either the vacuum exists, or it does not.

[As the concept 'space' is a direct historical result of the concept 'vacuum', (i.e. as a distinct and separate volumetric entity to the concept matter) then also - either 'space' exists, or it does not.]

There is no evidence whatever to support the former proposition, but substantive, empirical evidence exists that indicate that the latter is true.

This evidence includes thousands of highly sophisticated experiments attempting to get to, or closer to, absolute zero pressure and temperature, and, while pressures are achieved that are within a fraction of zero, it is accepted by technicians and applied scientists that this state is technically unattainable, i.e. impossible.

According to currently accepted atomic theory, this is surprising, given that this relatively huge volume (in comparison to that of matter) of non-material medium, by definition, cannot influence matter and therefore cannot resist its own expansion.

This, of course, also implies that any atomic matter also cannot influence, or affect in any way the expansion of this separating medium.

But it is observed empirically that there is a strong resistance to the achievement of very low pressures, and that it takes a large amount of energy to do this.

If the vacuum state is in fact achievable, such resistance will ultimately reach a finite level, if it is an impossible state then such resistance will rise exponentially towards the infinite.

But in any case, in the terms of the kinetic atomic theory of gases (the base assumptions of which all of physics is ultimately based), this observed force of resistance is inexplicable.

As the separating, zero-inertia medium of whatever description cannot be a cause, the only factors that can is the external atmospheric pressure, the matter of the gas sample and the matter of the apparatus itself.

The external atmospheric pressure of 101 kPa can be easily overcome or isolated from the sample by modern technology, so this factor, while of course it needs to be considered, is consistent and cannot be the cause of an increasing resistance.

And the atoms of this kinetic gas can only exert a positive force by means of collisions with each other and with the walls of the compartment, and as they are moved into greater and greater mean separations, all that can happen is that these collisions become fewer and fewer.

So, as kinetic atomic theory cannot explain the simple process of the decompression of a gas, (and cannot sensibly describe the interactions that cause other natural phenomena, in particular gravitation) it must be considered, in the light of the knowledge available today, that this theory is invalid.

(Some will insist that this elemental theory is of no real significance, and that the highly complex structure of physics today is soundly based upon numerous, sequential verifications of the core theories of relativity and quantum, but if both these theories are based upon and developed from the core assumptions of kinetic theory then both are themselves suspect.)

But the clear evidence, which indicates that the hypothetical vacuum/space predicted by this base theory does not exist, is ignored.

Why this is so is obvious, as, if the concept of space as an entity is ingrained in the mind to the extent that the possibility of its non-existence has never been considered, then accordingly a persons scientific belief system, which has been accumulated over years and is entirely based upon the fundamental assumption of its existence, would be turned on its head, which for most is completely unacceptable.

Many will object to the term 'scientific belief system', but if your acquired knowledge is based upon a single assumption, a belief, that cannot be proven (and in this case it is) then it is a 'belief system', (and the term metaphysics may be a more appropriate one than plain physics).

And the, fundamental and unequivocal, fact remains that it is not possible to describe the transmission of forces through such a hypothetical medium.
Granouille
Were you trying to slip something that isn't BS into your ramblings?

Fail.
romun
QUOTE (Granouille+Apr 9 2010, 09:13 PM)
Were you trying to slip something that isn't BS into your ramblings?

You are getting quite moderate in terms of abuse. Are you on a new pill??
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.