Then such a thing does not exist within the framework of physics as we know it. \(\Delta E \Delta t \sim \hbar\)
Doesn't this mean that there is no defined energy within a zero time interval? Also, is there any energy in an area smaller than Planck length?
lets not make this to complicated as someone yrs ago suggested there is a chiral condensate , which means there is energy of some form in all of space inotherwords there is no pure vacuum , at all
There's different ways to understand the uncertainty principle. The way I understand it in the context of a vacuum is that you can borrow some energy from the energy bank, but the more you borrow, the quicker you have to pay it back. The constant which dictates the size of how much you can borrow and how quickly you must repay is h-bar. So there are constantly particles popping into and out of existence in the vacuum. Of course, this also means that there is not really such a thing as a classical ``vacuum'' in the full quantum theory. Sure, why wouldn't there be? I should clarify, though---this is still an open question. Some research programs (loop quantum gravity, causal dynamical triangulation) do work by introducing a minimum length scale, but they do this at the cost of breaking lorentz invariance. That's good enough for me. Some people here, though, can't seem to accept the fact that quantum mechanics is weird Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Here is an article that seems to be saying that the region under the Planck scale is unphysical, that is there is no defined energy in this region. What do you think about it? http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf
It really all depends on how one wants to define a vacuum. Paradoxically, in order for a vacuum to exist, it has to contain something. Just so we don't wander too far off into the realm of philosphical absurdity, being that this is a physics forum, let's say that it has to contain space. Now, feel free to offer alternative perspectives on this, because I'd really like to hear some, but my position on the matter is that rather than being the absence of anything, space is something. Quantum foam, vacuum energy, whatever. The supporting evidence I prefer to use however is the idea that because nothing is absence of anything at all, it is impossible for nothing to exist. In the end the idea of a vacuum is only useful so far as it relates to the absence of something in particular rather than the absence of absolutely everything.
Seems to be true but does this mean that "pure vacuum" or "nothing" does not exist or ever did exist...period...dead stop?
We have to be careful here to differentiate between a concept and something that exists. A volume is a concept..."Pure Vacuum" may or may not exist.
Non-space Yes. Not only will I give you a definition, I can offer a performable laboratory experiment that will confirm my definition and a prediction based on solar neutrino data that will compliment the laboratory experiment. I'll touch on these right away. We know that the gravitational moment of gas, liquid and solid are inviolate, they always weigh the same and the gravitational attraction of two given masses is stable. But is the same true for a super-hot plasma? The plasma experiment would consist of a high energy plasma discharge, coupled with an appropriate gravitational sensing device. I predict it will demonstrate a minute but measurable, momentary increase in the force of gravity towards the discharge and in doing so, demonstrate that gravity can be induced without a corresponding quantity of mass. It will be demonstrated that there is a moment during a z-pinch when stripped electrons and protons organize into like camps and contribute their individual magnetic moment to the whole, unifying the plasma in a strong magnetic field. (This phenomenon cannot be studied for very long. Even constrained by strong magnetic fields in fusion reactors, the plasma's magnetic field rapidly 'escapes'.) I believe the gravitational induction comes about at the moment an organized quantity of super-hot plasma strips protons from electrons. Needless to say, a successful outcome of this experiment will have far-reaching implications, because it will confirm a direct link between the electric, magnetic and gravitational forces. Furthermore, gravitational induction will have fundamental implications upon the very foundation of contemporary physics, the experiment will demonstrate that the relationship between mass and gravity are not inviolate. From the many inquiries I have made over the years, I am given to understand that this experiment has not as yet been performed, nor is anyone other than myself expecting this result.* I liken it to Hans Christian Ørsted's chance experiment, when he happened to notice a compass needle jump when inducing a current through a wire. *In a recent update, I have come across a Russian physicist who has submitted his paper based plasma experiments, "GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION ON QUANTUM LEVEL AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF" by S.I. Fisenko. He claims the paper is going to be published October in a peer reviewed journal, and that is the experiment I am seeking. The paper is beyond my capacity to make any judgment on it. It can be found on the arxiv.org site. I would be interested in opinions. Next, the solar neutrinos prediction: A compilation of solar neutrino data will show that the angle of incidence of solar neutrinos emanating from the Sun will be expressed in a concave graph rather than a convex graph. A convex graph, is what one might expect from a standard model of the sun, with neutrinos emanating from the Sun's center. The concave graph which is what I am predicting, will demonstrate that neutrinos are emanating from the shell and atmosphere of the Sun, and not from its core. To my knowledge, no one is expecting a concave graph. After consultation with several solar neutrino physicists, I am to believe that the angle of incidence data is too scattered at present, but better programming and the ever-accumulating amount of data (20 strikes a day) may make the observation possible in the foreseeable future. If a concave graph is in evidence, the data will infer that the Sun is a magnetically constrained non-space volume. This volume is sustained by an exterior shell best described as a magnetically unified high energy plasma. The interior volume of non-space induces gravity, causing the Sun's shell to continually implode. This implosion of the Sun's mass releases energy, magnetically sustaining the Sun's interior volume of non-space. I make no claim as to the particular nuclear chain reaction leading to solar energy output, merely that it is distributed in a shell, gravitationally crushing in on the Sun's interior non-space. A few thoughts on the nature of 'non-space': If you consider the black hole hypothesis, a scenario where matter has accumulated to such a degree that - depending what theory you subscribe to - even light has difficulty escaping. Non-space is on the other end of the spectrum. The nature of absolute vacuum is significantly different from space. Because the standard definition of an absolute vacuum is 'a space with nothing in it', it is useful to re-coin the concept as we will be considering a 'volume with no space in it', hence, 'non-space'. Non-space is a volume which has no time, no temperature. Space behaves gravitationally towards this volume, it crushes in on the boundary in an attempt to annihilate the non-space. Wherever we look in the universe, absolute vacuums are nowhere to be observed. That is pretty astonishing because, for the longest time space was thought to be an absolute vacuum. When Einstein produced his work on Relativity in the early part of the 20th century, he had no way of knowing that space was not a vacuum. Even in the thinnest intergalactic space, any given cubic centimeter is awash in activity, virtual particles spontaneously come into existence then blink out again. Radiation permeates this thinnest of space. Whole atoms, unhindered, reach such high velocities that a plethora of them pass through a given cubic centimeter at any given time. We know that light travels upon the fabric of space, but no observation has ever been made of light propagating through an absolute vacuum, so the "v" in E=MC2v (the speed of light in a vacuum) is incorrect. Light does not travel in a vacuum, it travels in space. I believe it will be demonstrated that the virtual particles that are associated with absolute vacuums can be crudely illustrated as a 'foam' on the non-space boundary. I expect significant skepticism for these extraordinary claims, and I realize that the experiment and observation might well return a null result, rightfully condemning my contemplations to the historical trash-heap of absurd ideas. Consider though, that the plasma experiment is achievable with our present technology, and I suspect at a relatively reasonable cost, and the solar neutrino data-collection ought to be feasible the foreseeable future. It would be a great shame not to perform the plasma experiment, for if by the slimmest chance the experiment produces a positive result, is that not in itself enough incentive? And, if the proposed experiment, with the potential seed of a positive result languishes, would history not condemn today's plasma physicists for their reticence? Would we have to wait, leaving the discovery to a future generation, a generation who would look back and mock us?
This use of the number zero is dangerous. I'm going to say "zero" does not occur in descriptions of things that exist, except as placeholders. i.e. 0.00000000000001 grams per cubic beard-second
Especially in quantum mechanics Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Not only is there not a good definition of ``zero'' in a quantum theory, there's not even a good definition of particle number, or even of particle. This thread hilights some of the prejudices that people have, and some of the dangers of imposing our classical intuitions on a quantum world.
The \( |0\rangle \) Dirac bracket is for the term that is "set to zero"; it has an expectation value and a real probability of "not being zero". Another view is the "zero-bracket" is empty - a vacuum - until a wavefunction evolves and fills the vacuum; the other \( |1\rangle \) term has a coefficient which is the inner product or hidden phase of the wavefunction. So the expectation is "zero" initially but QM says there is no real vacuum - the wavefunction will evolve in some real interval of time; when exactly or where, is the "quantum dilemma"
so the only way to have a pure vaccum is to have no energy/matter within that volume of space , however large or small
"No energy/matter" is a quid pro quo; no such thing exists in any QM theory. The universe may exist because of an expectation value, in a "non-empty" vacuum.
a value has nothing to do with the essence existence , since any value is based on energy/matter the Universe exists because energy/matter is infinite in its existence
