[baudrunner]

Further on the subject of particle physics, what happens when an x-ray photon meets with an atom?

one of these three events

This flash animation is just one of many interesting animations produced by
David M. Harrison, Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto
to illustrate some underlying fundamental physical phenomenon.

More can be found at the web site...

http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>> Understand me. What I mean is that either the empty space is very small, or it is jsut the space in between the necleuses of the atoms. Of course there is not always something, for that would be total density. Nevertheless, there is no true vacuum, that is, no place without matter, energy and force, for that place would not exist. I draw it like this: Force<--Energy<--Matter-->Space-->Time That is, Matter is the fundamental start of existence, but it can only exist with the other four, but allways there is matter, there are the other four. First, matter implies energy and space directly, for they are somehow more united to it, and these derive respectivelly force and time. But these two are also neccesary for existence. The five concepts make up the Pentagon Pillars Of Nature (2P-ON. phonetically written, this is 'To Be ON', TBON. Which could also mean: Theoretic Breakthrough On Nature).

Alright, so we agree that matter is not everywhere or else the universe would have to be infinitely dense. Well that proves right there that the force of gravity has to propagate through empty space: since gravity reaches everywhere, it will always encounter empty space no matter how small because empty space is invariably everywhere for the universe's composition to not be infinitely dense. True, force can still pass through empty space, thus empty space can be transmitting force, but that's just what I'm saying that true force propagates through empty space. You contradict yourself when you say the universe is not infinitely dense and then go on to say that there is no place without matter. Don't you agree?

[baudrunner]

Subversion,

"Space and time are not conditions in which we live, but modes in which we think." (Albert Einstein)

Alright, so we agree that matter is not everywhere or else the universe would have to be infinitely dense. (Subversion)

That's a very unscientific observation. At least you should have said "infinitely material". You should remember that you are energy. Your conscious, cognizant, ergonomically constructed self exists as a temporary assemblage of cells that occupy a space which, relative to your context, is also energy, just a whole lot less dense than you so it only seems to be empty. Remember that there are essentially two types of particles: particles of matter (fermions), and particles of force (bosons). They both spin off time as a matter of course. That's how space provides the continuum for everything that occupies it. Remember, all particles have motion and that motion approaches light speed, at which point they would have infinite mass and infinite time.

"Nature abhors a vacuum" (Aristotle)

From optics.org, 29 December 1996:

According to quantum mechanics, empty space is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

From space.com:

True, the cosmos consists overwhelmingly of vacuum. Yet vacuum itself is proving not to be empty at all. It is much more complex than most people would guess. "But surely," you might ask, "if you take a container and remove everything from inside it - every atom, every photon - there will be nothing left?" Not by a long shot. Since the 1920s physicists have recognized that on a microscopic scale, the vacuum itself is alive with activity. Moreover, this network of activity may extend right down to include the very structure of space-time itself. (Sten Odenwald. Copyright (C) 1995 Sky Publishing Corporation.)

Odenwald goes on to discuss the experimental observation of the spontaneous creation of "virtual particles" between two metal plates placed in a vacuum. Physicists have predicted the existence of the Higgs field in the vacuum of space, which provides a "messenger particle", the Higgs boson, which interacts with electrons to give them mass. In other words, there is general agreement among the community of cosmologists and physicists that space is not nothing, nor is it "empty":

So to answer our question about whether a container of empty space is truly empty, the best anyone can do is remove the normal, physical particles that nature allows us to see and manipulate. The virtual particles can never be evicted. And in addition there may exist the ever-present Higgs field. (Sten Odenwald. Copyright (C) 1995 Sky Publishing Corporation.)

Furthermore:

We know that space-time is quite smooth down to at least the scale of the electron, 10^-20 cm - 10 million times smaller than an atomic nucleus. This is the size limit set for any internal component of the electron, based on careful comparisons between experiment and the predictions of quantum electrodynamics. But near the Planck horizon of 10^-33 cm, space-time must change its structure drastically. It may be a world in which conventional notions of dimensionality, time, and space need to be redefined and possibly eliminated altogether.(Sten Odenwald. Copyright (C) 1995 Sky Publishing Corporation.)

The accelerating structure at the Stanford Linear acellerator is pumped out to 1/100,000,000,000 of atmospheric pressure. That is only almost close to being a pure vacuum. I say almost, because nobody really knows what a pure vacuum is, and it is unlikely that one can be created. One thing is certain, even the vacuum of space is not as great as that, not by a long shot. There's just too much happening in it. Remember what Aristotle said.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Subversion, Odenwald goes on to discuss the experimental observation of the spontaneous creation of "virtual particles"

Exactly, virtually particles are just that, virtual. The reason scientists had to name them virtual is because they are not real. They pop in and out of existence so fast that they can't be really considered to exist. Furthermore, if you did say that they really existed it would negate the laws of thermodynamics because the laws of thermodynamics says matter cannot pop in and out of existence. Case closed.

[dleviwing]

subvariant;
What law of thermodynamics are you referring to????

[baudrunner]

Just a note, Guille. Notwithstanding the fact that they are actually looking for the existence of other dimensions (another example of experiment chasing mathematics instead of mathematics explaining empirical result), I think that to look for the presence of gravitons one should conduct experiments in some nearby empty region of space.

[baudrunner]

No, subversion, case is not closed. Imagine stepping out into the dark vacuum of space naked. Before your blood boils and you expire you will experience for a moment the millions of pin pricks assaulting you on every square inch of your body. It is then that you will realize that the feeling of that environment is not the cold smoothness of nothing but the dynamics of a very active environment. You will be very impressed before you explode in amazement.

[baudrunner]

Yoda, I think the stubborness that makes the blood boil.

[stevemc2]

GUILLE'S QUOTE: "... I have a strong problem with this idea. This is: where is mass? How is mass? Is it contained all around the matter, in each particle? If so, where is the mass distributed around each particle? In this ultimate question I'm a refugee of string theory, I hope, momentarilly. It's the only idea that gives me any hint of how mass could be."

This is a really good question (I'd say profound in a way). It seems to me that we'll have to go back and re-ask questions like "how is mass" and "what is time" to get anywhere in the quest for a TOE.

Let's put Einstein and relativity (both SR and GR) aside for a time and consider Paul Dirac's ideas.

In the 1920s Dirac tried to formulate a theory for the the space-time evolution of the electron, starting with Lorentz's work.
refer to this paper "Theory of the Electron" by for details:
www.philsoc.org/1962Spring/1526transcript.html

Dirac's results indicated that space and time were a "complex" mixture - the sum of a real and an imaginary quantity. see this article on Dirac:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/726

Dirac also was willing to question theories which the physics establishment had already deemed as 'validated.' See pages 14 -24 of this paper, "Open or Closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the Relation between Classical and Quantum Mechanics", by Alisa Bokulich:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...d-preprint.pdf

One intriguing comment by Dirac, on his attempts to unify quantum mechanics and special relativity, "This result las led me to doubt how fundamental the 4 dimensional requirement of physics is."

stevemc2