We Are 99.9% Empty Space

What ever you want to see my friend, whatever you want to see.

lol....truer words have never been spoken!

Originally posted by a_buck_fifty
What I cant understand is that how you can come to these conclusions. We know nothing about our environment. You are making wild suggestions about present scientific research. Our current theories suggest that we are mostly made up of space but we need to look deeper. Chances are that we will die out before we even make any tech advances that will enable us to talk about our surroundings. Not having a go or anything but it just makes me angry when people make assumptions based on current information available. Who knows but there might be something in that space that is uncomprehensable to us as human beings as in something in a different dimension, but then again who knows if dimensions really exist???

Just something to ponder over...

Well,there is certainly a force that is holding everything together. Some would argue that it's called gravity. However,I tend to think,much like you, that it might be something much more extraordinary. However, without a prime consciousness,call it God if you want,I don't much think that we would even perceive our perception,if you follow.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well,there is certainly a force that is holding everything together. Some would argue that it's called gravity. However,I tend to think,much like you, that it might be something much more extraordinary. However, without a prime consciousness,call it God if you want,I don't much think that we would even perceive our perception,if you follow.

Actually gravity does little to nothing when talking about holding us, or anything, together (save for planets in orbits, or un on the ground)

Most of the stuff holding us together is the Strong and Weak nuclear forces, as well as the EM force.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


Actually gravity does little to nothing when talking about holding us, or anything, together (save for planets in orbits, or un on the ground)

Most of the stuff holding us together is the Strong and Weak nuclear forces, as well as the EM force.

Yeah,I would suspect you are correct about the EM force. I suppose that is why so many are disturbed by the degradation of the electromagnetic field.

World-renowned scientist and Nobel Prize winner Max Planck once made a remarkable comment about the structure of matter that has been widely quoted ever since...

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about atoms this much:

THERE IS NO MATTER AS SUCH!

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

www.answers.com...

Matter only exist as a construct of the mind.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well,there is certainly a force that is holding everything together. Some would argue that it's called gravity. However,I tend to think,much like you, that it might be something much more extraordinary. However, without a prime consciousness,call it God if you want,I don't much think that we would even perceive our perception,if you follow.

Actually gravity does little to nothing when talking about holding us, or anything, together (save for planets in orbits, or un on the ground)

Most of the stuff holding us together is the Strong and Weak nuclear forces, as well as the EM force.

You see this is exactly what im talking about. How can you say that? We can not say things in this context. You (nor I) know that this is true. I know exactly what you are going on about as I know this subject fairly well but we can not prove anything. We know so little. Research is the key to the future. When things like this are stated then I think they must be linked at the end (or something along the lines) with accordance to latest research. Im sorry I know im reaching too deep with this but it's just something that really annoys me when people state facts that they have no idea if it's true or not as it's something they have been taught or read. Ok im finished now, sorry, rant over

You see this is exactly what im talking about. How can you say that? We can not say things in this context. You (nor I) know that this is true. I know exactly what you are going on about as I know this subject fairly well but we can not prove anything. We know so little. Research is the key to the future. When things like this are stated then I think they must be linked at the end (or something along the lines) with accordanceto latest research. Im sorry I know im reaching too deep with this but it's just something that really annoys me when people state facts that they have no idea if it's true or not as it's something they have been taught or read. Ok im finished now, sorry, rant over

I dont know how you can state that when if you read my previous post's which quoted Max Planck

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about atoms this much:

THERE IS NO MATTER AS SUCH!

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

And to parapharse again Dr. Stuart Hameroff.....most of what we see does not exist it is made up by the brain....

I dont think it gets any more clear than that....."the mind is the matrix of all matter" and if everything we know is 99.9999999% empty space then how can one logically conclude any differently than matter is all an illusion?

We have one of the premier physicist of all time and a leading research MD stating the same thing!!! How much more in connect the dots do you need?

Now I understand this is hard if not impossible for most people to comprehend but if you can provide evidence to the contrary I would love to see it!

Wow that's interesting! I don't know much about black holes or anything but maybe atoms are compressedin them?

Originally posted by a_buck_fiftyIm sorry I know im reaching too deep with this but it's just something that really annoys me when people state facts that they have no idea if it's true or not as it's something they have been taught or read.

I struggle with this every day, you're not alone. But as you said:

Research is the key to the future.

So I did a little, and did some math, and now here we go: in layman's terms, and with some reasonable assumptions, the explanation as to why you can't sink your hand through a table is as follows.

Firstly, we need some numbers. Specifically, the size of a hydrogen atom and the size of an electron.

Hydrogen (radius): 25e-12m
Electron (radius, classical): 2.818e-15m

Now I say "classical" radius because in actuality, an electron does not have a radius (I'll touch on this in a bit). Without going in too deep, lets just assume we're using the atomic equivalent of Newtonian Physics - physics that is not 100% correct anymore, but for our purposes is "correct enough".

The surface area of a sphere is 4(PI)r² so we know that the surface area of a hydrogen atom is 7.854e-21m².

The surface area of a circle is (PI)r² so we know that the equatorial area of an electron is 2.495e-29m²

I've done this to find out how many electrons it would take to coat the "surface" of a hydrogen atom. This is where figures start to blur a bit, the reasoning being that I'm about to use a flat measure to try to coat a round surface, meaning that the numbers we work with from now on will be ever so slightly skewed. As you will see, this won't matter in the long run as the numbers we are dealing with are huge and would be prone to slight rounding errors anyway.

Now we can say that the number of electrons that will cover an atom is equal to the total surface area of the atom divided by the area of the equatorial (middle) cross-section of the electron that will be orbiting it; so, we have

Number of electrons = Hydrogen Area / Electron Area
Number of electrons = 7.854e-21m² / 2.495e-29m²
Number of electrons = 314816894.93829840712725301859032
Number of electrons = ~ 314.8 Million

So it would take the cross sections of about 315 Million electrons to completely coat the surface area of a hydrogen atom.

According to current physics, electrons don't exactly have velocity either, so we have to return to our classical model of atomic structure to find a "speed". As it turns out, an electron orbits a hydrogen atom at approximately 1/137 the speed of light. We know the speed of light exactly, so an electron's velocity is:

eVelocity = c/137
eVelocity = 299,792,458m/s / 137
eVelocity = 2188266.1167883211678832116788321m/s
eVelocity = ~ 2188266.12m/s

For a visual of this speed, consider that the earth's circumference is 40,075.16km. This means that a hydrogen electron could circle the earth in 1.83 seconds.

We now have a distance the electron has to cover (315 Million times it's area) and the speed at which it moves (2 Million m/s). Using this, we can find out how long it will take to make a complete circuit around a hydrogen atom.

Time to orbit = Width of an electron / Speed at which it moves * Number of electrons
Time to orbit = (25e-12m * 2) / 2188266.1167883211678832116788321m/s * 314816894.93829840712725301859032
Time to orbit = 8.10828265474571163801526080253e-13s

This tells us that an electron can completely encircle a hydrogen atom in 8.108e-13 seconds, or 0.0000000000008108 seconds. This is an indescribably short period of time. What this also tells us is that in one second, an electron can orbit its host atom 1.233 trillion times. Now to answer the question in both classic and quantum terms: why can't we push our hand through a table if it's actually 99.9999999% empty space?

Continued...

Classical answer: Two reasons. The first, as was proven above, is that due to the immense speed of the orbiting electrons an atom can actually be more easily visualized as a solid object, with the electron orbiting it forming an electrical shell around the nucleus. The forces involved in this are beyond our day-to-day understanding. The electron orbits the atom in one second as many times as your heart would beat in 21331 years, give or take.

Secondly, the electrical repulsion formed between the atoms in your hand and those in the table cannot be overcome by any conventionally available means. The electromagnetic force is astoundingly powerful over short distances. Consider your knowledge of gravity, and what it can do to you if you say, fall out of a plane. You will quite quickly reach lethal speeds and smash yourself into the ground. This is because the entire mass of the planet is pulling you downwards. Now recall what happens when you rub a balloon on your head and stick it to a wall. It is held in place by static electricity, an electromagnetic phenomona. Despite the very small contact area between the balloon and the wall, the combined mass of the entire planet is not enough to pull the balloon away from the wall and down to the ground. This same force is what prevents your hand from just pushing through a solid surface. Due to the extreme speed of the electrons, there will always be electrons in the way.

Now the Quantum answer, which may be a bit harder to grasp. According to quantum mechanics, the electron is a particle that has mass but no size. It is considered a point charge, and behaves in a manner quite different to what we were all taught in our pre-senior public school years. Electron movement is not described using paths, but probability. That is, you cannot trace the path that an electron takes around its host atom as it doesn't really take one. It is either in a given location or it is not. It's location can be predicted to a certain degree but not with the exactness we would associate with say, finding the moon around the earth. What we end up with is a literal "cloud" of possible electron locations, which is denser in areas where the electron is more likely to be found. These clouds, or orbitals as they are called, get more complex as the number of electrons increase. However, for our hydrogen atom mentioned above, the orbital is a spherical cloud of probability that looks quite similar to our fast-moving electron shell described with the classical model. It is more like a huge electron atmosphere around the nucleus, as can be seen in this image of possible orbitals:



The best way to grasp this is that for the most part, an electron can be viewed as being in any of these places at any time, though it is more likely to be in the denser areas. This means that although the electron is very small in comparison to the areas it moves through, it is actually filling most of that area as it moves. Couple that with the electromagnetic replusion, and you will find that an atom can be, for all intents and purposes, quite solid.

I hope this answers some questions.

Sources:
Classical Electron Radius
Hydrogen
Picometre
Electrons
Speed of Light
Wavefunctions
Wave-Particle Duality
Electron Speed

[edit on 12/10/2006 by Thousand]

"You have voted Thousand for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."

One of the most informative REPLYS i've ever come across, awesome stuff. I don't have a comment on the subject because its all pretty new to me. But this is very educational/intersting stuff for me so far.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

You see this is exactly what im talking about. How can you say that? We can not say things in this context. You (nor I) know that this is true. I know exactly what you are going on about as I know this subject fairly well but we can not prove anything. We know so little. Research is the key to the future. When things like this are stated then I think they must be linked at the end (or something along the lines) with accordanceto latest research. Im sorry I know im reaching too deep with this but it's just something that really annoys me when people state facts that they have no idea if it's true or not as it's something they have been taught or read. Ok im finished now, sorry, rant over

I dont know how you can state that when if you read my previous post's which quoted Max Planck

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about atoms this much:

THERE IS NO MATTER AS SUCH!

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

And to parapharse again Dr. Stuart Hameroff.....most of what we see does not exist it is made up by the brain....

I dont think it gets any more clear than that....."the mind is the matrix of all matter" and if everything we know is 99.9999999% empty space then how can one logically conclude any differently than matter is all an illusion?

We have one of the premier physicist of all time and a leading research MD stating the same thing!!! How much more in connect the dots do you need?

Now I understand this is hard if not impossible for most people to comprehend but if you can provide evidence to the contrary I would love to see it!

No I understand perfectly clear because I know alot about this subject, you dont seem to understand where im coming from. Im not on about this subject or to be precise any at all. Im on about the fact that people are making assumptions on here based on information and breakthroughs like this (past and present). I guess all im saying is that people do not know anything until they know the meaning of life. I mean dont get me wrong but reading peoples ideas and thoughts opens up new and interesting concepts and thats what research is all about. I am just sick of people arguing over things they know nothing about (as we all know nothing)

No I understand perfectly clear because I know alot about this subject

If you know alot about this subject please share with us because im all about learning new info.

you dont seem to understand where im coming from

No I dont because you have never told me.

Im not on about this subject or to be precise any at all. Im on about the fact that people are making assumptions on here based on information and breakthroughs like this (past and present).

Im under the assumption that knowledge is advanced by people making assumptions about certain things then debating the relevance of it and conducting experiments to see if its true.

I guess all im saying is that people do not know anything until they know the meaning of life.

I totally agree with that....my quest in life at this time is to figure out what the meaning of life is......If you know somthing please share it!

I mean dont get me wrong but reading peoples ideas and thoughts opens up new and interesting concepts and thats what research is all about.

No argument here.

I am just sick of people arguing over things they know nothing about (as we all know nothing)

If we all know nothing then I think the objective is to learn somthing!!!!!!! And how best to learn than to present ideas and theories and have them debated for their merits. If you dont agree with an idea or theory then state you reasons why and if you can present a better idea or theory then do it. But please dont get on a thread and say we all know nothing and say you are angry and contribute nothing more than that.

Ill be the first to admit I know very little, but Im willing to listen to new ideas without judgement or ridicule.

The ideas and theories I posted on this thread are not from me they are from PHD's, MD's and scientist from around the world....granted some are controversial but so was the idea the earth was round and the planets revolved around the sun.