[URAIN]

Space is empty. Definition of matter says that, matter is that which has the mass and which occupies space. I have dont make any sense about matter occupying space.For occupying space, it has condition that two matter do not occupy same space at same time.
While matter exist even the place is not empty. For example in water container, a solid matter occupy space. Therefore what is meant by matter occupies space?

[Rade]

URAIN, on 13 October 2011 - 04:39 AM, said:

Space is empty.

You begin with a false premise. Space is never empty, all space has something that it contains, in fact, that is the definition of space from Aristotle = the inner most motionless boundary of that which contains. Thus, once you have the correct understanding of what space is, you can consider how matter can occupy space, for there is nothing else for matter to occupy other than space given that matter cannot occupy itself.

[lawcat]

This must be a trick question.

[URAIN]

From other side I have come to know that space is FULL of virtual particles [ i.e particles that cannot be detected directly but whose existence can be inferred], and various fields; eg electric, magnetic, gravitational.

You have given definition of space from Aristotle : the inner most motionless boundary of that which contains.

Does science world have consensus about this difinition. Is there any other difinition exist? If exist, please let me know.

I have seen in many discussions in the forums by using word 'nothing' (when they talking about space or vaccum) I had thought nothing means empty.

Dear Rade, Is there any difference in between vaccum and space. Or both same.

(Lawcat I have some doubt therefore I am putting it infront of experts to become perfect in my opinions or my understanding. Please dont misunderstood it.)

[coldcreation]

URAIN, on 13 October 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

From other side I have come to know that space is FULL of virtual particles [ i.e particles that cannot be detected directly but whose existence can be inferred], and various fields; eg electric, magnetic, gravitational.

You have given definition of space from Aristotle : the inner most motionless boundary of that which contains.

Does science world have consensus about this difinition. Is there any other difinition exist? If exist, please let me know.

I have seen in many discussions in the forums by using word 'nothing' (when they talking about space or vaccum) I had thought nothing means empty.

Dear Rade, Is there any difference in between vaccum and space. Or both same.

(Lawcat I have some doubt therefore I am putting it infront of experts to become perfect in my opinions or my understanding. Please dont misunderstood it.)

There is no such thing as empty space (no vacuum is truly perfect).

See for example:

Zero-point energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Vacuum state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 Non-vanishing vacuum state; 2 The energy of the vacuum state; 3 The ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state



CC

[URAIN]

coldcreation, on 13 October 2011 - 10:44 PM, said:

There is no such thing as empty space (no vacuum is truly perfect).

See for example:

Zero-point energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Vacuum state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 Non-vanishing vacuum state; 2 The energy of the vacuum state; 3 The ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state



CC

Thanks for response. Now how you define the space or vacuum.(science world definition).

Why people often use 'nothing' word for calling space or vacuum.

[coldcreation]

URAIN, on 14 October 2011 - 03:13 AM, said:

Now how you define the space or vacuum.(science world definition).

See the links above.

URAIN, on 14 October 2011 - 03:13 AM, said:

Why people often use 'nothing' word for calling space or vacuum.

Who uses the N-word synonymously with space or vacuum?

The only time I've heard that used is to describe the state of the universe prior to the big bang, i.e., there was nothing before, no space or time. But that of course is controversial, since there is no empirical way of knowing. It's not part of the big bang theory. The hypothetical 'nothingness' or 'void' prior to the big bang would not be an empty space: there would simply be no space.

In other words, nothing is not used interchangeably with space or vacuum.


CC

[Ron Hughes]

According to QM it may not occupy space, ie: the electron (dimensionless, without structure).

[Rade]

Ron Hughes, on 14 October 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

According to QM it may not occupy space, ie: the electron (dimensionless, without structure).

If you consider "mass" to be "structure" then it is the "mass" of the electron that can occupy space via QM. See here for discussion of how electron has mass structure:

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0704.2232v2.pdf

[URAIN]

coldcreation, on 14 October 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

See the links above.





CC

I think there is no specific definition for space, on link. If you are seeing, please write that definition on your response post.

[coldcreation]

URAIN, on 14 October 2011 - 09:05 PM, said:

I think there is no specific definition for space, on link. If you are seeing, please write that definition on your response post.

Sure, let's take the second link...

Vacuum state:

Quote

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

According to quantum field theory there is no such thing as empty space.


Now the first link...

Quote

Zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state. [...]

Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[3] A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.[4] [...]

In 1916 Walther Nernst postulated that the vacuum of space is filled with zero-point electromagnetic radiation. [...]

In quantum perturbation theory, it is sometimes said that the contribution of one-loop and multi-loop Feynman diagrams to elementary particle propagators are the contribution of vacuum fluctuations or the zero-point energy to the particle masses. [...]

A phenomenon that is commonly presented as evidence for the existence of zero-point energy in vacuum is the Casimir effect, proposed in 1948 by Dutch physicist Hendrik B. G. Casimir [...]

In cosmology, the zero-point energy offers an intriguing possibility for explaining the speculative positive values of the proposed cosmological constant. In brief, if the energy is "really there", then it should exert a gravitational force.[8] In general relativity, mass and energy are equivalent; both produce a gravitational field. [...]

There is no such thing as space without field, i.e., there is no empty space, something is always present.

General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation with Einstein's equations at its core. These equations describe the relation between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime and the energy-momentum contained in that spacetime.


So to answer the OP: Matter occupies space. Even if this matter is removed, the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is not empty.

CC

[URAIN]

coldcreation, on 14 October 2011 - 10:06 PM, said:

Sure, let's take the second link...

Vacuum state:

According to quantum field theory there is no such thing as empty space.

Now the first link...
There is no such thing as space without field, i.e., there is no empty space, something is always present.

General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation with Einstein's equations at its core. These equations describe the relation between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime and the energy-momentum contained in that spacetime.

So to answer the OP: Matter occupies space. Even if this matter is removed, the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is not empty.

CC

(At present I will not comment on, whether space is empty or non empty.)

I have asked that what is the science accepted definition for space and I had said that in your links, there is no specific definition for space. Most of your response (from links) says that space is not empty and it says about the space of cosmic region only.

Please look here, if we ask what is energy then definition for this is, “capacity to perform work” or “the efficiency to do the work”.

This short one line, definition is applies for everywhere. It may be on earth at day time, at night time and at cosmic region. This definition same for everywhere.

If we summarize all things in your link then space means a non empty entity which present in cosmic region.

It will not define the space which present everywhere (space on earth at day time, at night time).

Matter is everywhere and as per matter definition, matter occupies space everywhere. Therefore space definition must to be including a common and particular thing, which applies to everywhere.

I think your definition is not including this particular common thing.


(I think, I will cast my vote for 'no', to the poll)

[URAIN]

Rade, on 14 October 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

If you consider "mass" to be "structure" then it is the "mass" of the electron that can occupy space via QM. See here for discussion of how electron has mass structure:

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0704.2232v2.pdf

Are you saying that electron has the mass and occupies space and electron is also a matter? What about neutron ?

Electron comes under which type of matter ? (is it comes under plasma state?)

[Qfwfq]

Rade, on 14 October 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

If you consider "mass" to be "structure" then it is the "mass" of the electron that can occupy space via QM. See here for discussion of how electron has mass structure:

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0704.2232v2.pdf

I don't get how you are interpreting that paper in that manner.

[coldcreation]

URAIN, on 16 October 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

(At present I will not comment on, whether space is empty or non empty.)

I have asked that what is the science accepted definition for space and I had said that in your links, there is no specific definition for space. Most of your response (from links) says that space is not empty and it says about the space of cosmic region only.

[...]
Matter is everywhere and as per matter definition, matter occupies space everywhere. Therefore space definition must to be including a common and particular thing, which applies to everywhere.

(I think, I will cast my vote for 'no', to the poll)

The links posted above describe the vacuum (space or spacetime). Those properties of the vacuum apply generally, for all regions, whether they be "cosmic" or here on earth (night or day, day or night ).

You can cast your "no" vote, but you will have great difficulty explaining what matter occupies, if not space. But you can always try, I'm in the mood for entertainment.