http://www.choosedeterminism.com "Then I learned about quantum physics, and about how the particles of everything around us are ultimately made up of mostly empty space held together by mysterious forces…forces that do not abide by the physical laws that govern large things""Empty Space"? What is that? The way I understand it . . . Electrons are not like planet's orbiting a sun. The term "electron" is given to a "physical reality" that can barely be grasped by the most learned of life long student-turned-professors, let alone the merely curious onlookers. But one of the things that I believe can be stated is that atoms are composed of covalent shells of energy - sure we speak of "electrons"* and how they fill the various covalent shells, it's our foundation of understanding and chemistry/physics. {but, whirling around at about a gazillion times gazillion orbits per second, sorta of smeared out} Atoms surrounded by solid force fields of varying composition and intensities. Each "shell" being an entity of pure energy. Where does "empty" figure into any of this?
IMO, empty space is space without physical objects. But that does not mean it is empty. As I understand it even a vacuum is not empty. I believe Bohm proposed that the universe, space, is like an ocean of wavefunctions of infinite frequencies, from Planck length frequencies to to wavelengths of trillion of miles. Bohm did an experiment on this and came to the conclusion that 1 cubic centimeter of space may well contain as much potential energy as the entire universe. The universe is a wavefunction. Empty space is full of wave function and fundamentally energetic in nature. Bohm proposed that, "space, rather than empty, is full of energy"http://www.choosedeterminism.com "Then I learned about quantum physics, and about how the particles of everything around us are ultimately made up of mostly empty space held together by mysterious forces…forces that do not abide by the physical laws that govern large things""Empty Space"? What is that? The way I understand it . . . Electrons are not like planet's orbiting a sun. The term "electron" is given to a "physical reality" that can barely be grasped by the most learned of life long student-turned-professors, let alone the merely curious onlookers. But one of the things that I believe can be stated is that atoms are composed of covalent shells of energy - sure we speak of "electrons"* and how they fill the various covalent shells, it's our foundation of understanding and chemistry/physics. {but, whirling around at about a gazillion times gazillion orbits per second, sorta of smeared out} Atoms surrounded by solid force fields of varying composition and intensities. Each "shell" being an entity of pure energy. Where does "empty" figure into any of this?
Thanks, nice succinct explanation.
and it resonates 
Thanks, nice succinct explanation. and it resonates :-)If I am correct there is a formal theory, named the the "Pilot Wave" theory:
The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, the Bohm or Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory. In addition to a wavefunction on the space of all possible configurations, it also postulates an actual configuration that exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration (that is, of the positions of all particles or the configuration of all fields) is defined by the wave function via a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by Schrödinger's equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory IMO, this aso explains Einstein's "spacetime", i.e. as change is always associated with time, a constantly changing wave function throughout all of space must always be associated with time. From this theory we can extrapolate that spacetime itself is fundamentally and causally energetic. As musician, when I heard the term Universe, I translated it as "uni-verse" to mean "single song" , which is not the actual definition, but it has a certain resonance to me also.
Thanks, nice succinct explanation. and it resonates :-)If I am correct there is a formal theory, named the the "Pilot Wave" theory:
The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, the Bohm or Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory. In addition to a wavefunction on the space of all possible configurations, it also postulates an actual configuration that exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration (that is, of the positions of all particles or the configuration of all fields) is defined by the wave function via a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by Schrödinger's equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory IMO, this also explains Einstein's "spacetime", i.e. as change is always associated with time, a constantly changing wave function throughout all of space must always be associated with time. From this theory we can extrapolate that spacetime itself is fundamentally and causally energetic. As musician, when I heard the term Universe, I translated it as "uni-verse" to mean "single song" , which is not the actual definition, but it has a certain resonance to me also. I like that - and it's makes more sense than some of the other word strings I've read, for example. I want to bring this back to what started this thread, namely my being astounded that a philosopher type http://www.choosedeterminism.com could say something as simplistic and plan wrong (maybe I mean useless) as "everything around us are ultimately made up of mostly empty space"
I read the article and I recall hearing this statement in casual conversation many times in context of total volume. This is how one would explain the relative small size of the physical components as compared to the volume of space these particles occupy in the system.
It is true that the total volume of a particle, or say, the solar system is mostly space, but that does not address the properties of that space between the physical objects.
If the author meant empty space to be devoid of any properties, that would indicate a limited understanding of the properties of spacetime itself.
btw. it seems that page is no longer active.
I don’t claim to understand QM and wave functions and so on, but long ago when I TRIED to understand the subject I realized there’s no such thing as “a wave function” in the sense many of us speak of it. And I think many physicists speak like it exists too. What they seem to do is “reify” their mathematics. I’d always thought things like wave functions, differential equations, all the high level mathematical concepts were intrinsically related to physics…UNTIL I found out my roommate in college (who WAS smart enough to know this stuff) used the same types of math in his studies in advanced Economics. All these abstract concepts are just tools scientists use to try to make the data fit together. The data can be physical/from physics, economics, biological, whatever. It’s just stuff they’ve made up, unrelated in any deep sense to the actual physical world. Now not everything is like that I guess, like E=mc2, but I think you get my point. So we have to be careful not to read too much into things we read.
I don't claim to understand QM and wave functions and so on, but long ago when I TRIED to understand the subject I realized there's no such thing as "a wave function" in the sense many of us speak of it. And I think many physicists speak like it exists too. What they seem to do is "reify" their mathematics. I'd always thought things like wave functions, differential equations, all the high level mathematical concepts were intrinsically related to physics...UNTIL I found out my roommate in college (who WAS smart enough to know this stuff) used the same types of math in his studies in advanced Economics. All these abstract concepts are just tools scientists use to try to make the data fit together. The data can be physical/from physics, economics, biological, whatever. It's just stuff they've made up, unrelated in any deep sense to the actual physical world. Now not everything is like that I guess, like E=mc2, but I think you get my point. So we have to be careful not to read too much into things we read.I agree and always try to be as objectively neutral (skeptical) as my mind allows. But I always try to look for "common denominators" in all of our knowledge of the universe. The definition of 'potential' is such a fundamentala common denominator of all things and actions in the universe. Potential is "that which may become reality" and precedes every action in the universe, including its beginning. The potential for physical reality had to exist before physical reality emerged. Probability is a subset of Potential. The greater the potential the greater the probability of becoming reality. Your friend's observation does not invalidate the wave function, but reinforces it. Everything behaves in a wavelike manner, even in the abstract. The stock market goes up and down in a probability wave function, but using these highly volatile probability wave functions to predict the future will be "uncertain". This would also be an abstract application of the probability wave function in QM, IMO. If anything, this would confirm the wave like behavior of all things (physical and metaphysical) in the universe, even in an abstract sense. This is the fundamental universal potential energetic force which Bohm calls the Implicate (the blueprint of what is to become expressed in reality) You are right, the proper name is "probability wave function". However, the main point is that it displays wave-like behavior. In the double slit experiment, "wave interfere" is demonstrated by the results. This also led to the proposition of "wave collapse", which I see as a fatal collapse in the wave function of energy and becomes expressed as a "fixed particle". IMO, this is related to Einstein's E = Mc^2, a function expressed as an equation. However, this does not directly address how particles (photons) manage to create such wave interference while in transit. As I understand it there are two proposals: a) the particle itself becomes smeared out as potential energy and this potential field has wavelike properties , b) the particles are surrounded by associated fields which carry the particle and these waves are deflected by the sharp edges of the slits. This also would cause the wave interference effect on the receiving medium. According to the de Broglie - Bohm "pilot wave" theory all particles in the universe of every conceivable frequency create a universal probability wave function. This larger stream is full of wave interferences and harmonics, which sometimes allow for expression in our reality, of which we can only "see" a small band of "visible light" and a small band of particles in our physical reality. With instruments we can measure some of the "invisible wavelenngths" such as ultra-violet and infra-red (note: that infra red frequencies are longer and the observer must adjust the focal point of the camera lens (from the normal focus of visible light) in order to observe this frequency, even though we can physically feel its effects as "radiant heat". And physically we can look inward through the use of fractals. To me, as layman (ex-bookkeeper/ex-musician), the concept "probability wave function" is entirely logical, and fundamentally mathematical, so that we are able to express the laws of nature with mathematical equations. p.s. it just struck me that equations in mathematics are also an abstract application of the quantum function in QM as well as SR
I guess what I’m saying is, if a mathematical tool can be used to describe the fabric of space and time AND the behavior of the stock market, then we’re missing something. In the scope of things the stock market is just some trivial temporary activity based on trivial human emotions. There’s something wrong with either the tool or the method if it can be used to ALSO investigate the universe. Somebody is forcing square pegs into round holes.
So do we agree that labeling matter as being composed almost totally of “empty space” is meaningless,
worse counter productive in trying to better grasp anything ?
So do we agree that labeling matter as being composed almost totally of "empty space" is meaningless, worse counter productive in trying to better grasp anything ?I agree, and i agree it is counter productive because it is misleadingly inexact to the casual reader.