/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #2982915

[64 / 11 / ?]

68KiB, 462x434, unknown.jpg

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 22:47:00 No.2982915 View View Reply Original Report

What does space contain?

I mean, outer space. We know there's no air. So is there nothing at all? No molecules?

Forgive my ignorance, it's just weird for me to think about this, an area that doesn't even contain any gasses?

Or do I have this all wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 22:50:00 No.2982918 Report

Quoted By:

it has a hydrogen atom every few square meter or so.

inb4 virtual particles, lrn2feynman morons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 22:53:00 No.2982922 Report

Quoted By: >>2982942

Theres a few specks of hydrogen, otherwise nothing.

Its pretty close to a perfect vacume.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:01:00 No.2982942 Report

Quoted By: >>2982947 >>2982952

>>2982922

Nooo.

Molecular density in space: <10^4 per cm³
Molecular density on earth in some someconductor labs for example: <10^4 per cm³

So basically no difference and far from perfect.

Don't forget all the neutrinos, radiation and spacedust.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:04:00 No.2982947 Report

Quoted By: >>2983006

>>2982942
Closer than your flabby asscheeks

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:06:00 No.2982952 Report

Quoted By: >>2982959

>>2982942
OP here. So there are molecules filling up space?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:09:00 No.2982958 Report

Quoted By: >>2982962 >>2982981 >>2982999

>it's just weird for me to think about this, an area that doesn't even contain any gasses?

How is that weird? I've always thought that "nothing" is the normal state of everything and everything other than nothing is the result of instability.
I find it extremely disturbing that stuff actually exists in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:10:00 No.2982959 Report

Quoted By: >>2982966 >>2983055

>>2982952

However, even in the deep vacuum of intergalactic space there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.[18] By comparison, the air we breathe contains about 1025 molecules per cubic meter

From wikipedia.

Also, i would call them atoms. Not molecules...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:10:00 No.2982962 Report

Quoted By:

>>2982958

ocdfag detected...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:12:00 No.2982966 Report

Quoted By:

>>2982959

ah forgot to mentio, the 1025 molecules its says is~ 1025*6*10^23 ;)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:15:00 No.2982974 Report

Quoted By:

the universe is essentially empty bro

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 58KiB, 640x428

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:18:00 No.2982981 Report

Quoted By: >>2982988 >>2982993 >>2982995 >>2983010 >>2983020

>>2982958
OP here. Probably because I am, essentially, still a primate, and as a primate, my brain is hard-wired to perceive the world a certain way; i.e. the way our ancestors have been seeing the world.
The concept of true nothingness feels weird to me, although I know logically it can happen, my animal side cannot accept it easily.

It's like how you know MATHEMATICALLY there is a possibility that if you drop a rock it COULD float instead of falling to the ground, but even though logically you know there was a possibility for that to happen, if it actually happened, you'd be mindfucked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:22:00 No.2982988 Report

Quoted By:

>>2982981

When you speak about science you have to make your brain understand know things that are beyond your mind. Just mathematically...

And yes a rock doesnt float but a ballon with hydrogen does so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:24:00 No.2982993 Report

Quoted By: >>2983000 >>2983003

>>2982981
>logically you know there was a possibility for that to happen

I don't think that's true. It would break conservation of momentum and GR. If you're talking about quantum effects on definite location, then that doesn't apply to rocks, really.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:27:00 No.2982995 Report

Quoted By:

>>2982981

A statue waving at you is a better example. Since the crystaline structure is vibrating all the time anyway.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 36KiB, 670x496

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:28:00 No.2982999 Report

Quoted By: >>2983003

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:28:00 No.2983000 Report

Quoted By: >>2983011 >>2983014

>>2982993
>If you're talking about quantum effects on definite location, then that doesn't apply to rocks, really.
Actually, he's right - it COULD happen.
It would just be extremely unlikely.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 24KiB, 639x358

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:29:00 No.2983001 Report

Quoted By: >>2983011

Wait. So if there's nothing, why is there talk of the universe being finite. If the universe is everything that is, but nothing is limited to where it can go into this 'nothingness'...how can there possibly be an end point?

Layman here. Not knowledgeable what so ever, so please forgive me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:32:00 No.2983003 Report

Quoted By: >>2983016

>>2982999
aw shit, double post. the fuck kept telling me I was flooding, what the fuck. AAAnyway.

>>2982993
There's always the off chance that the sun might've exploded whatever time ago is necessary for you to be experiencing it in that exact moment of your lifetime, shattering the earth in two or whatever, somehow disrupting gravity.

OH SHUT UP YES I DON'T KNOW HOW EXACTLY IT WOULD HAPPEN BUT YOU GET THE IDEA

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:32:00 No.2983006 Report

Quoted By: >>2983007

>>2982947

Ohhh, i feel so butthurt because you called me fat.

u feelin better now?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 45KiB, 432x600

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:33:00 No.2983007 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983006

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:34:00 No.2983010 Report

Quoted By: >>2983020

>>2982981

> MATHEMATICALLY there is a possibility that if you drop a rock it COULD float instead of falling to the ground

No, also, that is nothing mathematics can answer, only physics. Not everything you can imagine has a probability attached to it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:35:00 No.2983011 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983000
If he's talking about quantum effects, then this "floating" business is non-sense, the actual phenomenon would be for a object in x to go to z without transversing y (and usually back down to x). If you mean otherwise, then I'm gonna need to see some source bub.

>>2983001
>how can there possibly be an end point?

When people talk about a finite universe, they usually mean an unbounded but finite universe, like a sphere is in three dimensions. The consensus is that it's flat and infinite, though. We don't really know, but we have narrowed down the possible shapes of the universe to not much.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:36:00 No.2983014 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983000

No, he and you are NOT right, it is not possible and it is especially not possible in the quantum mechanical frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:37:00 No.2983016 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983003
>There's always the off chance that the sun might've exploded whatever time ago is necessary for you to be experiencing it in that exact moment of your lifetime, shattering the earth in two or whatever, somehow disrupting gravity. OH SHUT UP YES I DON'T KNOW HOW EXACTLY IT WOULD HAPPEN BUT YOU GET THE IDEA

Oh, you're an idiot. Guess I should've seen that coming. Carry on, then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:40:00 No.2983020 Report

Quoted By: >>2983027 >>2983122

>>2983010
>>2983010
you believe in chaos theory?see:
>>2982981
>>2982981
now you don't. LOL

but yes, you could imagine that a rock would float, drop, or maybe even gets sucked through a wormhole and winds up in a different part of the universe. but that last one would never happen, mr. hawking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:43:00 No.2983027 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983020

> you believe in chaos theory?
> believe a theory

wut? I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings of scientific concepts in general.

Also, chaos theory has nothing to do with what i referrenced.

You reciting the post i referenced originally does not make it any better and i do not understand the

> now you don't. LOL

part. I can imagine a lot of things, but that does not at all mean they are physically possible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:49:00 No.2983039 Report

Quoted By: >>2983049

At some point in space, far beyond the galaxy, the galaxy cluster it is in, and the universe, there is in fact nothing. But its so far out that no human has ever seen it. I'm talking beyond the edge of all matter in the universe, where universal expansion has not reached yet. Where the light from the big bang has not reached yet. Out there there is nothing at all. Everywhere in the universe though, there are atoms everywhere. They are just too finely dispersed for us to notice them.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 21KiB, 367x451

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:57:00 No.2983049 Report

Quoted By: >>2983057

>>2983039
>implying the cosmological principle is wrong
>implying matter has an edge
>implying universal expansion needs time to "reach" places

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 May 2011 23:59:00 No.2983055 Report

Quoted By: >>2983420

>>2982959
>By comparison, the air we breathe contains about 1025 molecules per cubic meter

Average lung capacity is 3.3 liters = 0.0033 meters cubed.

0.033m^3 * 1025 = 3.4 molecules per breath (let's round up to 4)

The air we breath is mostly nitrogen and about 20%. So by your information we need to take 3 breaths to get 2 molecules of oxygen into our lungs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:02:00 No.2983057 Report

Quoted By: >>2983064 >>2983068

>>2983049
The universe is constantly expanding. It has to have empty space to expand into. The universe is finite but space itself is not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:06:00 No.2983064 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983057
> It has to have empty space to expand into.

You have no clue how anything actually works, do you?

>The universe is finite but space itself is not

Nope, you don't. I suggest you read a couple of books on GR and at least some introductory inflation theory instead of asserting wrong statements as fact on the internet. It makes you look dumb. (by the way, space is part of the universe, and you can't have an infinite object inside a finite one [fuck off mathematicians, I will kick your ass])

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 161KiB, 510x430

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:06:00 No.2983065 Report

Quoted By: >>2983069 >>2983070

Shit be full of elementary particles eg. photons. Not empty at all.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 44KiB, 500x380

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:08:00 No.2983068 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983057

oh boy.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 69KiB, 600x597

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:09:00 No.2983069 Report

Quoted By: >>2983078

>>2983065

I said that too but he called me fat

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:10:00 No.2983070 Report

Quoted By: >>2983073

>>2983065
i wouldn't exactly count photons as stuff, but yes, considering that the entirety of the observable universe is FILLED with photons.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:13:00 No.2983073 Report

Quoted By: >>2983078 >>2983080 >>2983482

>>2983070

More neutrinos than photons.

Nobody cares about neutrinos these days.

sadkitten.jpg

Justin

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 76KiB, 500x811

Justin Tue 03 May 2011 00:14:00 No.2983074 Report

Quoted By: >>2983080

>>2982915
OP, 4chan is realy not the best place to find accurate information. Most of what I've seen in here is wrong anyway. Wikipedia has more correct information than this place. Try some text books or something. For your time tho... boobies!!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 67KiB, 550x523

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:16:00 No.2983078 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983073
>>2983069

comforting bro hug

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:16:00 No.2983080 Report

Quoted By: >>2983087 >>2983106

>>2983073
fuck neutrinos. they're hardly stuff at all.
>>2983074
>implying most of the thread wasn't right and OP being a faggot.

and those probability guys wtf

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:19:00 No.2983086 Report

Quoted By: >>2983088

dark energy

thats what all hipsters say.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:19:00 No.2983087 Report

Quoted By: >>2983108

>>2983080
Are neutrinos some kind of dark matter? I really struggle to see how they fit into it all. It was beautifully brushed over in A-level physics with 'they're just there'.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:20:00 No.2983088 Report

Quoted By: >>2983108 >>2983111 >>2983129

>>2983086
Does dark energy = vacuum energy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:26:00 No.2983106 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983080

> fuck neutrinos. they're hardly stuff at all.

0.3 % of the mass in the universe. If you don't let dark matter and energy count it's over 7 %.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:26:00 No.2983108 Report

Quoted By: >>2983113 >>2983116 >>2983143 >>2983174 >>2983206

>>2983087
yes, they're dark matter, but _the_ dark matter. they're dark as in, we can't see them because they don't interact with the EM force.
>>2983088
not really, expected value of vacuum energy is something ridiculous. we just have no clue at all what dark energy is, it's just a placeholder name/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:27:00 No.2983111 Report

Quoted By: >>2983116

>>2983088

Maybe. If you let it be a consequence of vaccum energy it is 10^(120) times higher than the QM vacuum energy (or 10^(60) with supersymmetry).

We don't know right now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:28:00 No.2983113 Report

Quoted By: >>2983116 >>2983117

>>2983108

> neutrinos are dark matter

Better don''t say that. Confuses the newfags.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:29:00 No.2983116 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983113
>>2983111
>>2983108

Cheers guys, clears things up marginally.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:30:00 No.2983117 Report

Quoted By: >>2983158

>>2983113
but i clarified right away :(

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:31:00 No.2983122 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983020
What the fuck does what he said have to do with chaos theory? Do you even know what that is?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:33:00 No.2983129 Report

Quoted By: >>2983162

>>2983088
No, not really. Dark matter is just some kind of matter that is present in and around galaxies. It interacts with gravity in the normal way, thats how we know it's there. Dark energy is the energy of space itself, the cosmological constant if you will, and we have no real idea why it is so small yet not exactly 0. This has the effect of making the universe expand and is not the effect of some uniform matter distribution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:40:00 No.2983143 Report

Quoted By: >>2983158 >>2983174

>>2983108
i didn't think neutrinos were dark matter, i thought it was 'Weakly Interacting Massive Particles' that were dark matter and that neutrinos (from the Sun at least) were thought to be the result of WIMPs reacting in the Sun.

so neutrinos are simply the result of dark matter reacting, not ACTUALLY dark matter?
or am i totally wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:44:00 No.2983158 Report

Quoted By: >>2983174 >>2983206

>>2983117

See? This is what i meant:
>>2983143

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:45:00 No.2983162 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983129
is vacuum energy the energy of virtual particles appearing and annihilating or is that dark energy? i heard that this energy is what makes up 70% of our mass (the vacuum between our quarks) n shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:48:00 No.2983174 Report

Quoted By: >>2983206

>>2983158
hey>>2983143here, by 'confuses the newfags' are you trying to say that i am a confused newfag?

from what i've read and heard, what i've said here:>>2983143, is correct. What is said here:>>2983108, is incorrect. I'm struggling to see how i am confused, or a newfag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:57:00 No.2983206 Report

Quoted By: >>2983217 >>2983226

>>2983108here

k,>>2983158, i see what you mean.

>>2983174
>i didn't think neutrinos were dark matter, i thought it was 'Weakly Interacting Massive Particles' that were dark matter and that neutrinos (from the Sun at least) were thought to be the result of WIMPs reacting in the Sun.

Ok, first you need to understand that there is Dark Matter, the title to a as-yet-directly-unobserved cloud of particles around galaxies. Dark Matter got that name because it's matter and dark.

Now, dark matter, lowercase, simple matter which is dark, may be anything that a) is matter and b) doesn't interact with the electromagnetic field. Like Neutrinos.

WIMPs are one of the candidates for Dark Matter, and they have nothing to do with neutrino production.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 00:59:00 No.2983217 Report

Quoted By: >>2983247 >>2983276

>>2983206
Then what is the deal with neutrinos? Are they simply a by-product of balancing momentum?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 01:01:00 No.2983222 Report

Quoted By:

>What does space contain?
Not your momma. She's so fat, not even outer space can contain her.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 01:01:00 No.2983226 Report

Quoted By: >>2983244 >>2983276

>>2983206
As more and more WIMPs thermalize inside the Sun, they begin to annihilate with each other, forming a variety of particles including high-energy neutrinos.[5]

5 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0609257

you sir are a fagend

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 01:05:00 No.2983244 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983226

> implying that's not a study about effects observed in a non-established minimal (note: this does not mean only little things changed) enhancement of the standard model.

The poster you referrenced is correct if you only take established theories/models into account.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 01:06:00 No.2983247 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983217

Not sure what you want to hear. They are elementary particles, just like electrons only with lower mass and no charge.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 01:10:00 No.2983276 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983217
Yes. this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pp_chain and this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle produce neutrinos as byproducts of standard star function.

>>2983226
>We explore the prospects for indirect detection of neutralino dark matter in _supersymmetric models with an extended Higgs sector (NMSSM)_

Make sure we are in the right universe first and then get us some experimental evidence, bub. Even if we did live there and assuming the paper is right, neutrinos wouldn't be primarily formed by that process anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 01:41:00 No.2983420 Report

Quoted By:

>>2983055
>>2983055
then why do the people who make scuba tanks use only He and O_2 for make the air you breathe in a scuba tank?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 May 2011 01:52:00 No.2983482 Report

Quoted By:

I like how this turned into a neutrino thread after
>>2983073

you made my day /sci/

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches