Thread: Space cannot be infinite

Yes, atoms do 'touch' when two objects touch.

The nuclei of atoms don't touch, but nobody ever said they did.

The electron clouds surrounding the nuclei - which are what give atoms volume - do touch, and they repel, because of the like negative charges. That's what touching is.

Originally Posted by Exhalent

Who's to say it is limited to one universe, and not a multiverse, anyway?

No one. But science can only affirm what has been observed. If other thinsg exist, but there can never be contact between those and us, it'll be as if they didn't exist. Aka Schrodinger's cat.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes, atoms do 'touch' when two objects touch.

The nuclei of atoms don't touch, but nobody ever said they did.

The electron clouds surrounding the nuclei - which are what give atoms volume - do touch, and they repel, because of the like negative charges. That's what touching is.

Electron clouds are not physical. An electron cloud is nothing but a region where it is more likely to find an electron in a given situation. That said, electron clouds don't usually touch either (at least in normal circumstances) - the repulsive force becomes too strong before they do collide. But you're not to say nuclei don't touch - they did in Rutherford's experiment, like a century ago.

The point is, people often spread around this idea that objects never actually touch, when it isn't really true. Touching is only electrostatic repulsion anyway.

Electron clouds are arbitrary; they are volumes in which an electron has a certain probability of being found. Any electron clouds can touch if you allow the probability to be high enough (electrons can potentially be found infinitely far away from a nucleus).

About nuclei touching; actually it's kind of arbitrary on the subatomic level too. Nucleons aren't spheres at all, they are just sets of three coordinates (quarks). They are arbitrarily assigned a radius at which the strong and electrostatic forces cancel, but it doesn't really represent a physical boundary.

Originally Posted by Xei

The point is, people often spread around this idea that objects never actually touch, when it isn't really true. Touching is only electrostatic repulsion anyway.

Electron clouds are arbitrary; they are volumes in which an electron has a certain probability of being found. Any electron clouds can touch if you allow the probability to be high enough (electrons can potentially be found infinitely far away from a nucleus).

About nuclei touching; actually it's kind of arbitrary on the subatomic level too. Nucleons aren't spheres at all, they are just sets of three coordinates (quarks). They are arbitrarily assigned a radius at which the strong and electrostatic forces cancel, but it doesn't really represent a physical boundary.

Quarks aren't points. They are the smallest thing we know, and probably the smallest thing that we can observe, but not points.

There's no evidence that quarks have any dimensions. Same goes for leptons (leptons and quarks make up the entirety of matter).

Originally Posted by Xei

There's no evidence that quarks have any dimensions. Same goes for leptons (leptons and quarks make up the entirety of matter).

Doesn't mean they don't have. There once was no evidence the earth was round. Voilá.

Quarks can be considered points, and as points they provide us with accurate mathematical conclusions even in macrocosmic proportions, but as I say, don't claim something you don't know.

Actually there is evidence, I think (there certainly isn't evidence against which is what you suggested). According to current models, the only reason that any non-fundamental particle has a volume in the first place, is due to the separation of the particles that constitute it; for example, atoms only have diameters of about 10^-10 m because the electrons are a large distance from the nucleus.

When you get down to truly fundamental particles, they don't have dimensions, because they aren't made of anything. The whole concept of volume directly implies being made up of something else.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Doesn't mean they don't have. There once was no evidence the earth was round. Voilá.

Quarks can be considered points, and as points they provide us with accurate mathematical conclusions even in macrocosmic proportions, but as I say, don't claim something you don't know.

There was evidence the Earth was round, everyone didn't see it or chose to ignore it. As Xei said, giving dimensions to the smallest possible things is a logical contradiction under the current physics. You would need something like string theory to start predicting dimensional particles.

Originally Posted by Xei

Actually there is evidence, I think (there certainly isn't evidence against which is what you suggested).

lol thats a false positive. You sound exactly like Wendylove. Or maybe it's just me, you all start sounding the same after a while.

I'd love to respond but unfortunately nothing you say ever makes any logical sense.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'd love to respond but unfortunately nothing you say ever makes any logical sense.

This statement is logical to you?

Originally Posted by Xei

And vitiligo doesn't cause your skin to turn bleached white.

Most of your comments are usually incorrect like this. Nothing you say is ever accurate.

2 + 2 = 4.

Hence, you are wrong.

If you actually want to talk about this thread, do so. If not, be a good chap and bugger off.

Originally Posted by Licity

There was evidence the Earth was round, everyone didn't see it or chose to ignore it. As Xei said, giving dimensions to the smallest possible things is a logical contradiction under the current physics. You would need something like string theory to start predicting dimensional particles.

Semantics. You got my point.

Also, it is not a logical contradiction. In fact, treating something as a point is a speedy conclusion, and speedy conclusions are logical mistakes. Atoms were once considered points. Now, quarks and leptons are. Who knows what will come next. Don't be so arrogant as to think you already know everything.

You are of course correct in essentials, but I do remember reading in A Brief History of Time somewhere that there is some evidence that quarks are truly fundamental particles.

I googled "quark size". I don't know if it means anything to you or how reliable it is but here is the first link it got: link

Originally Posted by Xei

2 + 2 = 4.

Hence, you are wrong.

If you actually want to talk about this thread, do so. If not, be a good chap and bugger off.

Predictable, Yeah I expected you to completely avoid it. Whats so hard about admitting that you just didn't know and that you made a mistake?

What, the Michael Jackson thing? Yes indeed I was wrong in that vitiligo can cause patches of your skin to cause to turn very pale white, but of course you'd still have to be extremely gullible not to question that a chronic liar like MJ has such a disease (he claims to have only had 2 facial surgeries for goodness sakes).

What this has to do with this discussion though I have no idea. Please stop acting in such an adolescent manner and go away.

Originally Posted by Xei

What, the Michael Jackson thing? Yes indeed I was wrong in that vitiligo can cause patches of your skin to cause to turn very pale white, .

All I wanted to hear. I may paste that one to the sig.

And stop all the crying, you act like your world is falling down around you. No big deal. geessh!

For christ's sake, guys, drop it.

Originally Posted by Xei

You are of course correct in essentials, but I do remember reading in A Brief History of Time somewhere that there is some evidence that quarks are truly fundamental particles.

All-right, but who said quarks aren't made of something else, much smaller than them? There is a huge difference in not having size and not having observable size. In fact, if they do move in a particular manner, then they *are* probably made of something else. I'm not criticising, I'm just throwing the idea out there. I hate it when science becomes pseudoscience, that's it. Doctors once believed that the liver circulated blood, and that the heart circulated "vital spirit". You never know when or where we could be wrong.

Well, distinguishing between the two is the point of the scientific method.

Hawking's book happened to be in the room with me but I can't find the passage at the moment. To be honest my scope of knowledge around particle physics really isn't enough to speak with much authority on the matter of the evidence for the fundementality of quarks.

For christ's sake, guys, drop it.

Did you even the posts? Lord...

Space might as well be infinite. Sure, it's not currently infinite. But the universe's boundaries are determined by the farthest distances light has traveled in any direction, forever pushing outward.

What determines the boundaries of the universe is if there is something in in it. In order to determine size or infinity or something, you need to measure it. The act of trying to measure beyond the light curtain which separates the universe from the void would put something into that void, thereby expanding the barrier. So in effect you could keep measuring to infinity in any direction.

For me space is infinite and I can't comprehend it otherwise. That might be because I know too little but have a very large point of view. Space for me is not something that I would want to define because definitions create limits and I always try to look beyond the limits.

The expansion of space that modern science explains is already quite defined with limits. But I try to observe beyond the expansion like from another existence or something I can't even explain it. People would say there is "nothing" beyond the expansion or it is "unknown beyond human comprehension". Some would start talking about other dimensions or something like if you get to the edge of the universe you would come out in another point of the universe.

But I see beyond anything that people might try to explain, I see beyond darkness and light I see infinite unknown nothingness that I still consider as "space". That is my heaven and one day after countless deaths I shall merge into that nothingness and achieve perfection.

Forgive me for such vague thoughts but my perception of space is beyond anything explainable. Limits in space don't make any sense to me I can't even imagine limits in space and I'm sure lots of people would consider me retarded for that.