Cosmologists will not admit to outer space, the void, as being something--an actual material substance--even though they believe that this void is expanding, accelerating, warping, curving, and dilating. They see no intellectual gap between "space is expanding" and "space is not a substance." They will only repeatedly state that space "is not an empty void but is full of quantum activity." This way they can avoid having to account for expansion of space in terms of it being a physical material, ergo, an aether or something like that. But when examined honestly, something that has traits of a "sheet of rubber" cannot solely be an empty nothingness that merely hosts particles and activity. It must be something physical.
But is it a conductor? If it is indeed a void, a nothingness, then I will maintain "no": it is not a conductor because it exists outside of matter. A conductor implies a material object. Outer space is undefined, indeterminate as to its physical standing.
But wait... establishment physics defines a conductor, an electrode, as including a vacuum. How can this be without also admitting to vacuum being a material? The establishment has therefore devised a linguistic sleight of hand to indeed define the vacuum, the void, as a conductor. So this issue has already been settled. But has it?
In other words, what is space? Without defining what it is then to call it a "conductor" overlooks the aforementioned. Even if it behaves like a conductor does that mean that it is?
CharlesChandler
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
viscount aero wrote: In other words, what is space?
The thought crossed my mind that this question is similar to an historical mathematical problem.
Wikipedia wrote: Records show that the ancient Greeks seemed unsure about the status of zero as a number. They asked themselves, "How can nothing be something?", leading to philosophical and, by the Medieval period, religious arguments about the nature and existence of zero and the vacuum. The paradoxes of Zeno of Elea depend in large part on the uncertain interpretation of zero.
The concept of zero as a number and not merely a symbol or an empty space for separation is attributed to India, where, by the 9th century AD, practical calculations were carried out using zero, which was treated like any other number, even in case of division.
Thanks to the Romans, we live in the 21st Century AD, even though the year is 2014 — they didn't have a concept of 0, so there couldn't be a 0th Century — it had to start with the 1st Century, and go up from there. Likewise, we're living in the 3rd Millenium AD. Had any of the fools taken a computer programming class, they'd know that you always count starting at 0.
So, is 0 a quantity?
Lloyd
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Space is volume, which has 3 dimensions of length. A volume of space can have anywhere from zero mass to a large amount of mass. The evidence seems to show that the more mass in a volume the less the electrical conductance, especially for insulating solids. Does anyone doubt or have evidence against the conclusion that the less mass or matter in a volume of space the greater the conductance it has?
Lloyd wrote: Space is volume, which has 3 dimensions of length. A volume of space can have anywhere from zero mass to a large amount of mass. The evidence seems to show that the more mass in a volume the less the electrical conductance, especially for insulating solids. Does anyone doubt or have evidence against the conclusion that the less mass or matter in a volume of space the greater the conductance it has?
But this gets back to the styrofoam cup versus copper pipe. The styrofoam has less mass but will not conduct electricity. So less mass = greater conductivity is not true. Maybe it is with plasma, but it's not an axiom in general. Appropriate matter is required to conduct electricity, not just less matter.
If space is the absence of matter but there is a quantum field "within" the vacuum then is the vacuum actually a form of matter? It acts like a conductor.
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: In other words, what is space?
The thought crossed my mind that this question is similar to an historical mathematical problem.
Wikipedia wrote: Records show that the ancient Greeks seemed unsure about the status of zero as a number. They asked themselves, "How can nothing be something?", leading to philosophical and, by the Medieval period, religious arguments about the nature and existence of zero and the vacuum. The paradoxes of Zeno of Elea depend in large part on the uncertain interpretation of zero.
The concept of zero as a number and not merely a symbol or an empty space for separation is attributed to India, where, by the 9th century AD, practical calculations were carried out using zero, which was treated like any other number, even in case of division.
Thanks to the Romans, we live in the 21st Century AD, even though the year is 2014 — they didn't have a concept of 0, so there couldn't be a 0th Century — it had to start with the 1st Century, and go up from there. Likewise, we're living in the 3rd Millenium AD. Had any of the fools taken a computer programming class, they'd know that you always count starting at 0.
So, is 0 a quantity?
No. Something must be designated to label a nothingness and that is the value of zero. Zero denotes absence and non-existence. Zero is the control group by which something-ness or quantity is weighed against. This is my opinion.
Shrike
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Thanks to the Romans, we live in the 21st Century AD, even though the year is 2014 — they didn't have a concept of 0, so there couldn't be a 0th Century — it had to start with the 1st Century, and go up from there. Likewise, we're living in the 3rd Millenium AD. Had any of the fools taken a computer programming class, they'd know that you always count starting at 0.
So, is 0 a quantity?
This is probably where maths and reality gets mixed up again. The concept of zero is really handy to define nothing or as place holders for like 100 in mathematics.
but nothing is nothing in real world physics. we could debate void is nothing or not but definitions should hold up. space is a void, a nothing.
So i would say space is neither conducting or resisting. Sure one could argue that space does not resist movement but it is not space it self that does any work or transfer energy. It must always be something that travels / moves trough space that does the conducting or resisting.
Other wise the definition space or void / nothing has no meaning any more.
Also consider if space between electron and proton is space/void and it is conduction what would separated them. Nothing ! so space should always remain nothing. not conduction or resisting.
It always HAS to be something within that space.
just my 2 cents
Lloyd
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Space is only void of matter. It's not void of existence. It's not void of distance or length.
Zero in math means none of the objects under consideration. It doesn't mean nothing. Zero also means neutral or balance point. It's the origin point on a graph, but measurement can continue beyond the zero point.
As I said already, nothing doesn't exist. Everything in the universe exists, including the volume of space or vacuum.
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Lloyd wrote: Space is only void of matter. It's not void of existence. It's not void of distance or length.
Zero in math means none of the objects under consideration. It doesn't mean nothing. Zero also means neutral or balance point. It's the origin point on a graph, but measurement can continue beyond the zero point.
As I said already, nothing doesn't exist. Everything in the universe exists, including the volume of space or vacuum.
I like this discussion quite a lot. It's going into borderline esoteric/speculative philosophy of the nature of existence. It must go there because the cosmos is the underpinning of everything that we know of.
I like what you're saying about how space is not void of existence. As space, itself, exists. That is very interesting to revisit and ponder at great length.
Furthermore, a so-called "point-mass" or "singularity" is a mathematical abstraction/operator and is not an actuality physically speaking. It is these things that are a non-existence. There is no such thing as a point mass. A number-line is a non-existence although it is useful as a mathematical language and symbolism. Everything, including "0," has its place and time for use.
Whereas a nothingness can be described by using zero, I think as an operational numeral, as a symbol, "0" is very useful and necessary in our physics. It has layers of applications and meanings. "0" gives the realm of negative integers its reality. Depending on the application, "0" is actually quite real and present.
But is outer space something? Yes it does exist. But can outer space can denote the absence of existence? Is it the control background of existence?
Chromium6
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
So space is of 3-Dimensional distances with materials (elements-molecules-energy-photons) within those distances? Or is it empty like a vacuum? What about at the edge of the universe - apparently, it is 13+ billion light years away? These photons-Xrays were travelling (non-static) towards us over time.
V.A. said: A number-line is a non-existence although it is useful as a mathematical language and symbolism.
To nitpick, I'd say a number-line is a physical non-existence, but it's a mental existence, and the mental symbols can be imitated with physical symbols.
Chromium6 wrote: So space is of 3-Dimensional distances with materials (elements-molecules-energy-photons) within those distances? Or is it empty like a vacuum? What about at the edge of the universe - apparently, it is 13+ billion light years away? These photons-Xrays were travelling (non-static) towards us over time. http://www.space.com/5863-explosion-edge-universe.html
EU disagrees with the 13 billion lighyears, because redshift is what that distance is based on and that's incorrect as proven by the high redshift quaser in front of a low redshift galaxy.
I also suggested earlier that every nook in space has heavy photon traffic wherever there are stars within many lightyears. That may be especially true for the CMB, cosmic microwave background radiation.
David
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
JeffreyW wrote: All you need to do is place a AA battery in a vacuum chamber and see if it short circuits. A short circuiting AA battery will heat up. A 9V battery short circuited will explode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpBb4VqyHb8
Stick a 9V battery in a evacuated bell jar and if it explodes then vacuum conducts electricity. If it doesn't then vacuum is an insulator. Problem solved.
I think vacuum is an insulator like air. It does not conduct electricity. It has no resistance to radiation, but radiation is not electrical conduction. The two are not the same process.
The exact test that you proposed can be seen at the following website. A 9V battery was placed inside a vacuum chamber.
Result: the vacuum chamber had no effect on the battery. It didn't short circuit. It didn't explode. Nothing happened. (see link below)
Incidentally, nearly everything we launch into space has batteries on-board: the space shuttle, the space station, satellites, telescopes, etc. Batteries do not short circuit in the vacuum of space.
Lloyd
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Thanks a lot, David. Looks like a good test. And your related comments sound very relevant as well.
Something doesn't seem to be adding up now. If the rocket tests showed increasing conductance with decreasing atmospheric pressure, it seems that the vacuum should have the most conductance. But if batteries don't short out in vacuum, it seems that vacuum must have low conductance.
Seems to be a paradox. And paradoxes mean opportunities.
Lloyd wrote: Thanks a lot, David. Looks like a good test. And your related comments sound very relevant as well.
Something doesn't seem to be adding up now. If the rocket tests showed increasing conductance with decreasing atmospheric pressure, it seems that the vacuum should have the most conductance. But if batteries don't short out in vacuum, it seems that vacuum must have low conductance.
Seems to be a paradox. And paradoxes mean opportunities.
