« on: 21/06/2019 13:04:39 »
OK so are we better just (re)starting from the position that a vacuum is not only impractical to create but that it is a misnomer and that we can only really talk about relative densities of whatever we are considering?Quote from: OPIs "Space" distinct from "nothingness"? (and the Vacuum)My attempt:
A vacuum is when you have removed all the baryonic matter from a volume of space.
- You have to work very hard to ge a "good" vacuum, as atoms are always boiling off the container walls and seals.
If you really want nothing, you would need to remove light (not entirely possible above absolute zero), neutrinos (not possible with any shielding we can imagine), and Dark Matter (we don't even know what it is, let alone imagine a way to keep it out).
My first introduction to this idea of a vacuum was the "Nature abhors a vacuum" saying which made such perfect sense to me at the time.(with its seeming relevance to both physical and political events)
Time to cast "vacuums" into the bin of history?
"Nothingness" is clearly also a contentious subject (I think Odysseus got the better of one of his opponents with his "My name is Nobody " repartee).
I don't think we need to pick at that scab for now ;-)