VACCULOID THEORY

[sunofindia]

VACCULOID THEORY

 

Hi guyz!!!! think u remembered me.(murthy is my name and nani is my nick.im 15 and doing 12th grade)long time past since i posted my forum.this time im up with vaccuum.there is a general beleif that vaccuum doesnt contain any particles. i opposed this from the beginning.we all know the disapproval of "ETHER THEORY".though my theory has the same point to prove but i neither read that theory no know its flaws.all the below points are my ideas.well, all i want to prove is that "vaccuum does contain particles."

 

 

Starting with, we all know that light can pass through 5metres think glass slab but it cant even pass through even ^^5mm thin tin foil.though we can answer that by saying "glass is transparent and tin is opaque." but the point which requires observation is "why is glass transparent and tin opaque?" well i was thinking about this since a long time.i got an answer when i considered that vaccuum contains particles which i coined as "vacculoid" particles.we all know that glass contains more intermolecular spaces relative to that of tin. since the spaces are more the particles are more which act as carriers of light.where as in tin those particles are less and the light is negligibly carried.

 

LASER TEST

 

If vaccuum doesnt contain particles then the following test should give negative results but thats not the case.lets have a look on the details of the experiment.

 

APPARATUS REQUIRED:

 

1)VACCUUM TUBE(*it should be very long)

2)SOURCE FOR LASER

3)RECEIVER OF LIGHT

EXPERIMENT:

 

Send the laser from the source point into the vaccuum tube.note the intensity

of the light sent.also note the intensity at the end point of the vaccuum tube

where the receiver is placed.you would find the difference in intensities which

makes us think that there is a loss of intensity in the vaccuum tube.

 

INFERENCE:

 

If light doesnt contain any particles then why is there a loss of intensity of light

in vaccuum.i observed the reducing factor which i shall tell you later. this

experiment alone strongly convinces me that vaccuum does comprise of some

particles.so i termed those particles as "vacculoid" particles.

 

 

ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE:

 

We all know about the "absolute temperature".it is the temperature at which

molecular motion ceases and particles doesnt exist.but the scientists failed to

attain it even in vaccuum which made think that vaccuum consists of some

particles which i termed as "vacculoid" particles.

 

 

NOTE: ^^--- 5 millimetres

 

 

Thats all for now.shall come2 u with my new ideas soon.hope u likd this one and im waiting for ur valuable critiques and opinions.tormod i have a doubt can u pls clarify.how can i have a copywright of my ideas.pls tell me how.thnx for all for patiently reading this and investing ur valuable time for my sake.

waiting for ur responses,

NANI

[Aki]

Originally posted by: sunofindia

.im 15 and doing 12th grade

 

sunofindia, did you skip a grade(or two)? you're supposed to be 17 when you do grade 12, right?

[sunofindia]

u r right aki.but the thing was when i was in 3rd grade the school promoted me to 5th grade.

also when i was in my kindergarten i was pushed to 1st grade. thats why his difference.thanx for examining even that point

[BlameTheEx]

Sunofindia

 

Regarding loss of light, I suspect failings in the conditions of your experiment. Laser beams can be very straight indeed, but over a long distance there is bound to be some divergence. Also it is impossible to create a perfect vacuum. Are you sure that all such effects have been accounted for?

 

As for absolute temperature you must be careful of your terms. Heat can be transferred both by conduction and radiation. A vacuum can't transfer via conduction (unless your "vacculoid" particles exist) but radiation is still there. A thermometer placed in a vacuum would measure a temperature due to that radiation. It would, perhaps very slowly, reach the same temperature as the walls of your vacuum flask. At that point radiation to the thermometer would balance radiation from it. Are you sure you have eliminated the effect of radiation from the walls of your vacuum flask?

[sunofindia]

ey happy poster(blame) i was wrong not to menion those conditions but when i meant vaccuum tube i thought that i would mean a perfect vaccuum tube which as u mentioned is devoid of radiation.

 

but thats practically next to impossible(not impossible though).i think the better place is space itself wha do u say

[BlameTheEx]

Sunofinda

 

If your results are correct, then we do indeed need to look for something like your vacculoids. However is this the results of genuine experiments, or thought experiments? It is beginning to look like the later. Frankly I am surprised by such results.

 

If they are thought experiments, why do you expect the results to be as you say?

 

If they were actual experiments, could you give details, so I can consider if they are valid.

[sunofindia]

well blame, they are not thought experiments. they r real. i did it. thats how i got the thought but i have to repeat it again and find its validity and the "loss factor".u can check its validity.

 

im anxiously waiting for tormod's and free thinker's critiques.

[IrishEyes]

I'm sure that Freethinker will chime in soon, but you'll have to wait a few more days for Tormod. He's on vacation and probably won't be back until early next week. I'm sure that when he returns he will give your post a rather detailed going over though. I could tell from his response to your last post that he was quite impressed with the way your mind works, as were we all.

 

Good to see you back again!

[BlameTheEx]

Sunofindia thats cool, but details please.

[sunofindia]

thnx irish eyes.im happy to hear that u all r liking my ideas.any ways wat is ur opinion on this theory

[sunofindia]

ey blame. i sure shall give u the details.but im performing the experiment more accurately

[sunofindia]

ey guys. i got another test which also requires laser.im doing it.shall post it to you soon.

[BlameTheEx]

Sunofindia

 

Hm. Then as you are not willing to give the details of the experiments, as stands, may I suggest that discussion is suspended until you are ready?

 

The properties of vacuums are a long and well researched field. You are claiming surprisingly different results to all who have gone before you. I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but we are bound to wonder if your results are accurate. In these circumstances, asking us to debate the results first, before checking over the method by which they were achieved is hardly reasonable.

 

 

 

 

Edited ot correct a spell checker correction. If only I could spell without one. Sigh.

[sunofindia]

well blame im ready but the result im getting is positive.though i cant give u the calibration of the experimental setup.but im planning to do it more carefully and i sure shall produce the details b4 u.all iam doing now is to find a professor and submit him my ideas in written way and probably take his help to do this experiment.well if u think wat u thought was right then its ur choice. any ways i shall give u details ok . luck to all

urs nani

[Bo]

hgmm for some reason i never said anything about this thread, so i'll do it now

 

let's first discuss your experiment; or let's discuss why i find it hard to discuss it

- Please give us some more information on the apparati used; in particular: how well is the tuning/monochromaticity (i think that that is a word ) and stability of the laser? within how many % of a true vacuum does the tube come? how long is the tube? etc. As for my knowledge of 'standard equipment' things like this will in general give quite a substantial error (few %)

- Please give us some explicit results; how large is the loss of energy? with what uncertainty?

 

As blame pointed out: Vacuum properties are studied for at least 100 years or so and experimental deviations can become unexpectedly huge.

 

 

And secondly: your vaculoid particles do exist (although this effect is extremely small and as long as i dont know more on your measurements i doubt that this is what you saw). Because of the uncertainty relation between Energy and time, Quantum mehcanics admits -during a very short time- the spontaneous creation of particles. (mostly electron-positron pears), which immediatly thereafter annihilate each other, giving their energy 'back to the vacuum' This proces makes sure that there are always particles in the vacuum.

 

thirdly: absolute temperature

We all know about the "absolute temperature".it is the temperature at which

molecular motion ceases and particles doesnt exist.but the scientists failed to

attain

Absolute 0 cant be obtained because of the momentum-position uncertainty in Quantum mechanics. If a particle where really fixed to one point, it must have a speed, however, if the particle has no speed, then it can't be fixed to 1 point. So a complete 0Kelvin (no movement of the particles) can't be obtained.

 

Bo

[Tormod]

Very well put, Bo. Thanks.

[Tormod]

I see that Irish promised my response to your theory but Blame and Bo have alreade given it the once-over. Here are some of my comments, though.

 

First of all - kudos to you for posting your ideas here. I appreciate it. If you feel that I offend you in any way then please try to see it as constructive criticism and not personal attack. And remember I am *not* a scientist but a layman.

 

Originally posted by: sunofindia

all i want to prove is that "vaccuum does contain particles."

 

Ok, hypothesis: (all) vacuum contains particles.

 

Problem #1: Vacuum comes in different kinds. Absolute vacuum is defined as space that is completely empty, apart from the vacuum fluctuations which are allowed by quantum mechanics (where "virtual" particles "borrow" energy from the vacuum and "give it back" later through annihilation). So your theory needs to explain that there is no such thing as completely empty vacuum. Which means it must hold true for every kind of empty vacuum - all over the universe. So you should specify a limit for the properties of the kind of vacuum you are thinking about.

 

Starting with, we all know that light can pass through 5metres think glass slab but it cant even pass through even ^^5mm thin tin foil.though we can answer that by saying "glass is transparent and tin is opaque."

 

Observation #1: Light passes through some objects but not others.

 

Problem #2: You provide an "obvious" solution by using transparency as a property which gives objects the ability to let light pass through them. But light does pass through certain opaque objects. And different wavelengths pass through different materials - observe how x-rays are used to study the body because it penetrates skin and soft tissue but not bones. There is also different scattering models for different kinds of objects and wavelengths (clouds scatter the sunlight differently than the air of an open sky).

 

but the point which requires observation is "why is glass transparent and tin opaque?"

 

Problem #3: There are more points which require observation. Some are: what defines transparency? What makes an object transparent? Why does a piece of clear class turn opaque when held over a burning candle? What is the role of temperature in opacity? Which objects are opaque to all freuqencies of the electromagnetic spectrum? And what about translucent materials which reflect light? Do they play a role here?

 

You need do define what "light" is in your theory. You say you will use a laser. At what frequency will it work?

 

well i was thinking about this since a long time.i got an answer when i considered that vaccuum contains particles which i coined as "vacculoid" particles.we all know that glass contains more intermolecular spaces relative to that of tin. since the spaces are more the particles are more which act as carriers of light.where as in tin those particles are less and the light is negligibly carried.

 

Problem #4: I do not understand this paragraph. You do not say anything about the properties of your vacculoid particles. Also, I sense a contradiction in the term "intermolecular space" and your idea that all vacuum contains particles. It seems obvious to me that you imply that it is the spaces between the molecules in the material that contains your vacculoids. So if I cut very small holes in tin, is it immediately filled with vacculoids...(since then light would pass through tin).

 

Problem #5: I would try not to use terms like "we all know" when it is something which is not common knowledge. It makes people feel stupid.

 

If vaccuum doesnt contain particles then the following test should give negative results but thats not the case.lets have a look on the details of th