The Instigator
ProfJacob
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
oculus_de_logica
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should space contain matter?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 642 times Debate No: 45458
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

ProfJacob

Pro

Rules

1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.

2. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.

Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.

Presentation

Alright. The Sun radiates (Transfer of energy through space) light. Those light waves travel through what we call a medium (Matter). If space didn't contain matter, the Sun wouldn't be able to radiate light, seeing as the waves don't have anything to travel through.

Evidence to back up claim that the Sun radiates light

1. Our world is illuminated by the Sun. The moon moves in between the Sun and the Earth. The Sun would still be radiating light, but because the moon is in the way, the light doesn't travel to us. This would be known as an eclipse.
oculus_de_logica

Con

Sorry for my delay, Life came knocking and took away half an hour or so...

I'm assuming that the first post is just acceptance and starting statements. Until all hell breaks loose and either of us engages in full troll mode I'm assuming that round 2 is opening arguments without the rebuttals of Con, round 3 is rebuttals of both sides and 4 is final rebuttals and concluding arguments unless Pro states otherwise.

Let's start.


I believe that the existence of this light carrying matter does not exists as Light does not need a medium to travel.
The particle duality of Light provides makes it so that light can act as it's own medium and Einstein's version of Quantum Physical space time allows light to travel alongside the curve without the need for a medium and in fact in a matter filled breaks several physical rules.
Debate Round No. 1
ProfJacob

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

(P.S. I don't really mind the delay. :))

Rebuttals and Responses

"I'm assuming that the first post is just acceptance and starting statements."

No. I have already presented my arguments in this round. Also, if you assumed so, why'd you already present your argument in this round?

"The particle duality of Light provides makes it so that light can act as it's own medium"

So, light travels through what we call a medium (Matter). The particles of the light are still light; THOSE particles also need a medium to travel through.

"Einstein's version of Quantum Physical space time allows light to travel alongside the curve without the need for a medium"

Please explain how so.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
oculus_de_logica

Con

Ladies and gentlemen, how are you? Don't you enjoy the Beauty of sunshine as it shines in trough your window on a warm summer day? Don't you wonder how all that beautiful light travelled thousands of kilometres trough near perfect vacuum to your eyes?

Light is a mysterious thing. It along with it's properties is one of the most researched elements in modern physics and yet we know nearly nothing on it, a large gap is within our textbooks when it comes to all the mysterious secrets that light possesses. Along with those secrets we debate on is the wonderful question: “How does light travel trough empty vacuum without a medium despite being an electromagnetic wave?” The answer to that is unknown to us, but we have theories, and in this debate I'll skim over these theories as well as I can do without making any of you fall to sleep from reading my case.

According to the wave-particle duality theory1 light in it's fundamental state can exists both as a wave and a particle depending on the situation and measurement. Not only does this mean that light displays both the properties of waves and particles, that means that it can move unhindered trough nothing using itself as a medium. Of course this is an extremely simplified interpretation of the theory but the basic idea still holds.

Another theory that goes off topic can be found in the ever popular space time theory as described by Albert Einstein2. In an analogy he once stated something along the lines of this (rephrased):

Imagine that you had an infinite, frictionless rubber sheet that stretches in all directions. This is space time, the universe. If we create a photon or a beam of light in the form of a small marble it would travel in a completely straight line without ever stopping or changing directions. Now we place a mass at rest onto the rubber sheet. This large marble creates a dent into the sheet. The crater represent the gravitational force of the mass. Now if the marble passes it will change directions and follow the crease in the sheet, it is attracted to the other mass. Light bends along with space time.

We see here that light is represented as a particle, not a wave. A particle needs no medium to travel trough, it only needs momentum and will travel in complete vacuum without a medium until another force acts upon it, as dictated by Newton's first law of motion (an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force, and an object in motion will maintain a constant velocity and direction unless acted upon by an external force)

Now, the debate topic isn't “Does Light need a medium to travel?”, it is simply “Does outer space require matter” and/or “Is space filled with matter”. My answer to that is no. It simply cannot be filled with the magical substance 'Ether' that philosophers of ancient Greece spoke of. The reason why is simple: It would have to be invisible, nearly mass less, apply no friction nor force and not interact with any other matter in the universe; It would all have to be Dark matter, which is a valid theory in physics but it does not interact strongly or at all with electromagnetic radiation3 and thus does not fit into my opponents arguments.

In conclusion: Space should not be filled with some magical unproven matter. If we would have this matter that somehow is not in the periodic table, reacts with light as a medium but does not apply friction to satellites like the Stars, planets, moons or our own research crafts that are zooming out of the solar system with no apparent unexpected slowdown dues to friction from an undiscovered material I'd like my opponent to take on the burden of proof and prove to me via any means necessary that this strange matter exists and does interact with electromagnetic waves as a medium.

I rest my case and hand the debate back to my opponent.

1) www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKdoE1vX7k4

2) www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496904/relativity/252891/Principle-of-equivalence

3)http://news.vanderbilt.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
ProfJacob

Pro

Rebuttals and Responses

"Don't you wonder how all that beautiful light travelled thousands of kilometres trough near perfect vacuum to your eyes?"

Sure! The Sun radiates white light. White light is composed of the colors present in the electromagnetic spectrum. Depending on an object's (Exposed to the Sun) molecular structure, it reflects a certain color, whilst absorbing others. Without light, the object will be black. Without the medium for it to travel through, Earth would be completely dark (Excluding other light sources).

"According to the wave-particle duality theory1 light in it's fundamental state can exists both as a wave and a particle depending on the situation and measurement. Not only does this mean that light displays both the properties of waves and particles, that means that it can move unhindered trough nothing using itself as a medium. Of course this is an extremely simplified interpretation of the theory but the basic idea still holds."

If light is indeed a wave, then I would be correct, seeing as waves need a medium to travel through. If it were a particle, then I wouldn't be correct; You would be. However, this theory is unconfirmed, actually, THESE theories, thus, not being useful in your favor. I won't reply to the rest. If you sufficiently substantiate these theories, I will concede.

"My answer to that is no. It simply cannot be filled with the magical substance 'Ether' that philosophers of ancient Greece spoke of. The reason why is simple: It would have to be invisible, nearly mass less, apply no friction nor force and not interact with any other matter in the universe; It would all have to be Dark matter, which is a valid theory in physics but it does not interact strongly or at all with electromagnetic radiation3 and thus does not fit into my opponents arguments."

Please explain how so; Ether is only defined as matter occupying space. We haven't listed any of it's characteristics.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.



oculus_de_logica

Con




My opponent asked me to do the impossible, to efficiently prove that a scientific theory is correct. By definition a theory in science cannot be proven, every single theory in science must assume that it is incorrect and is disposable. Asking me to substantiate the wave-particle theory is however possible to a certain degree. I could in fact sit here and throw article after article, video after video, paper after paper and book after book that supports the theory1 but it will never be proven simply because the nature of the theory itself. Light has been experimented to act both as a wave in certain situations2,3 and a particle in others4,5. This phenomenon is NOT observed in other non-quantum waves such as sound waves or ripples on the surface of a water, meaning that light can choose what form it has at what times, as strange as that may sound. Just this ability to change forms and act like a particle means that it no longer needs a medium, because it is the medium. It carries itself and it's energy in small isolated packs of energy called quanta that are shown to have momentum. Waves cannot have mass and thus cannot have momentum. This in turn means that while not refracting, reflecting or interacting with other waves light behaves as a particle that does have momentum provided by it's energy.

Now, Ether, Aether or Æther in this context was used by the ancient Greeks to explain many things that where not possible to explain with only 4 elements6. It filled the cosmos that lay beyond the reaches of the Solar System and it was the missing medium that you speak of, it was aether that carried light from the sun to us. It's presence was a large topic of debate well into the 17th and 18th century changing it's form from a clear form of matter to little omnipresent pockets of whirlpools that carried ripples of light across space. It's existence was mostly rejected and the Michelson-Morley experiment7 lay a stone in its grave as the results of the experiment foretold that this matter did not exist.

Now, My opponent has put the burden of proof on me, asking me to prove that light is not a wave specifically but also has properties of particles. I however am pointing out that the burden of proof is on his side. If there is a mystical matter outside our atmosphere that we aren't aware of, you will have to show me proof of it's existence. You have to tell me what properties it does have and what properties it does not have. I want to know more about this matter.

My opponent has a single round to effectively prove to whoever is reading this debate that there is a substance carrying light waves with hard research or evidence. I have cited various sources that build a strong column under my pole, but I still haven't seen the wall my opponent is building. You have 1 round, 10.000 characters. If you can use them to prove to me that Aether exists outside the history books I'll gladly concede, but until then the light is upon you, and it isn't being carried by Aether.

6 ) wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)










Debate Round No. 3
ProfJacob

Pro

"My opponent asked me to do the impossible, to efficiently prove that a scientific theory is correct."

Exactly! So, please don't use theories in your favor.

"Now, My opponent has put the burden of proof on me, asking me to prove that light is not a wave specifically but also has properties of particles. I however am pointing out that the burden of proof is on his side. If there is a mystical matter outside our atmosphere that we aren't aware of, you will have to show me proof of it's existence. You have to tell me what properties it does have and what properties it does not have. I want to know more about this matter."

Why is the BoP only on me? Not at all cases is it true that if one side lacks evidence, the other is true. If my side lacks evidence, same with yours, aren't both sides then equally compelling for choosing? WTF
oculus_de_logica

Con

scientific theories are as close to facts as we can get; As no theory can ever become facts nor laws. Theories are one of the more reliable 'evidence' we have access to. If all scientific debates would be built up on indisputable evidence and facts we would have an awfully silent science section. truth is the theories I built my case on have been examined to hold multiple times.

The burden of proof is on the one that is making the claim. You in this case are claiming that space is filled with some form of matter with the sole argument that without this matter light would not be able to travel as it has no medium, not properly backing up the claim and citing no sources. From my perspective the burden of proof is on your side as you made the claim that this matter exists. I made a solid case that it does not exists as you described it and came with an alternative to your main argument. Since your main rebuttal was, and I quote: "this theory is unconfirmed, actually, THESE theories, thus, not being useful in your favor. I won't reply to the rest." and provided no further arguments for me to refute.

I'll conclude this debate by extending all my previous arguments as they where left completely unanswered.

I wish to thank my opponent for the debate and hope to face him again in the near future.
Thank you and good night.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
All right, that sounds like it would be an interesting debate...
I'm in
Posted by ProfJacob 3 years ago
ProfJacob
oculus, yes.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
Ok, let's see if I understood the topic thesis correctly; You (pro) are debating that outer space is filled with some form of physical matter? (so that light waves can travel trough a physical medium?) and Con is debating that it is nearly void (vacuum)? Or am I completely missing the point here?
No votes have been placed for this debate.