Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Torricelli Vacuum

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 4:16:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can someone explain the Torricelli experiment? Why doesn't the mercury just flow out of the tube and into the pool of mercury? Also, why isn't the space at the top of the inverted tube a perfect vacuum? What matter could possibly have made its way into that space?

If the space in the tube is indeed a perfect vacuum, or can be a perfect vacuum, doesn't that mean perpetual motion is now achievable?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 11:02:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 4:16:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
Can someone explain the Torricelli experiment? Why doesn't the mercury just flow out of the tube and into the pool of mercury? Also, why isn't the space at the top of the inverted tube a perfect vacuum? What matter could possibly have made its way into that space?

If the space in the tube is indeed a perfect vacuum, or can be a perfect vacuum, doesn't that mean perpetual motion is now achievable?

good question.

This works the same way holding your finger over the top of a straw to hold soda from falling out.

The process that allows this to happen, is that we live under constant pressure (and not just mental and emotional). There are miles and miles of atmosphere sitting on top of us. This is similar to if you were at the bottom of the ocean with miles and miles of water sitting on top of you, that it would crush you from the weight. Air is the same, but it is not as heavy as water, but we still find that 14.7 PSI is pushing on us at all times.

This is okay, because we are use to the pressure, so we don't feel it (just like deep sea fish don't feel the massive pressure at the bottom of the ocean) because it is all in balance.

It is easier to think of this as a scale with two platforms on each side (one on the side in the tube, and one on the outside). Like a scale, if weight is applied on one side, the other side is raised. However, we can use pressure rather than weight. If pressure is applied to one side, with scale (or water level in this case) goes up.

Since the inside is a fixed amount of air (can be done with any amount of air, though we usually use zero, e.g. a vacuum, as a standard), and is separate from the outside atmosphere, the only variable is the atmosphere pressure. So as that increases, it pushing on the scale, when the pressure decreases, the scale pushes back on it (causing water levels to go up and down).

The ones with vacuums (not perfect vacuums, will get into that shortly) don't use water pressure (or mercury pressure or whatever liquid you want to use), but the weight of the raised liquid (if the liquid is raised 4 inches, then you have 4 inches worth of weight pressing down against the force of the pressure on the other end).

Now, going on to vacuums, you cannot have a perfect vacuum outside of the atomic world (quantum mechs), because atoms will naturally break off and turn into a gas. So there will always be trace atoms bouncing around (just like if you place water in a vacuum, the atoms in the water will form into steam and can even boil).

So we can get damn close, but technically not perfect.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 11:56:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
^^^ given that explanation, then apparently so.

Well, there's little for me to add. ^_^

The definition of a vacuum is a space free of forces. It's impossible to have a perfect vacuum anywhere on Earth, really, without mechanical interference.

So, the space above the mercury is relatively free of forces -- in particular, there are no gasses like air to weigh down the mercury and cause it to move.

You know, objects at rest stay at rest, and object in motion remain in motion...

A barometer works because air pressure changes with weather. When pressures drop, that means that much greater pressure is on the way, because there must always be an equilibrium. So, when pressure drops, it's a very good indicator that a storm is coming. When that pressure drops, the difference between the lack of weight above the mercury and the weight below it decreases, causing the mercury to crawl down the barometer.

As for your perpetual motion question -- of course.

Objects in motion tend to remain in motion.

An object travelling in a vacuum would remain in perpetual motion forever.

This is why comets, asteroids, and such are always shooting all over the place and don't stop until they hit something.

On Earth travelling parallel to the ground, they'd probably revolve once or twice (if that), before slowing to a complete stop due to several resistances (a great deal of which being air).
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 8:39:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The solar wind means that there is not a vacuum in space around stars. And as the solar wind is projected outward from them, even the space between stars is not going to be a vacuum (though atoms may be few and far between).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 2:18:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 8:39:17 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The solar wind means that there is not a vacuum in space around stars. And as the solar wind is projected outward from them, even the space between stars is not going to be a vacuum (though atoms may be few and far between).

Well, stars are actually extremely far (hundreds to thousands of lightyears) apart. There are spaces between them that objects can travel in what can be accepted as a near-perfect to perfect vacuum.

If an asteroid, comet, or even planet got too close to a star, not only would they be subject to solar wind, but also gravitation. :P
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 4:44:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are no perfect vacuums anywhere in the Universe, as far as we can measure. A perfect vacuum would have absolute zero temperature and that has not been observed anywhere in the universe.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:20:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 4:44:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
There are no perfect vacuums anywhere in the Universe, as far as we can measure. A perfect vacuum would have absolute zero temperature and that has not been observed anywhere in the universe.

Okay, on one hand, yes -- that is a necessary distinction to make on the premise of defining a truly and strictly perfect vacuum -- however!

Are you therefore saying that those claims are simply postulates with no empirical foundation?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 2:25:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 4:16:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
Can someone explain the Torricelli experiment? Why doesn't the mercury just flow out of the tube and into the pool of mercury? Also, why isn't the space at the top of the inverted tube a perfect vacuum? What matter could possibly have made its way into that space?

If the space in the tube is indeed a perfect vacuum, or can be a perfect vacuum, doesn't that mean perpetual motion is now achievable?

The space on the top is filled mainly with water vapor. Air can dissolve through liquid, so some air should exist in it as well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 3:11:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:20:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/2/2012 4:44:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
There are no perfect vacuums anywhere in the Universe, as far as we can measure. A perfect vacuum would have absolute zero temperature and that has not been observed anywhere in the universe.

Okay, on one hand, yes -- that is a necessary distinction to make on the premise of defining a truly and strictly perfect vacuum -- however!

Are you therefore saying that those claims are simply postulates with no empirical foundation?

What claims?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 6:11:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 3:11:57 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:20:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/2/2012 4:44:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
There are no perfect vacuums anywhere in the Universe, as far as we can measure. A perfect vacuum would have absolute zero temperature and that has not been observed anywhere in the universe.

Okay, on one hand, yes -- that is a necessary distinction to make on the premise of defining a truly and strictly perfect vacuum -- however!

Are you therefore saying that those claims are simply postulates with no empirical foundation?

What claims?

Postulates for what occurs in a perfect vacuum.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 1:47:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 6:11:31 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/3/2012 3:11:57 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:20:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/2/2012 4:44:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
There are no perfect vacuums anywhere in the Universe, as far as we can measure. A perfect vacuum would have absolute zero temperature and that has not been observed anywhere in the universe.

Okay, on one hand, yes -- that is a necessary distinction to make on the premise of defining a truly and strictly perfect vacuum -- however!

Are you therefore saying that those claims are simply postulates with no empirical foundation?

What claims?

Postulates for what occurs in a perfect vacuum.
Well yes, by definition: a space free of forces (as you said.) Is not a space at absolute zero free of forces?

Some might consider a "perfect vacuum" to be "perfectly empty space" or "space containing nothing." This to me is a contradiction and of course an impossibility.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 8:19:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 1:47:06 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/3/2012 6:11:31 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/3/2012 3:11:57 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:20:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/2/2012 4:44:47 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
There are no perfect vacuums anywhere in the Universe, as far as we can measure. A perfect vacuum would have absolute zero temperature and that has not been observed anywhere in the universe.

Okay, on one hand, yes -- that is a necessary distinction to make on the premise of defining a truly and strictly perfect vacuum -- however!

Are you therefore saying that those claims are simply postulates with no empirical foundation?

What claims?

Postulates for what occurs in a perfect vacuum.
Well yes, by definition: a space free of forces (as you said.) Is not a space at absolute zero free of forces?

Some might consider a "perfect vacuum" to be "perfectly empty space" or "space containing nothing." This to me is a contradiction and of course an impossibility.

Exactly.

And, when one considers that matter and energy are interchangeable, then such a pedantic interpretation of a "perfect vacuum" is meaningless, because it doesn't exist, and instead, can be accepted as the interaction of matter within a space unmitigated by forces (whether or not they're there).
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 4:42:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 8:19:55 PM, Ren wrote:
Exactly.

And, when one considers that matter and energy are interchangeable, then such a pedantic interpretation of a "perfect vacuum" is meaningless, because it doesn't exist, and instead, can be accepted as the interaction of matter within a space unmitigated by forces (whether or not they're there).
True, but that interpretation is still out there and so many people fall for it. Not to long ago a prominent theoretical physicists used it to sell his new book! (Hawking.)

However, if the Universe were to reach absolute zero there would be no interactions between space, matter, and energy because they would all be indistinguishable from each other! The Universe would then be the ultimate singularity, where one is all and all is one!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 10:02:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 4:42:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/8/2012 8:19:55 PM, Ren wrote:
Exactly.

And, when one considers that matter and energy are interchangeable, then such a pedantic interpretation of a "perfect vacuum" is meaningless, because it doesn't exist, and instead, can be accepted as the interaction of matter within a space unmitigated by forces (whether or not they're there).
True, but that interpretation is still out there and so many people fall for it. Not to long ago a prominent theoretical physicists used it to sell his new book! (Hawking.)

However, if the Universe were to reach absolute zero there would be no interactions between space, matter, and energy because they would all be indistinguishable from each other! The Universe would then be the ultimate singularity, where one is all and all is one!

Boson-Einstein condensate? ^_^
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:48:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 4:42:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Einstein: singularity, where one is all and all is one!

The Fool: this borderline plagiarism my friend. ;) but you are no Sophist, I am sure of that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:54:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 4:42:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/8/2012 8:19:55 PM, Ren wrote:
Exactly.

And, when one considers that matter and energy are interchangeable, then such a pedantic interpretation of a "perfect vacuum" is meaningless, because it doesn't exist, and instead, can be accepted as the interaction of matter within a space unmitigated by forces (whether or not they're there).
True, but that interpretation is still out there and so many people fall for it. Not to long ago a prominent theoretical physicists used it to sell his new book! (Hawking.)

However, if the Universe were to reach absolute zero there would be no interactions between space, matter, and energy because they would all be indistinguishable from each other! The Universe would then be the ultimate singularity, where one is all and all is one!

The Fool: Why does interactions differ that??
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 5:56:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:48:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/10/2012 4:42:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Einstein: singularity, where one is all and all is one!

The Fool: this borderline plagiarism my friend. ;) but you are no Sophist, I am sure of that.

*facepalm*

Have you even heard of Bose-Einstein condensate? And besides, the universe isn't at that state now.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:12:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:56:31 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:48:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/10/2012 4:42:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Einstein: singularity, where one is all and all is one!

The Fool: this borderline plagiarism my friend. ;) but you are no Sophist, I am sure of that.

*facepalm*

Have you even heard of Bose-Einstein condensate? And besides, the universe isn't at that state now.

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was meant to be a witticism indicating that the proposition "All is one and one is all" can be considered theological in nature.

...rather then a reference to Bose-Einstein Condensate, or the thread "Boson-Einstein Condensate.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:13:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:12:42 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:56:31 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 2/11/2012 5:48:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/10/2012 4:42:03 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

Einstein: singularity, where one is all and all is one!

The Fool: this borderline plagiarism my friend. ;) but you are no Sophist, I am sure of that.

*facepalm*

Have you even heard of Bose-Einstein condensate? And besides, the universe isn't at that state now.

She can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was meant to be a witticism indicating that the proposition "All is one and one is all" can be considered theological in nature.

...rather then a reference to Bose-Einstein Condensate, or the thread "Boson-Einstein Condensate.

Lmfao, where is this "then" coming from that keeps popping up in my sentences?!

rather than, gaddammit.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 5:57:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 5:48:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Einstein: singularity, where one is all and all is one!
The Fool: this borderline plagiarism my friend. ;) but you are no Sophist, I am sure of that.
What is plagiarism? The Led Zeppelin quote? It's so well known, I didn't think I need a foot note to show that on a forum! I'm sure anyone that reads it will know.

The Fool: Why does interactions differ that??
The above has no meaning in English. Please clarify.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 6:08:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 5:57:11 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

What is plagiarism? The Led Zeppelin quote? It's so well known, I didn't think I need a foot note to show that on a forum!

Lol. ^_^