Hoovers

[yxboom]

I am curious as this is something I have no study in so this may seem pretty ignorant. If there is an indestructable, uncollapsable box that has absolutely no give, it is just there. Is it theoritically possible to vacuum ALL of the contents within this box so that nothing would remain within it?

[Jaltus]

No. The reason is that if you have no pressure, you would have 0 Kelvin, which cannot be reached for it means a lack of all movement.

Of course, I could be getting my gas laws wrong, but I do not think I am.

[Zakath]

Today @ 01:23 PM
yxboom:
If there is an indestructable, uncollapsable box that has absolutely no give, it is just there. Is it theoritically possible to vacuum ALL of the contents within this box so that nothing would remain within it?

If you are asking, is it possible (theoretically) to remove all matter from within a confined space, then the answer is (theoretically) yes.

Can we build machinery to do this at the present time, the answer is probably no. Though if the confined space was small enough, it is possible.

What's this got to do with philosophy?

[yxboom]

I have no idea what it has to do with philosophy.

[Zakath]

Only curious since it's posted in the Philosophy Dept. forum... :huh:

[Jaltus]

Zak,

I disagree with you. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum (even if I am not sure how to spell it). When I worked with vacuums back in my physics days, we had to describe how imperfect it was so that our data would not be skewed.

The reason you can never have a perfect vacuum (other than there being no such thing as an indestructible box) is that you owuld have to create a perfect vacuum in order to suck the stuff out of the place you were trying to make your perfect vacuum.

Remember, sucking is just a difference in pressure, where that which sucks has lower pressure than that which is sucked from. in order to create a perfect vacuum, you would have to have something with less pressure than a perfect vacuum, and thus it is impossible.

[yxboom]

Being completely unlearned in the field I find what you stated very interesting Jaltus.

[Sher]

However, if someone can create the perfect vaccum, :bow: please make sure it is self-propelled, self-cleaning, & it puts itself back in the closet ... and ship it to ...

[yxboom]

A perfect vacuum would probably be like this (http://www.robot-vacuum.com/roomba-robot-sweeper.html)

http://images.sharperimage.com.edgesuite.net/all/en/images/products/IR105-PIP.JPG

[Zakath]

Yesterday @ 04:13 PM
Jaltus:
Zak,

I disagree with you. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum (even if I am not sure how to spell it).Hence my qualification with the word "theoretically".

The reason you can never have a perfect vacuum (other than there being no such thing as an indestructible box) is that you owuld have to create a perfect vacuum in order to suck the stuff out of the place you were trying to make your perfect vacuum.This only applies if you were trying to create the vacuum by mechanical means (suction).

In theory, a perfect vacuum could be created, however briefly, by combining all the matter in a given space with its equivalent anti-matter analogue. Of course this would be impractical since the resulting reaction and energy release would probably destroy our hypothetically indestructable box. :no:

Since YX's question appears to be predicated on using suction, it would be unlikely, but not statistically impossible, to clear a very small space of all particles. For example, the space between an electron cloud and the nuclear components of an atom is "empty" in the classical sense. (Pardon me if my physics are outdated, it's been a long while.) If we could build YX's box small enough and position it correctly, voilà - it encloses "empty space." :idea:

I know this is very unlikely to occur, but I like "thinking outside the box' (pun intended). :smile:

[yxboom]

Zakath is it you are saying that such things occur in nature already so that just making the box immensely tiny would accomplish this or that is theoritical as well?

Say a 5'x5' box this should be theoloretically plausible?

[Lizard]

Today @ 09:39 AM
yxboom:

Zakath is it you are saying that such things occur in nature already so that just making the box immensely tiny would accomplish this or that is theoritical as well?

Say a 5'x5' box this should be theoloretically plausible?

Does this have anything to do with your attempt to make your cranium even larger?

:yipee:

[Jaltus]

I thought he was trying to prove he had nothing in his own head, thus disproving Dee Dee's existence.

[Zakath]

Today @ 09:39 AM
yxboom:
Zakath is it you are saying that such things occur in nature already so that just making the box immensely tiny would accomplish this or that is theoritical as well? Say a 5'x5' box this should be theoloretically plausible? Since the sides of your box would have to be smaller than the distance between an atomic nucleus and the inner boundary of the first electron shell (maybe about one-tenth of a nanometer) I'd say that would pretty darned hypothetical wouldn't you? :eek:

[yxboom]

I didn't know how small you needed the sides of the box :bonk:

[Zakath]

Very, very small. :smile:

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 02:26 AM
yxboom:

A perfect vacuum would probably be like this (http://www.robot-vacuum.com/roomba-robot-sweeper.html)Swweeet ... if it really works! :thumb: