In this part [2:25 - 3:00] of the lecture, the professor Walter Lewin says that the human body is nothing but vacuum but he did not give a proof of his sayings. Could anybody please provide some detailed answer or references to books or articles which debates this specific topic.
6
-
3$\begingroup$ It seems like he's using hyperbole to emphasize how much of an atom is just empty space $\endgroup$– Señor OCommented Dec 20, 2017 at 23:07
-
1$\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/126512/2451 $\endgroup$– Qmechanic ♦Commented Dec 20, 2017 at 23:10
-
$\begingroup$ Do you think you could maybe tell the difference between a human being and empty vacuum? I'm pretty sure I could tell the difference, which makes me think that they might not be one and the same thing. $\endgroup$– Solomon SlowCommented Dec 21, 2017 at 1:12
-
$\begingroup$ @SeñorO, but an atom is not just empty space. Nearly all of the mass of an atom is concentrated in a teeny, tiny fraction of its volume, but if you try to walk through a wall and the wall stops you, you aren't interacting with the mass of the wall, you are interacting with its electrons. Most of the volume of an atom is occupied by its electrons, which are not the same thing as empty space. $\endgroup$– Solomon SlowCommented Dec 21, 2017 at 1:15
-
1$\begingroup$ Imagine a honeycomb. It mostly consists of air, still a wind can't blow throught. $\endgroup$– safesphereCommented Dec 21, 2017 at 5:49
|
Show 1 more comment
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
In my humble opinion, Professor Lewin has entered the realm of philosophy. So, in one regard it is apparent that the particulate constituents of the human body are concentrations of bound energy with large "spaces" between particulate masses. In another, there has never been a measurement of the value of the so-called "space" between particulate entities in a bound, let's say "Quantum" system. One could assume that any given space between particulates (solar system, galaxies) is relatively devoid of discrete atoms and therefore a vacuum. But then, that brings up the question...what is "space"? in a physical sense. Perhaps if Lewin revised his statement to "space" instead of "vacuum" it might be more correct.
