Would space be totally empty and non-existent without virtual particles?
548934
No! Even without virtual particles, most of which self-annihilate almost immediately, the overall density of 'empty space' in the universe has been calculated to be about 2.11^ minus 29 kg/cubic meter.
53803
According to modern physics, yes. Any infinite universe would actually contain an infinite amount of data, and thus would be aware of its own existence as well.If, however, you define universe as 'infinite' or 'everything' then no.
944397
No.\nNot even space itself, in which "entities" exist, is stationary -- it's continually expanding, carrying along those things that are in it.\nMotion is the rule in the universe, nothing stands still.
786756
I think space is the container for the matter which makes up everything.  I also think there is more than one container which could potentially be parallel dimensions or other worlds with differenet physical rules.  I think the path to these other worlds lies in what is known as a black hole.  They say the universe is infinite so maybe there are an infinite number of containers which would mean they would never run out and have always existed.  Also, time may not me restriced to how we view it.  Our lives may be just a blink to other worlds or almost infinite to others.  There is no possible way to explain it definately, it is all speculation and beliefs.  One way to expalin it is with religion, but what is religion?  A belief in a greater being with absolute control? Or the belief that the "big bang" theory exists?  They are one in the same a belief nothing more.
63744
B only seems impossible because you're looking at it from a small, everyday perspective.  Read a book on quantum phenomenon and you'll discover that particles literally appear out of no where everyday, and we take this as completely normal.  The Universe and Everything is far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for.
564057
It's an interesting question.  'Nothing' is an idea, not an object or a place.  By its very definition, it can't be something, because then it would not be nothing, so your sense of a physical space that we could call nothing is linguistically impossible.\n\nNot every culture has or had a word for 'nothing,' so in a sense, you could say that 'nothing' was an idea that someone invented at some unknown point in the past.  You can think of it as the absence of something, or as a philosophical abstract, or a mathematical starting point.  I think the oldest language with a word for 'zero' was Arabic.  Incidentally, this is why there was no year 0, and 1 B.C. is followed immediately by 1 A.D.  When the priests who were writing the calendar system that is the basis of the calendar we use today, they had never heard of the word/number/idea of zero.  How could they have missed this? Who knows?  It seems impossible to us now.\n\nAs for the 'no matter within a space' part of your question, the answer can be found in a common physics equation that I am sure you know: E=mc^2.  Energy and mass are equivalent.  If there is no 'matter,' or really, mass, within a particular volume of space can you really say that there is nothing there?  No.  On the quantum level, there is really no nothing.\n\nBecause there is still energy in any given space, there is the potential for mass there at any time.  Energy is not really a concept that can be localized or zeroed out- because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle we know that it is impossibile to measure exact position and speed at the same time, and we have never been able to achieve absolute zero (the temperature at which all kinetic energy becomes zero)- it's probably impossible.  The average temperature of the universe is known to be 3 degrees Kelvin, due to the cosmic microwave background radiation, an after-effect of the Big Bang.  Basically what I'm saying is that if the 'energy' within a space can't be zero, on a quantum level, then the mass can't be, either.\n\nAnother way of thinking about it from a quantum mechanics perspective is wave/particle duality.  This is a concept that even physicists have trouble wrapping their minds around, but essentially the point is that particles have wavelike qualities and waves have particlelike qualities.  It's back to the Heisenberg uncertainty again.  Until they are measured, particles do not exist in any one place, they exist in all places simultaneously with different probabilities.  For any particular particle, there may be an infinitesimal chance that it is inside the space you are looking at to find emptiness, but if you add it all up, it is incredibly likely that some particle is there at all times.  \n\nOnce a particle's position is measured, the system collapses and the particle has a location, but you cannot measure every particle at once and any particle you have just measured can go back into its quantum state afterwards, and again be anywhere with some probability.\n\nThanks for the interesting question- a chance to flex my brain this afternoon.
1090689
The empty space is not so empty.\nBillions of atoms and much more photons;\n1000 dm3 and 1,000,000 cm3.
829244
I know of no reputable astrophyscists who claim space is empty.  In fact, Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" spends a lot of time talking about the stringy stuff that fills space.  The Higgs Field is also a something that fills space according to some theories.  Further, mass bends space, bent space has been observed; so it seems logical that space is a something (not a nothing) that can be bent.  So your premise that space is not empty is widely accepted.\n\nAlthough there are some short-lived massless quanta that can penetrate great distances, most cannot.  And the great distances have limits.  Even neutrinos have a limit on how deep they can penetrate a mass.  Gravity, on the other hand, is not diminished by interceding mass.  We are affected by measurable gravity in the deepest, darkest caves, for example.  So none of the known and theoretical quanta, save one, exhibit the characteristics of gravity.  \n\nThat one exception is the graviton, which is predicted by string/M theory.  The graviton has never been observed; so its existence has never been proved.\n\nSo your supposition that the effects of gravity are due to bombardments of quanta of some sort does not generally stand up to the evidence.  The one exception is the graviton, which is strictly theoretical and may not exist.
603134
In all actuality, your question makes no sense.  If you were to take out all the "space" in matter, there would be no matter.  Matter is basically made out of energy and forces interacting with each other.  If you compressed the universe into the size of a refrigerator, you wouldn't have matter anymore.
972422
Looks like only one person got the right idea so far so I will try to underscore that.\n\nEveryone who says that it is possible to have NOTHING inside a box if you have a total vacuum has ignored quantum theory which has proven to reflect reality extremely well.\n\nThe uncertainty principle allows energy to be borrowed from the vacuum for a very short time.  The vacuum is seething with pairs of "virtual" particle+antiparticle pairs that are created with this borrowed energy.  They pop into existence and then annihilate with each other extremely quickly.\n\nSo no, as far as anybody knows we have strong reason to believe that it is impossible to have absolutely nothing inside a box because something is always popping up everywhere in space.  Maybe if you had a very small box and very big luck luck it would be empty just for the tiniest period of time.
519173
Actually, There is no such thing as a true vacuum...Anywhere.\nA true vacuum has never been created, anywhere, where the atomic count is zero.\nThere is always atomic content left to fill the "vacuous" space. No one has ever been able to creat a true vacuum.\n(exerpt from a previous answer)\nContrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a vacuum. \nresearch it, its true.\n"Empty" space actually contains an average of 1 hydrogen atom for every 32 cubic centimeters of space, this data is per NASA.\n\nIn our own Milky Way, space is more dense with 1 hydrogen atom for every 1 cubic centimeter.\n\nThe universe is probably scheduled for a "Big Crunch". It is possible that black holes are the catalyst behind the big crunch, which is the end version of the big bang. Once all of the black holes in existence in our universe collect enough matter and energy, they could theoretically combine gravitationaly to create one massive black hole that simply repeats the big bang over and over.\n\n\nOne day the misinformation of space, or anything else, as a vacuum will finally die out.\n\n\nspread the knowledge
170260
Space is not a perfect vacuum devoid of particles, atoms, or molecules, it is a partial vacuum.  It is just that the density of matter in space is so small that it doesn't apply pressure against the balloon. If the balloon pops, the air inside the balloon is dispersed at the molecular and atomic level since air is comprised mostly of molecules: O2, CO2, CH4
582682
THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE WHOLE OF UNIVERSE WHERE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO GRAVITY.
332802
Actually, There is no such thing as a true vacuum...period!\n(exerpt from a previous answer)\nContrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a vacuum. In fact, a true vacuum has never been created, anywhere, where the atomic count and therefore air pressure is zero.\nresearch it, its true.\n"Empty" space actually contains an average of 1 hydrogen atom for every 32 cubic centimeters of space, this data is per NASA.\n\nIn our own Milky Way, space is more dense with 1 hydrogen atom for every 1 cubic centimeter.\n\nOne day the misinformation of space as a vacuum will finally die out.\n\n\nspread the knowledge
530541
It does contradict Einstein's notions of locality. Yet laboratory experiments have demonstrated the non-locality of particle entanglement. The philosophical implication is that another dimension, call it hyperspace, transcends ordinary space. The universe is a single hyperparticle.
613128
Great Question!\nActually, There is no such thing as a true vacuum.\nA true vacuum has never been created, anywhere, where the atomic count is zero.\nThere is always atomic content left to fill the "vacuous" space. No one has ever been able to creat a true vacuum.\n\nContrary to popular belief, empty space is not empty, and it is certainly not a vacuum. \nCheck the Wikipedia link below.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vacuum......\n\n"Empty" space actually contains an average of 1 hydrogen atom for every 32 cubic centimeters of space, this data is per NASA.\n\nIn our own Milky Way, space is more dense with 1 hydrogen atom for every 1 cubic centimeter.\n\nTo answer your question,for space to "warp", according to special relativity, space/time must be flat. The analogy always used in books is that of a bowling ball on a bed sheet, with the bed sheet representing space/time, and the bowling ball representing any mass object.\nNow roll a marble across the bed sheet, and it will follow the curve of the sheet towards to bowling ball. \nBelieve it or not, This is how Einstein envisions gravity as described by his field equations.\n\n\nThis at least describes it based on what is currently accepted in physics.\nHope it helps.
1057541
Well, that would depend on your point of view.  Since there was no universe in existence before time zero, you would have to be inside of the rapidly expanding newborn universe.  Therefore, inside, there would've been extreme heat and pressures.  My guess is that you wouldn't have noticed any sound as you were boiled away into your constituent atoms.  So, I'm thinking a silent and dark time (as your eyes would've also been boiled off, so there would've been nothing to see with).