What's in the Interstices?

Since it is undetectable, it doesn't really matter (pun intended).

Waves of energy (mostly electromagnetic and gravitic), on a sea of virtual particles that randomly appear and disappear.

What'll really bake your noodle is that some of those particles have mass (and charge, depending on the particle), but no size - at least to the resolution of our instruments. Electrons, for instance. Neutrinos are even weirder.

Balls of strings.

It's a knotty problem.

Luminous aether.

Well, matter isn't packed that densely nor is the intervening distanced filled with Great Stuff foam or anything. There is a huge amount of "space" between the particles, with the exception of the nucleus where distances are close enough for the strong nuclear force to overwhelm the electromagnetic force of protons.

However, the intermediate spaces are simply vacuum space, which is filled with vacuum energy.

Great reference! I am going to buy this book for my Kindle as soon as I finish this post.

The thing is, when we get down to the quantum level of atoms and the sub atomic world, we can't model matter as little solid marbles existing in an otherwise empty space. We can't visualize at this level as an extension of our view of our macroscopic world.

To Kevinm OP 12.

if charges can appear and disappear, it seems the interstices of 'today' could be filled with 'yesterday' and 'tomorrow' - and maybe that's where Schrodinger's cat lives.

...and I've ordered a copy of the book ....thanks for the link.

Another excellent little book is 'The Quantum Universe' by Cox & Forshaw. By the time you finish this book you'll know enough about quantum mechanics to estimate the upper (Chandrsekhar) limit to the mass of white-dwarf stars, based solely on quantum mechanical principles (and a bit of high-school math).

To Kevinm re 12.

You could say this is off topic.

The 'book' turned up yesterday. "Knocking on Heavens Door".

I opened it, and it took me back to my childhood when books that appealed to me had big print, wide line spaces and lots and lots of pictures, and fun to read.

This book, by LISA Randall, has page after page after page of closely packed fine text with few pictures (82 to be exact). It's first impression is a bit off-putting to say the least, but I suppose that's the printers fault

I'm up to page 17 and into 'effective theories'. Only 425 pages to go.

Great. Intro of the latest editions may have information on Higgs boson and Higgs field. Lots of information is about the LHC but the meat is good in the second half. I found it all intriguing and kept reading a bit every day. I try to read at least 20 pages a day of many books. Some books you can read in a couple of days but 20 pages/day was/is my minimum, I have a wife that will let me read in bed so that helps. Parts will read quick and other parts you may have to take a bit of time. I think you will find the book rewarding. I did because I was blind to particle physics up to that point. OK still blind...to all you physicists out there. But, I am retired and not looking for a career. Your opening question was at least something I could relate. So thanks. Many topics on CR4 just make my eyes glaze over but may be of interest to many others.

In you assuming that the particles are round. That these atomic particles have a surface which they don't. The touching is by molecular forces not by physical one. This imaginary surface that makes up the electrons orbit gives way in the sharing of electrons. These interstices that you state may be non existent.

Interstices are full of vacuum AND "antiparticles" which have the same mass as the particles but opposite charge. The best known are electrons (-) / Positrons (+). Particle / antiparticle pairs can collide, creating light (photons) or other forms of energy.

Unfortunately, you can't assume that the particles are round- most matter is composed of molecules (eg. O2, N2, hydrocarbons...) that are covalently or ionically bound with corresponding distortion of shape.

On top of this the molecules themselves are also not solid or even near so- one comparison I've heard is the solar system, with the electrons best represented by asteroid belts (reflecting the wave function) rather than individual planets!

electrons are made up of electrical charges which take up the whole of the space available. They are not as important as holes, (where there are no electrons) which float up the potential gradient, and set up valence effects which allow molecules to form out of atoms. And allow power to exist if you play with magnetic fields. Of course, since electrons are already nothing BUT magnetic fields held tightly by quantum strings that neatly simulate a negative charge, they can be easily manipulated by external magnetic forces.

Or not.....

Your interpretation may differ....

And likely should.

There may be a few holes in that idea. :-)

Fractally nothing; however, all memories of what 'was' is both recorded and destroyed in disruptions of orbit.

The interstices are filled with the vastness of space and room for the potential of what 'will'.

When this gap is collapsed so does the star bounce.

The "particles" are wave-functions until they are observed, and then they become particles. They do not touch. Protons and neutrons are held "together" by the strong nuclear force, which is mediated by gluons traveling back and forth in the interstices. All the laws of the universe are there too along with virtual particles popping into and out of existence, and fields, such as the Higgs Field.

Watch out for 'brane drain. If all the 'branes disappear, there will be an airhead universe of too little density to hold itself together.

Before diving off into physics "ether", like some of the other posters, let me state this is more of a chemical question that a physical one, although the atoms do not care who is watching them.

I will state that by studying the known data for atoms, and the energetics of some metals, it was found that certain alloys would benefit from additions of smaller atoms. This results in a dense structure with more tensile strength, but with less overall mass density, since nearly all the mass is found in the nucleus. This is the basis for a good bit of 20th Century material science, up until the point that other composite materials were found (carbon-fiber composites, for example).