How is the Universe here?

Hi Cavediver,I have a question that I'm not sure is in the direction you're going, so please feel free to ignore this.My understanding of electrostatic forces, the same ones you mentioned that make clapping one's hands possible, is that they're transmitted by exchanges of photons. Is that correct? If so, what is it about the exchange of photons that creates a force on the electrons that exchange them (and through them, of course, on the atoms to which they're to various degrees affixed and on up the hierarchy of scale to our hands)?--Percy

That's not what the article you cited says.--Percy

It says you need to read more carefully. Or, if you actually realize it didn't say anything to the effect that "matter is 99.9999% empty space and the other 0.0001% is... virtual," then it says you have to stop making stuff up.As Cavediver said, it says nothing new. It is a more accurate validation of already accepted theory. That's not to say it isn't a stunning analytical accomplishment, because it most certain is.--Percy

Are we talking about the same article? It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations?If so, please quote the sentence or two where you think it says this. I haven't said anything about any picture of the quantum world, so you couldn't possibly know what picture I have.All I said was that you claimed the article says something which it does not. I did not agree or disagree with you because I couldn't figure out what your point was because YOUR CLAIM ABOUT WHAT THE ARTICLE SAID WAS FALSE.Pardon the shouting, but we're going around and around on what is a very basic point. Please just reread the article and you'll see that it did not say what you claimed it said.--Percy

You still don't seem to realize that when you said this: That this is not anywhere close to what the article said. The article definitely does not say that 0.0001% of the atom is virtual. It says that the entire nucleus of the atom is virtual. It says it in the title: And it says it again in the opening paragraph: Do you get it now? The article did not say that 0.0001% of the atom is virtual. It said that the entire nucleus (the majority of the mass of an atom) is virtual.Just as theory predicts.Electrons are theorized to be virtual, too, but this experimental work didn't focus on elections.--Percy

Ah, okay, I see connection now. But this point is something you were arguing in the Uncovering a Simulation thread. I don't think your "matter is mostly empty space" argument makes sense here, or at least the tie-in isn't apparent to me.--Percy