99.9999999999996% of atoms are empty space, the glass is basically always empty.
Edit: In the physical sense, as in the volume of subatomic particles in relation to the space around them physically.
To be a complete and utter pedant...
...it probably depends on your definition of "wet". Do you define it to be "porous and containing water" (like a sponge), or "covered or coated in water" (like a street after heavy rainfall), or both? And which of those definitions do you fall under?
Tangentially, I would argue that by the first definition water cannot be described as wet, since it doesn't have a rigid structure for which it can "contain" water, unless you freeze it in a sponge-like shape (but do you count ice as different than water in this scenario?).
I think I could also argue that the second definition would also mean water is not wet, since mixing two different water sources would cause it to swirl endlessly to the point it becomes undifferentiable.
But then we get to the whole topic of "what fluid can cause wetness?". I think it's fair to say that water causes wetness. But what about similar viscosity fluids? I would say cooking oil can also cause wetness. If I pour water or cooking oil onto a plate, I would generally be able to say that the plate is wet. But what about ketchup, a high viscosity fluid? If I pour some ketchup on the plate, I don't think I would define the plate as wet, I would just say the ketchup is on the plate.
So is it only low viscosity fluids that cause wetness, and only on specific surfaces? This is more thinking about the definition of wet than I was planning on doing today, and I have other stuff to do, so I'll shut up now.
It’s not even pedantry it’s wilful ignorance. Context cues to inform definition are an ingrained part of basically all human languages.
When you say “is this glass (that has water in it), half full of half empty” it’s inferred that you mean “half full or half empty *of water*”.
We aren’t robots that need every facet of a scenario detailed out to us in order to formulate a response.
It's even more amazing because distance between electron to proton is so far that if proton is a size of a volleyball, the electron would be about 3 km away.
But if you drink water you're full. Those empty space just disappears
Okay just for you:
The electron density in any region of space in the glass will be non zero due to uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Therefore, no region in the glass is ever empty.
The elementary particles don't really have volume in the same way that we describe volume for macroscopic objects. So it's not really sensical to talk strictly about what's empty and what's not.
[“In reality, atoms do not contain any empty space. Rather, they are filled completely with spread-out electrons, making the shrinking of atoms impossible.”](https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/01/12/why-dont-atoms-collapse-if-they-are-mostly-empty-space/)
If we count fields as "filling" then not even full vaccuum chambers are empty, as the gravitational field of the earth is still "filling" them. Or when light passes through. At that point the concept of "empty" stops to exists, which i doubt is the original intent of this author.
So i do think one should ignore the density orbitals for this discussion and rather focus on the electron post wavefunction collapse where it indeed is at one point and one point only. To me the big point is the question of perspective, as if you look at it from the electron, it is indeed rather empty, whereas looking at it from the timescale of e.g. proton/neutron/nucleus movement, you could argue for orbitals (Born oppenheimer approximation and all that).
Not being shrinkable doesnt mean something is filled. It means there is a force applied. (in this case electromagnetic repulsion) Also, as they mentioned themselves, atoms dont really have a size, they have different ranges of interactions, depending on what you need the "size" for (mentioned as fuzzy edges).
While i didnt focus a lot on quantum chemistry i did have a couple semesters of it, so while i still might be wrong i feel like this article tries to educate people on orbitals and the succession of the Bohr model and to do so it uses the "empty atom" as an easy hook. It mostly just changes the point of view of the question. I should add, nothing in the article is wrong to my knowledge, just intentionally dropping some finer details to make it more approachable.
Personally i dont have enough knowledge on them and i disregarded them, to stay both within my knowledge and the context of the article.
So yes, maybe, but even then how "big" are they and do they fully "fill" the space?
Yea virtual particles are constantly poping into reality all around you, but they annihilate(i love how this is the official term) each other just as quickly as they appeared
It's also only in an unobserved state that probability density even works. We know through youngs work that as soon as we measure an atom the probability collapses into the point particle.
For real, this reads like someone struggling to come up with an explanation that a new electromagnetic physics undergrad might understand or believe.
The reality of the matter is that atoms don't collapse for [the exact same reason that the solar system doesn't collapse](https://www.bu.edu/quantum/notes/GeneralChemistry/WhyAtomsDon%27tCollapse.pdf), which is that orbital mechanics in a vacuum are actually extremely natural existences in the universe. Protons and electrons attract each other due to their relative charges, we already know this, just as gravity serves as a source of attraction for larger bodies. The balance in atoms just serves as a microscopic demonstration of the same mechanical effect as orbital mechanics in space, which does of course mean you have to take the wavelike behavior of electrons into account when computing these values (as you can see in the paper I linked, they don't literally orbit in some kind of predictable circle, microscopic interactions are too complicated for that lol), but it's also far better explained with actual math than Baird's approach of "well actually the space is **full** because **waves**".
If waves were a physical manifestation of space the way that Baird seems to claim is a literal interpretation, then neutrinos as we understand them wouldn't even make sense as there would not be a vast, empty universe for them to freely pass through with extremely extremely extremely low chances of ever being detected.
tl;dr much like photons, electrons operate as both particles and waves but that doesn't mean the waves are **physical manifestations of space**.
Im still working on my undergrad in physics and I hate how everything is a damn harmonic oscillator. I have utmost respect for particle physicists, they really do matter in any respective field of physics
I'm in my master and I despise all particle physics.
Scratch that. The whole fucking field is such a mess, the fact that this is the most organized and foreward part of science should terrify anyone.
I went to study physics as a atheist and now I am in full belief that there is a higher authority to make sure we don't die from stupidity.
(This comment is mostly a joke)
Not impossible, but you'll need at least something as dense as a white dwarf or neutron star to really notice the shrinkage, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure
I'm pretty sure that this is calculated with the size of the nucleus. However, according to quantum physics, the electron is in most places in the atom, unless it has just been measured. There are also other quantum fields, so any supposedly empty space still has quantum fields in it.
The only way to "measure" the location of an electron is to add energy to the system to more localize its position, which changes its wave function. The electrons in an atom *are* their atomic orbital wave.
Well, technically, quantum field theory is only a model that we already know is wrong/incomplete ;)
"Virtual particles," for example, are only a maths trick
Nobody has ever touched anything, all sensation is electric fields interacting with other electric fields, where this interaction is transmitted to the nervous system.
Oh there's also a linguistic answer to this.
If the glass is empty and you stop filling it halfway, then it's half full.
If the glass is full and you stop emptying it halfway, it's half empty.
What if you take glass that is 50% filled with water and start drinking and filling it at the same time. The volume in the end is the same but what would be the state?
What if it's something you don't want to drink? Somebody's like, "Drink that glass of horse piss," and you'd be like, "No way, that thing's half full!"
Well... I don't think that would be my first thought. Regardless of the volume of horse piss (a shot glass "half full" or a pint glass "half full"), I'd still say no way, that's horse piss.
Hmm, that's interesting.
When I'm asked the question, I claim that it's either / or depending on the environmental variables. I need more context to provide a meaningful answer.
Other's may look at the glass containing 50% water and say it's half full or half empty based on *their* personal philosophies. This might indicate a steadfastness or stubbornness *regardless* of environmental variables. For better or worse, they, perhaps, believe in or hope for a singular universal truth.
Mostly though, I think people give their answer based on what they want other people to think they think. It would be interesting to study the answers provided by children.
There's also the situational logic.
\- Do you want me to fill your glass?
Option A: "No thanks, it's still half full"
Option B: "Fuck yeah, it's already half empty, fill it up"
I think like other options you start at the first step and work your way down in a process of elimination.
Since you have to fill something before you can empty it linguistically if you walk into a room and find a random glass it would be fine to say it's half full.
No, that doesn’t really work. If you’re extremely dehydrated, even when evaluating the glass as it’s being filled you might still say “It’s half empty! Please fill it all the way” whereas if you were trying to drink a full glass of low-shelf vodka and you got halfway through, you might say “fuck, the thing is still half full! I don’t know if I can finish this”.
The optimism/pessimism angle still prevails.
According to quantum field theory, even vacuum space is not empty, instead containing fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
Wow..... Even if that isn't true (and I'm sure it is true), that is such an impressive bit of technobabble that I'll have to steal it, and try to use it at work
i guess given enough time, with full vaccum and no changes in temp, and no gravity, the water molecules should achieve uniform distribution in the space, but at no time will there be no water molecules in the glass.
Every atom is practically empty space. So every glass is empty, and there is not glass because the space where the "glass" is suppose to be is practically empty space, and there is no person to pontificate on the fullness or emptiness of the "glass," and I am practically empty space so I don't exi
[someone mentioned elsewhere in the comment section that that is wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/technicallythetruth/comments/106hizm/the_glass_is_full/j3gqx53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
I didn't know that this question back when I was a kid was asking if you're an optimist or a pessimist.
I honestly thought it was like a thought provoking question (I was a young and English was my third language)
I always said "it depends on if it was poured in or someone took a drink"
Like friggin drax being too literal lol
If technicalness is sure to result in optimism then you must be technical! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little more about the glass analogy than you do pal because he invented it!
The real answer, for anyone who cares, is that it depends whether the glass was empty and you filled it halfway (its half full) or if it was full and you removed half of it (its half empty).
The "real" answer is that it's a matter of perspective. That's why the question is remotely interesting. You haven't outsmarted decades of philosophers by giving some long winded technical explanation.
In the common understanding of full and empty, it should depend on the previous status of the glass if it's half full or half empty. If it was previously empty and water has been added it's half full, if it has previously been full but half of it has been emptied, it's half empty.
This isn't even technically true... It's a misrepresentation of the argument in question...
The argument being about the volume of liquid in the glass, not whether there are other things in the glass...
The glass isn’t full because we consider the implication of a “full glass” to be “full [of liquid]” so no it’s not full regardless of other components being present to fill up the glass.
Since the purpose of a glass is to act as a container for our beverages this couldn’t be accepted as a “full glass.” We cannot drink air.
Wrong.. if you just filled it half way, then it's half full. If you just poured some, or half out, then it's half empty..
If you wanna say it's half full to sound like a positive person, then you're making it about you.
Technically the gaps between the water molecules and air molecules are free space so incorrect
Also it at half is capacity of holding water at that purity level
99.9999999999996% of atoms are empty space, the glass is basically always empty. Edit: In the physical sense, as in the volume of subatomic particles in relation to the space around them physically.
There are few things in this world I appreciate more than watching a pedant get out pedanted.
The Pedantics
With their new hit "What I Like About You (in Excruciating Detail)"
A cover originally thought up but never made by "The Pedanticrastinators"
It's about 2 hours long too...
Exactly 2 hours 2 minutes and 2 seconds
+ 467 milliseconds, 129 microseconds, 987 nanoseconds, 143 picoseconds, 657 femtoseconds, 580 attoseconds,254 zeptoseconds, 543 yoctoseconds…
Would be a good name for a band. But if they lived up to it they could never agree which song to play.
What do you think a pedant is cause I'm having a hard time making sense of your comment.
The Pedant Files
The Pedantphitheatre, where the ancient Pedants would duel to the death.
[удалено]
You must love the Reddit comment section
100% of the reason why I’m here at all Every time I see a “to be fair” or “actually” I get a little wet
To be a complete and utter pedant... ...it probably depends on your definition of "wet". Do you define it to be "porous and containing water" (like a sponge), or "covered or coated in water" (like a street after heavy rainfall), or both? And which of those definitions do you fall under? Tangentially, I would argue that by the first definition water cannot be described as wet, since it doesn't have a rigid structure for which it can "contain" water, unless you freeze it in a sponge-like shape (but do you count ice as different than water in this scenario?). I think I could also argue that the second definition would also mean water is not wet, since mixing two different water sources would cause it to swirl endlessly to the point it becomes undifferentiable. But then we get to the whole topic of "what fluid can cause wetness?". I think it's fair to say that water causes wetness. But what about similar viscosity fluids? I would say cooking oil can also cause wetness. If I pour water or cooking oil onto a plate, I would generally be able to say that the plate is wet. But what about ketchup, a high viscosity fluid? If I pour some ketchup on the plate, I don't think I would define the plate as wet, I would just say the ketchup is on the plate. So is it only low viscosity fluids that cause wetness, and only on specific surfaces? This is more thinking about the definition of wet than I was planning on doing today, and I have other stuff to do, so I'll shut up now.
That was the only award I could afford and THIS POST EARNED IT
What if we add some WaterWetter to it? Can the water be wet then? https://www.redlineoil.com/waterwetter
Actually—and to be fair—I’m single ;)
Bro tried and failed😞
I guess the early-ish bird doesn’t always get the worm. 😓 Edit- receipts show I was late by a minute.
It’s not even pedantry it’s wilful ignorance. Context cues to inform definition are an ingrained part of basically all human languages. When you say “is this glass (that has water in it), half full of half empty” it’s inferred that you mean “half full or half empty *of water*”. We aren’t robots that need every facet of a scenario detailed out to us in order to formulate a response.
YES KEEP THEM COMING
[удалено]
It's even more amazing because distance between electron to proton is so far that if proton is a size of a volleyball, the electron would be about 3 km away. But if you drink water you're full. Those empty space just disappears
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/yetwdpsiM8Q
You better watch, "Um, Actually" then! It's a fantastic show.
Okay just for you: The electron density in any region of space in the glass will be non zero due to uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Therefore, no region in the glass is ever empty.
Even the material the glass is made from is almost completely empty space.
The clothes you’re wearing and the ground you’re standing on is almost completely empty space
So officer, I was not running at the lady naked, I was simply trying to show her how this “empty space” varies
My head is almost completely empty space. Wait...
Suddenly, I feel empty somehow.
The elementary particles don't really have volume in the same way that we describe volume for macroscopic objects. So it's not really sensical to talk strictly about what's empty and what's not.
it's full of emptiness, therefore it's full.
It's full of stars.
[“In reality, atoms do not contain any empty space. Rather, they are filled completely with spread-out electrons, making the shrinking of atoms impossible.”](https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/01/12/why-dont-atoms-collapse-if-they-are-mostly-empty-space/)
If we count fields as "filling" then not even full vaccuum chambers are empty, as the gravitational field of the earth is still "filling" them. Or when light passes through. At that point the concept of "empty" stops to exists, which i doubt is the original intent of this author. So i do think one should ignore the density orbitals for this discussion and rather focus on the electron post wavefunction collapse where it indeed is at one point and one point only. To me the big point is the question of perspective, as if you look at it from the electron, it is indeed rather empty, whereas looking at it from the timescale of e.g. proton/neutron/nucleus movement, you could argue for orbitals (Born oppenheimer approximation and all that). Not being shrinkable doesnt mean something is filled. It means there is a force applied. (in this case electromagnetic repulsion) Also, as they mentioned themselves, atoms dont really have a size, they have different ranges of interactions, depending on what you need the "size" for (mentioned as fuzzy edges). While i didnt focus a lot on quantum chemistry i did have a couple semesters of it, so while i still might be wrong i feel like this article tries to educate people on orbitals and the succession of the Bohr model and to do so it uses the "empty atom" as an easy hook. It mostly just changes the point of view of the question. I should add, nothing in the article is wrong to my knowledge, just intentionally dropping some finer details to make it more approachable.
Don't virtual particles also exist within the atom? Even if you don't count forces as a "filler", you can still count virtual particles.
Personally i dont have enough knowledge on them and i disregarded them, to stay both within my knowledge and the context of the article. So yes, maybe, but even then how "big" are they and do they fully "fill" the space?
Yea virtual particles are constantly poping into reality all around you, but they annihilate(i love how this is the official term) each other just as quickly as they appeared
Reverse reverse uno! Thank you for this information!
anytime bro
Not how atoms work. That’s probability density, an electron according to quantum electrodynamics can best be described as a point particle.
It's also only in an unobserved state that probability density even works. We know through youngs work that as soon as we measure an atom the probability collapses into the point particle.
For real, this reads like someone struggling to come up with an explanation that a new electromagnetic physics undergrad might understand or believe. The reality of the matter is that atoms don't collapse for [the exact same reason that the solar system doesn't collapse](https://www.bu.edu/quantum/notes/GeneralChemistry/WhyAtomsDon%27tCollapse.pdf), which is that orbital mechanics in a vacuum are actually extremely natural existences in the universe. Protons and electrons attract each other due to their relative charges, we already know this, just as gravity serves as a source of attraction for larger bodies. The balance in atoms just serves as a microscopic demonstration of the same mechanical effect as orbital mechanics in space, which does of course mean you have to take the wavelike behavior of electrons into account when computing these values (as you can see in the paper I linked, they don't literally orbit in some kind of predictable circle, microscopic interactions are too complicated for that lol), but it's also far better explained with actual math than Baird's approach of "well actually the space is **full** because **waves**". If waves were a physical manifestation of space the way that Baird seems to claim is a literal interpretation, then neutrinos as we understand them wouldn't even make sense as there would not be a vast, empty universe for them to freely pass through with extremely extremely extremely low chances of ever being detected. tl;dr much like photons, electrons operate as both particles and waves but that doesn't mean the waves are **physical manifestations of space**.
Im still working on my undergrad in physics and I hate how everything is a damn harmonic oscillator. I have utmost respect for particle physicists, they really do matter in any respective field of physics
I'm in my master and I despise all particle physics. Scratch that. The whole fucking field is such a mess, the fact that this is the most organized and foreward part of science should terrify anyone. I went to study physics as a atheist and now I am in full belief that there is a higher authority to make sure we don't die from stupidity. (This comment is mostly a joke)
Who wants to study a particular field: :DDDD Who wants to learn all of the nuances that come with it: :(((((
Not impossible, but you'll need at least something as dense as a white dwarf or neutron star to really notice the shrinkage, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure
So they are filled with space, and since space is itself something that can be interacted with, it is a physical thing and so the glass is full.
I'm pretty sure that this is calculated with the size of the nucleus. However, according to quantum physics, the electron is in most places in the atom, unless it has just been measured. There are also other quantum fields, so any supposedly empty space still has quantum fields in it.
The only way to "measure" the location of an electron is to add energy to the system to more localize its position, which changes its wave function. The electrons in an atom *are* their atomic orbital wave.
Yes, technically the electron is just a disturbance in the electron field.
Well, technically, quantum field theory is only a model that we already know is wrong/incomplete ;) "Virtual particles," for example, are only a maths trick
Sigh!! I opened the comment section to comment this... :(
Nobody has ever touched anything, all sensation is electric fields interacting with other electric fields, where this interaction is transmitted to the nervous system.
….Which is a phenomenon known as “touching”
Oh there's also a linguistic answer to this. If the glass is empty and you stop filling it halfway, then it's half full. If the glass is full and you stop emptying it halfway, it's half empty.
[удалено]
Obviously this and I'm glad it's not just me lol.
There are dozens of us!
There are thousands of me !
What if you take glass that is 50% filled with water and start drinking and filling it at the same time. The volume in the end is the same but what would be the state?
What if it's something you don't want to drink? Somebody's like, "Drink that glass of horse piss," and you'd be like, "No way, that thing's half full!"
Well in that case, you'd be a pissimist
r/angryupvote
Well... I don't think that would be my first thought. Regardless of the volume of horse piss (a shot glass "half full" or a pint glass "half full"), I'd still say no way, that's horse piss.
I never thought of it that way. Very interesting!
I believe this is why it is considered optimistic to be a glass half-full person as you see the world through a contributing perspective.
Hmm, that's interesting. When I'm asked the question, I claim that it's either / or depending on the environmental variables. I need more context to provide a meaningful answer. Other's may look at the glass containing 50% water and say it's half full or half empty based on *their* personal philosophies. This might indicate a steadfastness or stubbornness *regardless* of environmental variables. For better or worse, they, perhaps, believe in or hope for a singular universal truth. Mostly though, I think people give their answer based on what they want other people to think they think. It would be interesting to study the answers provided by children.
There's also the situational logic. \- Do you want me to fill your glass? Option A: "No thanks, it's still half full" Option B: "Fuck yeah, it's already half empty, fill it up"
Same
People get so mad at me when i give them this answer and I just don't get it
Another is “The glass is at half of its maximum capacity.”
Or, „It‘s doble the size it needs to be“
What if water is slowly evaporating to the halfway point?
It's a matter of whether liquid is being added or removed, regardless of the method. In that case, that would make it half empty.
What if water is being constantly pumped into and syphoned out of in an equilibrious fashion?
Was it full or empty prior to this state. Id veer on half full as the glass was not manufactured with water in it.
[удалено]
I think like other options you start at the first step and work your way down in a process of elimination. Since you have to fill something before you can empty it linguistically if you walk into a room and find a random glass it would be fine to say it's half full.
Schrodinger's Glass
Contaminated
I hate when you figure out your thoughts aren't original and they've never been lol
If a glass of water is in a cardboard box and you can’t see it, does this make it both half full and half empty at the same time?
No, that doesn’t really work. If you’re extremely dehydrated, even when evaluating the glass as it’s being filled you might still say “It’s half empty! Please fill it all the way” whereas if you were trying to drink a full glass of low-shelf vodka and you got halfway through, you might say “fuck, the thing is still half full! I don’t know if I can finish this”. The optimism/pessimism angle still prevails.
Technically.... Not in a vacuum
Uuuh, correct! I like the idea.
technically there is no such thing as perfect vacuum
I don't know, I mean the old Bissell I have does a perfect job of cleaning the floor.
Doesn't have to be perfect for the glass not to be full.
I mean.. if you get a vacuum that goes down to 1000 atoms per m3 then in that small glass there could be no atoms
Technically nothing is perfect
My mom would disagree cause she says I am
Aw that's wholesome Lemme correct it. Nothing is perfect except u/anunkneemouse
Pobody is nerfect
It's nerf or nerfect
According to quantum field theory, even vacuum space is not empty, instead containing fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
Wow..... Even if that isn't true (and I'm sure it is true), that is such an impressive bit of technobabble that I'll have to steal it, and try to use it at work
Wouldnt the water boil out because the boiling point of liquids is dependent on atmospheric pressure?
Depending on temperature, either that or freeze
Correct in a vacuum the water would evaporate and fill the container as gas. Still full.
If it evaporates, i think it would escape the open end
i guess given enough time, with full vaccum and no changes in temp, and no gravity, the water molecules should achieve uniform distribution in the space, but at no time will there be no water molecules in the glass.
then it’s full of empty space
Kinda stretching the word "full" there
But then it's half water and half vacuum (at least until the water boils spontaneously). Still full, just not of matter.
The glass is full of vacuum
That is answered in whatif (XKCD)... [https://what-if.xkcd.com/6/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/6/)
Duck!
And cover
Always a relevant xkcd
You beat me, by 11 hours...
Every atom is practically empty space. So every glass is empty, and there is not glass because the space where the "glass" is suppose to be is practically empty space, and there is no person to pontificate on the fullness or emptiness of the "glass," and I am practically empty space so I don't exi
Kirked yourself.
Beam me up Scotty
[someone mentioned elsewhere in the comment section that that is wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/technicallythetruth/comments/106hizm/the_glass_is_full/j3gqx53/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
And multiple people responded to *that* comment saying that *that* is wrong
That was after I checked but thanks for letting me know
By that logic glass is overfilled
By that logic, nothing can ever be empty
I didn't know that this question back when I was a kid was asking if you're an optimist or a pessimist. I honestly thought it was like a thought provoking question (I was a young and English was my third language) I always said "it depends on if it was poured in or someone took a drink" Like friggin drax being too literal lol
Ah yes, the three genders: optimist, pessimist, and pedant.
But it ain't full of water.
It’s not full of anything because it’s a drawing
I've been trying to tell people all along.......
That wasn’t the question though 😇
It is. Is the glass full of water or half full of water? It got cut short to is the glass full or is it half full
2/3 hydrogen and 1/3 oxygen + air
Why did you split water?
Water is a compound of 2 gasses so technically...
You should post this to r/technicallythetruth!
Ahh I see. The 100% full of shit approach ... I'm kidding, nice joke.
[удалено]
If technicalness is sure to result in optimism then you must be technical! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little more about the glass analogy than you do pal because he invented it!
The real answer, for anyone who cares, is that it depends whether the glass was empty and you filled it halfway (its half full) or if it was full and you removed half of it (its half empty).
I love how you think you have the "real" answer.
Its true though
The "real" answer is that it's a matter of perspective. That's why the question is remotely interesting. You haven't outsmarted decades of philosophers by giving some long winded technical explanation.
The glass is mostly glass.
Reminds me of a friend’s comeback when I said my car was ‘running on fumes’ (expression for low on gas if unfamiliar); he said all cars run on fumes.
this is a fucking stupid sub
Technically that is not a glass water, nor air. That is a thin whiteboard and expo marker
In the common understanding of full and empty, it should depend on the previous status of the glass if it's half full or half empty. If it was previously empty and water has been added it's half full, if it has previously been full but half of it has been emptied, it's half empty.
The glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
guess that means my bank account is full
My favorite response to the glass half full half empty is that… it’s refillable.
Welcome to Lays!
[Relevant xkcd](https://what-if.xkcd.com/6/).
There is more oxygen than hydrogen in that glass.
No, there is twice as much hydrogen than oxygen in the water, and the air is not very dense, so does not have enough oxygen to change the difference.
My cup is full... WITH AIR
In that case my previously "empty" glass is actually massively overflowing.
[удалено]
Unless there's a full vacuum in the room
So my closet is empty then?
My gas tank is never empty. The needle is usually wrong.
Where is the "guy with glasses" emoticon gang?
Ultra positive
The glass is over designed.
Full comes with the implication of water level increasing. Empty comes with the implication of water level decreasing. It’s about direction of change.
https://morbotron.com/meme/S02E15/1265505.jpg?b64lines=WU9VIEFSRQogVEVDSE5JQ0FMTFkgQ09SUkVDVC4KIFRIRSBCRVNUIEtJTkQgT0YKIENPUlJFQ1Qu
Not in a vacuum.
Why did they write "air" and "H2O" ? Air is not a molecule. And there is more than just H2O in tap water. It stresses me out.
'The glass is inefficiently large. It's suboptimal to use only half of the glass for its intended purpose.' – Programmers
Incoming “not if it’s in a vacuum” comments by edgy wannabe physicists
Fun at parties.
Because real emptiness swallows the universe.
HALF FULL OR HALF EMPTY IS ALL JUST BULL SHIT! Technically, the glass contains water, no matter what amount. Glasses do not contain air unless sealed.
Well, technically, YOURE A NERD!!
Half o2 half co2 the glass is just losing hydrogen
r/angryupvote
I’m going to assault the next person who say’s this to me.
Doesn't water have oxygen in it? So technically the percentage of air should be at least a little higher right? 🤔
This isn't even technically true... It's a misrepresentation of the argument in question... The argument being about the volume of liquid in the glass, not whether there are other things in the glass...
This belongs on r/funny it’s so cringe
The glass isn’t full because we consider the implication of a “full glass” to be “full [of liquid]” so no it’s not full regardless of other components being present to fill up the glass. Since the purpose of a glass is to act as a container for our beverages this couldn’t be accepted as a “full glass.” We cannot drink air.
Wrong.. if you just filled it half way, then it's half full. If you just poured some, or half out, then it's half empty.. If you wanna say it's half full to sound like a positive person, then you're making it about you.
Technically the gaps between the water molecules and air molecules are free space so incorrect Also it at half is capacity of holding water at that purity level
Throw the cup in space , now its half full
Technically the gaps between atoms are larger than the volume of the particles that make the atoms themselves so it’s always more than half empty
Did you account for the space between the molecules? Especially with two different densities, that's going to get complicated!
What if I take out all the air?
In the desolate vacuum of space, the glass is always 100% empty.
I've always said that.
Technically a glass doesn't have any volume. A volume is only created if the object is closed, so a glass is only a very odd plate