could galaxy have electric charge??

[cohen avshalom]

could galaxy have electric charge?? as atum has: + - or N ?




and yes i dont write much since my english is not the best.

**********************************
cohen avshalom charly
israel/haifa
www.icarus5.com
*******************************

[Ziggurat]

could galaxy have electric charge?? as atum has: + - or N ?

The entire universe must be charge neutral. Local charge differences are possible, so you could have a positive charge on one galaxy and a negative charge on another. But because electrons are so much lighter than protons, they move very easily, and because the electromagnetic force is very strong, those electrons are going to be pulled very strongly towards any excess positive charge and away from any excess negative charge, evening out that charge distribution. So the charge on a galaxy might not be exactly zero, but compared to the amount of matter there is, the charge must be very small. So for most purposes, it's safe to assume that galaxies are electrically neutral.

[rcronk]

The entire universe must be charge neutral.

Why?

[Ziggurat]

Why?

Gauss's law. For a closed universe, it's a trivial identity: you can use a single Gaussian surface to "enclose" everything in the entire universe on either one side or the other, and so the charges on the two side must always balance. For an open (ie, infinite) universe, the net charge density must be zero, or the electric field in space will become infinite. Which, obviously, isn't happening.

[Soapy Sam]

Negative Earth?





Sorry.

[davefoc]

Why?

I don't know. Ziggurat explained why pockets of negative charge tend to disburse over time so that most places are roughly neutral.

But I don't think he explained why there seems to be roughly the same amount of negatively charged stuff as positively charged stuff.

One thought is that a mechanism to create a surplus of negative or a surplus of positive charge hasn't been observed. There may be a theoretical reason why such a mechanism doesn't exist but this non-physicist doesn't know what that is.

ETA: I wrote this before I saw Ziggurat's last reply. Maybe he answered the question in that reply but I don't understand the answer right now.

[rcronk]

Gauss's law. For a closed universe, it's a trivial identity: you can use a single Gaussian surface to "enclose" everything in the entire universe on either one side or the other, and so the charges on the two side must always balance. For an open (ie, infinite) universe, the net charge density must be zero, or the electric field in space will become infinite. Which, obviously, isn't happening.

I'm not educated in this area so your repeated use of the word "must" without explanation leaves me wanting. I will go read up on this. Would I just look into "Gauss's Law" or is there anything else I need to look up? Thanks.

[Ziggurat]

I'm not educated in this area so your repeated use of the word "must" without explanation leaves me wanting. I will go read up on this. Would I just look into "Gauss's Law" or is there anything else I need to look up? Thanks.

Here's one place to start, if you're really curious about the math:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law
Basically, it says that the integral of the electric field passing through a closed surface is equal to the charge enclose in that surface.

If the universe is itself closed, then a closed surface within the universe cuts the universe into two pieces. The integral of the electric field passing through the surface is equal but opposite depending on which side you want to consider (since the "outward" direction flips), so the charge on either side must be equal and opposite - otherwise, you've violated Gauss's law, which is just another form of Coulomb's law and one of Maxwell's equations governing electromagnetism.

If the universe is infinite, then suppose we have some non-zero charge density. If we consider a cube of sides L, the charge enclose scales as L3, but the area only scales as L2. So if we apply Gauss's law, the average field has to scale as L. But we can pick arbitrarily large L if the universe is infinite, so the average field is unbounded, and therefore infinite. Which doesn't make any sense, and doesn't match what we observe.

[davefoc]

Suppose there is a magic electron generator working away in the core of the earth.

As a result of this electron generator the earth has a negative charge.

How does Gauss's law preclude the existence of such a generator?

ETA: I seem to be posting out of sync with Ziggurat. I hadn't read the post above when I wrote this.

[Ziggurat]

Suppose there is a magic electron generator working away in the core of the earth.

As a result of this electron generator the earth has a negative charge.

How does Gauss's law preclude the existence of such a generator?

Because the electric field of an instantly created electron cannot propagate outwards faster than c. So when you create it, the integral of the electric field through a surface enclosing that electron isn't even constant. Pick a large enough surface, and the surface won't have noticed that the electron was created yet, but that violates Gauss's law, since it holds regardless of what you do with charges inside. So conservation of charge (which generating electrons alone violates) is implicit in Gauss's law. Note that you can still create an electron-positron pair without violating Gauss's law, though, because the net charge doesn't change.

[Rob Lister]

could galaxy have electric charge?? as atum has: + - or N ?




and yes i dont write much since my english is not the best.

**********************************
cohen avshalom charly
israel/haifa
www.icarus5.com
*******************************

I would like to highlight cohen avshalom's web site

www.icarus5.com

Never have I read such genius!

Go, and see such gems as

When I say full vacuum I mean 0% and not 3% and in this situation there are no particles so the temperture can drop below absolute zero

[cohen avshalom]

Rob Lister-yes i am speaking speaking a bout temperture that can below the max- min temperture-when the area change state-but this is at the end of the universe and after that-i am speaking that at zero temperture-the mass has zero mass.this is my opinion-and i am understand if you will not accept that.
but let stay at the charge of the galaxy-and the resean why galaxy unite,or become farther away each other-i get my opinion-that if someone like to know what i am thinking-he could remark me.


cohen avshalom charly
israel/haifa

[BenBurch]

Well, a magic ANYTHING negates universal law. Hence why magic, and deities, are not possible.

[Ziggurat]

i am speaking that at zero temperture-the mass has zero mass.this is my opinion

Your opinion happens to be wrong. And one of the reasons that it's wrong is that you probably don't actually understand what temperature means. Most people think it's just a measure of internal energy, but it isn't. It's a measure of how entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) changes with energy. Having zero temperature just means you've reached a minimum entropy state. That says nothing about the mass of the system in question.

but let stay at the charge of the galaxy-and the resean why galaxy unite,or become farther away each other-i get my opinion-that if someone like to know what i am thinking-he could remark me.

Sorry, but net charges can't explain that. Do you understand my earlier explanation about why the universe as a whole cannot have a net charge? If you don't, then you need to learn a lot more about electricity before you can even start to evaluate your own ideas about it.

[Tumbleweed]

It sounds to me like a striving to define why the universe is accelerating. So I'll jump in. Is it speculated as to which of the four fundamental forces is causing it? Since it appears to be opposing or overcoming gravity, I would guess it is an electromagnetic force
What if the outer reaches of a finite universe was attracting matter in the same way that a magnet attracts a nail. It would certainly explain the acceleration, because the closer the nail gets to the magnet, the faster it goes.
What if all matter is considered " charged " regardless of polarity, and empty space is considered, not neutral, but "uncharged" Would charged and uncharged attract each other in a similar but not equal manner, the way that positive and negative charges do. Could attraction between charged and uncharged be very strong at a great distance, but very weak at a close distance?
I disagree at this point on the definition of + and -. To my mind + and - are not separate particles,. It means excess or deficiency of the exact same particle. I am thinking of electron flow in a conductor
There is a buildup of electrons at one point of the circuit. It is their nature, if given a path, to flow to an area that does not have as many electrons. A metaphor would be water squirting out of a hose if given a path (an open valve) , or air filling a vacuum if given the opportunity
So that's why electrons just jump out of the ground rod on my house and flow through this computer. I provided them a path via a copper wire and an on switch, and a deficiency of electrons has been created by the generator at the powerhouse.Of course that's only half the AC cycle. The generator then creates an excess of electrons - relative to ground - and everything turns around. Magical ain't it? Just right up out of the ground

[Ziggurat]

I disagree at this point on the definition of + and -. To my mind + and - are not separate particles,.

+ and - are separate charges. Charge is a quality that particles can have, but don't confuse the property of the particle with the particle itself. And you need both kinds of charges to formulate a coherent theory of electromagnetism that matches reality. You cannot simply talk about having an excess or deficiency of only one kind of charge - it may work as an "effective" description in some cases, but there are plenty of cases where it simply does not work, starting with why electrons bind to nuclei in the first place.

[Tumbleweed]

+ and - are separate charges. Charge is a quality that particles can have, but don't confuse the property of the particle with the particle itself. And you need both kinds of charges to formulate a coherent theory of electromagnetism that matches reality. You cannot simply talk about having an excess or deficiency of only one kind of charge - it may work as an "effective" description in some cases, but there are plenty of cases where it simply does not work, starting with why electrons bind to nuclei in the first place.
Yes I agree. Protons and electrons have different charges and are different particles
I should have said, another definition of charge is ----.
.

[~enigma~]

Note that you can still create an electron-positron pair without violating Gauss's law, though, because the net charge doesn't change.
Ah...bringing up vacuum fluctuations leads me to ask a question. Would there be a violation of Gauss's law if the pair were to be created just outside the event horizon of a black hole and one of the particles was gobbled up by the black hole while the other escaped?

[BenBurch]

A black hole can indeed have a net electrical charge. But imagining a circumstance in reality where that would be more than miniscule is difficult or impossible!.

[~enigma~]

A black hole can indeed have a net electrical charge. But imagining a circumstance in reality where that would be more than miniscule is difficult or impossible!.
I am sure it would be next to impossible. I don't mean the black hole itself. i mean the escaping particle of the vacuum fluctuation. Would that cause a violation of Gauss's law? And if not, why?

[BenBurch]

I am sure it would be next to impossible. I don't mean the black hole itself. i mean the escaping particle of the vacuum fluctuation. Would that cause a violation of Gauss's law? And if not, why?

No, because the black hole is still inside the Universe and carries the charge balancing the other particle.

[~enigma~]

No, because the black hole is still inside the Universe and carries the charge balancing the other particle.
Yeah...ok...I guess I forgot that there can be local violations but not in the universe as a whole. Thanks for setting me straight. I got one of those "remove foot from mouth" horns around here...

[cohen avshalom]

if the universe is not infinite what should be at the edge of the knowing universe -i mean the temperture ??
what happened at the touching point/bringing together (the known universe and behind that point)??
when they meet both toghter those area-the universe and the out universe area???

who do you see-you can bring your opinion-even if this is just a assumption<

:idea::idea::idea::dig::dig:
***************************
cohne avshalom charly
israel/haifa
www.icarus5.com
***********************

[~enigma~]

if the universe is not infinite what should be at the edge of the knowing universe -i mean the temperture ??
what happened at the touching point/bringing together (the known universe and behind that point)??
when they meet both toghter those area-the universe and the out universe area???

who do you see-you can bring your opinion-even if this is just a assumption<

:idea::idea::idea::dig::dig:
***************************
cohne avshalom charly
israel/haifa
www.icarus5.com (http://www.icarus5.com)
***********************
The universe isn't infinite. The universe has an age.

[ponderingturtle]

But I don't think he explained why there seems to be roughly the same amount of negatively charged stuff as positively charged stuff.

This is because when you create something negative you must create something positive as well(or at least that seems to be the case, I am not aware of the someone having figured out the mechanism for when matter is created with out anti mater, which is the normal method that this ballance is maintained by, well there is when neutrons decay into protons and electrons)

THe point is that the conservation of charge seem to be a conservation law for the universe.

[ponderingturtle]

Here's one place to start, if you're really curious about the math:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law
Basically, it says that the integral of the electric field passing through a closed surface is equal to the charge enclose in that surface.

It would seem that a similar law should exist for gravity and then wouldn't this prove that the universe had no mass?

[ponderingturtle]

A black hole can indeed have a net electrical charge. But imagining a circumstance in reality where that would be more than miniscule is difficult or impossible!.

I have seen ideas about intentionaly inducing a electric charge on a small black hole so that it can be manipulated by a force other than gravity, in some sci fi.

[sol invictus]

It would seem that a similar law should exist for gravity and then wouldn't this prove that the universe had no mass?


The same argument proves the universe has zero energy. In a technical sense, the gravitational field has negative energy which compensates for the positive energy of matter.

There are more useful definitions of energy which allow it to be non-zero. This is a rather technical topic, though...

[cohen avshalom]

do a black hole have zero charge? or have - or + charge ??

and who could we know what is the electric charge of area-at such place??


:confused::confused::confused::confused:
********************
cohen avshalom charly
israel/haifa
www.icarus5.com
******************

[Ziggurat]

Ah...bringing up vacuum fluctuations leads me to ask a question. Would there be a violation of Gauss's law if the pair were to be created just outside the event horizon of a black hole and one of the particles was gobbled up by the black hole while the other escaped?

Nope. You can have charged black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole). They still satisfy Gauss's law, and have an electric field. Interesting things can happen with charged black holes, but it's not actually a problem.

[~enigma~]

Nope. You can have charged black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole). They still satisfy Gauss's law, and have an electric field. Interesting things can happen with charged black holes, but it's not actually a problem.
Yes and as BenBurch reminded me although the second particle escapes there is no net violation in the universe as a whole. Made me feel a bit dumb for not realizing it myself :)

[Ziggurat]

It would seem that a similar law should exist for gravity and then wouldn't this prove that the universe had no mass?

Classically there is indeed an equivalent form of Gauss's law for gravity, but it breaks down in general relativity. You don't even need to examine cosmological scales to find a case where it breaks down either: just consider a simple Shwarzchild black hole. The "field" at the event horizon is infinite, so trying to apply Gauss's law would suggest an infinite mass, but that isn't the case. It doesn't work because gravity is explicitly nonlinear.

[edd]

It sounds to me like a striving to define why the universe is accelerating. So I'll jump in. Is it speculated as to which of the four fundamental forces is causing it? Since it appears to be opposing or overcoming gravity, I would guess it is an electromagnetic force

It's (assumed to be) gravity, just with a different kind of source.

[sol invictus]

Classically there is indeed an equivalent form of Gauss's law for gravity, but it breaks down in general relativity. You don't even need to examine cosmological scales to find a case where it breaks down either: just consider a simple Shwarzchild black hole. The "field" at the event horizon is infinite, so trying to apply Gauss's law would suggest an infinite mass, but that isn't the case. It doesn't work because gravity is explicitly nonlinear.

Gauss' law works fine in GR, although of course differently than in EM/Newtonian gravity. Look up ADM mass, Hamiltonian constraint, and Birkhoff's theorem.

[fuelair]

Just as a side note which has bothered me from the OP on down.
Just referring to Atoms, atoms have either 1 proton (+) and one electron (-) (basic Hydrogen) or an equal number of protons (+) and electrons (-) and a variable number of neutrons (isotopes). All ATOMS are electrically Neutral.
Atoms only have a charge (and are no longer called atoms at this point) when ionization occurs - one atom (or more) loses one or more electrons (-) to another atom (or more)so that both have full outer electron energy "shells"/"levels" . Both ar now ions. Positive ions are atoms that lost/donated one or more electrons (number of protons did not change so same element) and Negative ions are the atom(s) that took/borrowed electrons.
Atoms neutral/ ions charged.

Chemical processes roll on contented.

[~enigma~]

Just as a side note which has bothered me from the OP on down.
Just referring to Atoms, atoms have either 1 proton (+) and one electron (-) (basic Hydrogen) or an equal number of protons (+) and electrons (-) and a variable number of neutrons (isotopes). All ATOMS are electrically Neutral.
Atoms only have a charge (and are no longer called atoms at this point) when ionization occurs - one atom (or more) loses one or more electrons (-) to another atom (or more)so that both have full outer electron energy "shells"/"levels" . Both ar now ions. Positive ions are atoms that lost/donated one or more electrons (number of protons did not change so same element) and Negative ions are the atom(s) that took/borrowed electrons.
Atoms neutral/ ions charged.

Chemical processes roll on contented.A cation or anion is simply a charged atom.

[Ziggurat]

Gauss' law works fine in GR, although of course differently than in EM/Newtonian gravity. Look up ADM mass, Hamiltonian constraint, and Birkhoff's theorem.

I had a vague recollection there was a way to modify it. The relevant point for this thread, though, is that the scaling argument I made for why an infinite universe can't have a net charge density doesn't work the same way for gravity, so you can have finite mass density in an infinite universe.

[DanishDynamite]

could galaxy have electric charge?? as atum has: + - or N ?




and yes i dont write much since my english is not the best.

**********************************
cohen avshalom charly
israel/haifa
www.icarus5.com
*******************************
In short, yes a galaxy could theoretically have a charge. It just isn't very likely.

[Verde]

Negative Earth?


My 1962 Vauxhall Viva was Positive earth, so I guess it neutralizes that point.


Sorry.
No problem..

[cohen avshalom]

do black hole increasing during the time?

could be connection between the black hole and in the other hand the edge of the universe???


:cool::cool::cool::cool::
cohen avshalom charly
Israel /haifa
www.icarus5.com
:cool::cool::cool::cool::

[Ziggurat]

do black hole increasing during the time?

Black holes can get bigger over time, but they don't have to.

could be connection between the black hole and in the other hand the edge of the universe???

No. There is no edge of the universe.

[fuelair]

A cation or anion is simply a charged atom.
Technically correct, but, in Chemistry we do not call them atoms (since atoms are, as part of their definiton electrically neutral) we call them ions.
They were atoms, charge makes them ions.



(Further explication - and remembering that neutrons normally do not affect this - another part of the definition is that atoms of any element are alike. Once an atom has given up or taken electrons beyond it's normal supply, it is no longer "alike" as it's properties have now changed.):)

[~enigma~]

Technically correct, but, in Chemistry we do not call them atoms (since atoms are, as part of their definiton electrically neutral) we call them ions.
They were atoms, charge makes them ions.



(Further explication - and remembering that neutrons normally do not affect this - another part of the definition is that atoms of any element are alike. Once an atom has given up or taken electrons beyond it's normal supply, it is no longer "alike" as it's properties have now changed.):)
In chemistry AND physics the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element is how an atom is defined. NaCl is not an atom of Na and Cl?...where did you get a definition af an atom based on electrical charge?

ETA - My BS in Chemistry was back in 1989, has the definition of an atom changed that radically?

[Tumbleweed]

Maybe a black hole is just the entrance to a klein bottle! Or maybe the whole schmere (universe) is shaped like one
Inside the bottle is space and matter. Outside is Nothingness:confused:
Speaking of Gauss, maybe a spherical universe (forget the Klein bottle) is surrounded by large circular currents flowing through God knows what (oops! sorry about the Scientific three letter word) that degauss the entire universe. How would that fit in with conservation of charge

[beelzebub]

Nope. You can have charged black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole). They still satisfy Gauss's law, and have an electric field. Interesting things can happen with charged black holes, but it's not actually a problem.

Umm.. dumb question, but how would you know that a black hole was charged? If I understand it correctly, charge is mediated by virtual particles that would not be able to escape the event horizon. So, surely, the charge of a black hole would be indeterminate?

[Tumbleweed]

If the universe is assumed to be finite what happens to electromagnetic radiation when it hits the edge of the universe. Seems like four options are possible.
I am going to assume that the volume of the finite universe is so large that matter, expanding at an accelerating pace, is nowhere near the Edge yet, but that the electromagnetic radiation from that matter HAS reached it
1. It would be reflected and thereby be detectable as it bounced back and forth within the "sphere". Forgive my ignorance if that is old news
2. it would be absorbed by the Edge causing the Edge to forever increase in charge
3. It is absorbed but everything neutralizes, charge wise.
4. The Edge is permeable to energy. It passes through into Whatever Land outside the finite universe, and just keeps right on going
Well, the guy did ask for thoughts on the Edge, and where is all that light ending up at?

[BenBurch]

Tumbleweed; The Universe is finite, but unbounded. Limited in size, but there is no edge.

[Ziggurat]

Umm.. dumb question, but how would you know that a black hole was charged? If I understand it correctly, charge is mediated by virtual particles that would not be able to escape the event horizon. So, surely, the charge of a black hole would be indeterminate?

There are a few ways to think about it. One is that the charge on a black hole isn't information that is being transmitted through the event horizon, it's information that (via Gauss's law) already existed outside the event horizon and cannot be destroyed, because that would require sending out information to the rest of the world that the charge disappeared. Another is to think of this classically: static fields don't "propagate" at any velocity at all, so the prohibition on nothing being able to move fast enough to escape the event horizon isn't applicable. And finally, while I'm not QED theorist, virtual particles are funny things. I suspect it's better to think of them as book-keeping tools for performing calculations than as physical objects. But in any case, I don't think the same limits apply to virtual particles that apply to real particles - they certainly violate conservation of energy, but that doesn't really matter, since that violation can't ever produce a violation of conservation of energy among real particles. Likewise virtual particles might be able to "propagate" through the event horizon, but not in a manner which can inform the outside world about what's going on inside other than the net charge (which, again, is information which already exists outside the event horizon).

[Ziggurat]

Tumbleweed; The Universe is finite, but unbounded. Limited in size, but there is no edge.

An example is frequently in order to help explain this to novices.

The surface of the earth is finite, but unbounded. You can walk all over it forever without ever reaching the edge. It's easy to visualize finite but unbounded 2D surfaces (such as the surface of the earth). It can be a little more difficult to visualize how to make a finite but unbounded 3D space, but mathematically it's quite straight-forward to describe.

[~enigma~]

An example is frequently in order to help explain this to novices.

The surface of the earth is finite, but unbounded. You can walk all over it forever without ever reaching the edge. It's easy to visualize finite but unbounded 2D surfaces (such as the surface of the earth). It can be a little more difficult to visualize how to make a finite but unbounded 3D space, but mathematically it's quite straight-forward to describe.
Like a 3D Mobius strip or even a torus.

[Ziggurat]

Like a 3D Mobius strip or even a torus.

A torus, yes. I think a Mobius strip creates problems with parity, though, so I don't think that kind of connection would be possible.

[cohen avshalom]

i have get remark that arae not understood mean-what i mean:

when i am saying area can change state

area-->i mean the space without the mass/energy.

like at computer
adress---->inside(data)

at format process the adress get volume not the data.

what will happened to area that go for black hole-or will been at place that collapse.(the mass/energy will go out-and the area will collapse).
the area that will collapse will change his state since he has mo more energy or mass.
:boxedin::boxedin::boxedin::boxedin:
cohen avshalom charly
israel/haifa
www.icarus5.com

[fuelair]

In chemistry AND physics the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element is how an atom is defined. NaCl is not an atom of Na and Cl?...where did you get a definition af an atom based on electrical charge?

ETA - My BS in Chemistry was back in 1989, has the definition of an atom changed that radically?

Short version is multiple textbooks, I'll see if I can add to that tomorrow when I'm with my data.

[fuelair]

I have never heard of space collapsing because it's matter and energy are removed. Space is independant of it's contents - it is not similar to a container held wide because it is full of, say heated air and collapses if the air is suddenly (or slowly) removed. The space is still there - it is simply no longer filled. - though, assuming other atoms/particles/energy is around, it will fill again.

[cohen avshalom]

fuelair:

what a bout supernova ???

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
cohen avshalom charly
Israel -haifa (some time i am writting is-real)
www.icarus5.com

[ponderingturtle]

The same argument proves the universe has zero energy. In a technical sense, the gravitational field has negative energy which compensates for the positive energy of matter.

There are more useful definitions of energy which allow it to be non-zero. This is a rather technical topic, though...

The thing I was wondering is does the curveature of space that would cause the universe to be finite not effect the nature of the surface for that law.

[ponderingturtle]

Classically there is indeed an equivalent form of Gauss's law for gravity, but it breaks down in general relativity. You don't even need to examine cosmological scales to find a case where it breaks down either: just consider a simple Shwarzchild black hole. The "field" at the event horizon is infinite, so trying to apply Gauss's law would suggest an infinite mass, but that isn't the case. It doesn't work because gravity is explicitly nonlinear.

And it seems like that Gauss's law is being treated in a classical sense(well pre GR if it is consistent and caused SR to be discovered)

[ponderingturtle]

I have never heard of space collapsing because it's matter and energy are removed. Space is independant of it's contents - it is not similar to a container held wide because it is full of, say heated air and collapses if the air is suddenly (or slowly) removed. The space is still there - it is simply no longer filled. - though, assuming other atoms/particles/energy is around, it will fill again.

Ah but you really cant remove everything from space, just from a specific region in space. If there was nothing outside or inside space would it exist? Does that question have an answer that is meaningful?

[Cuddles]

And finally, while I'm not QED theorist, virtual particles are funny things. I suspect it's better to think of them as book-keeping tools for performing calculations than as physical objects. But in any case, I don't think the same limits apply to virtual particles that apply to real particles - they certainly violate conservation of energy, but that doesn't really matter, since that violation can't ever produce a violation of conservation of energy among real particles.

Virtual particles don't violate conservation of energy, they can exist because of energy-time uncertainty. This is why the nuclear forces have limited range - since they are mediated by heavy particles, they can only exist for a short time, and hence can only propagate a short distance. Photons being massless can last as long a they like, and so electromagnetism has an infinite range.

Likewise virtual particles might be able to "propagate" through the event horizon, but not in a manner which can inform the outside world about what's going on inside other than the net charge (which, again, is information which already exists outside the event horizon).

The virtual particles don't have to come from inside the event horizon. Since the electric field from a sphere is the same as that from a point, a charged black hole behaves identically if you assume the virtual photons originate at the centre or at the event horizon (or more accurately, at a point an infinitisimal distance outside the event horizon).

[Tumbleweed]

An example is frequently in order to help explain this to novices.

The surface of the earth is finite, but unbounded. You can walk all over it forever without ever reaching the edge. It's easy to visualize finite but unbounded 2D surfaces (such as the surface of the earth). It can be a little more difficult to visualize how to make a finite but unbounded 3D space, but mathematically it's quite straight-forward to describe.

Would a more appropriate term be boundry between expanding space/ non space instead of fixed edge? I can conceptualize boundless to mean matter being forever able to expand into "space"
But then the definition of space versus non space comes up
If space itself is expanding, what is it expanding into? Something other than space? Does it do a time/space warp thingie where the beginning becomes the end? Where does space actually come from. Was it created along with the big bang or was it already there. Is it a function of something such as matter or electromagnetism. Is it "created" by, say, a particle that has the ability to change a singularity into volume? Does space have mass
Time for gardening because Mother Nature and time wait for no man

[Ziggurat]

Would a more appropriate term be boundry between expanding space/ non space instead of fixed edge? I can conceptualize boundless to mean matter being forever able to expand into "space"
But then the definition of space versus non space comes up
If space itself is expanding, what is it expanding into?

If we're considering a curved 2D surface, such as the surface of a sphere, it's frequently easier to consider that surface as being embedded in a higher dimensional space which is not curved. But it isn't actually necessary to do so. There are mathematical tools to address the curvature of such a surface without any reference to a higher-dimensional space, just by looking at what happens within that surface (for example, the inside angles of a triangle on the surface of a sphere don't add up to 180). This approach is sometimes called intrinsic geometry (as opposed to extrinsic geometry, where you treat the surface as explicitly embedded in a higher dimensional space). So we can handle all the geometry questions about our own space without having to worry about what "non-space" might be around it.

So naturally that brings us to a question: if we don't actually need to talk about what our space is embedded in, can we even claim that it is embedded in anything at all? At this point, no, we actually can't. The only way to figure out if space is actually embedded in any higher dimension is to find some effect which depends upon such an embedding. There are a few ideas floating around out there about how such an embedding might work, but no way to test any of them at the moment. So it's purely speculative.

[fuelair]

Ah but you really cant remove everything from space, just from a specific region in space. If there was nothing outside or inside space would it exist? Does that question have an answer that is meaningful?

Note the question though that I was attempting to work from - questioner appears to be speaking of only a portion of space and at a particular point in time not all space. In reality, eventually (time dependant on the overall contents of the larger portion of space the specific portion was included in, and it's activity leve) the emptied segment should refill as all evens out again