PDA

View Full Version : Matter, Space, Time.



KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-07, 02:57 PM
Matter, Space, Time
While it is said that space and time are of a kind of common origin and are highly integrated and related, why shouldn't this be related to the origin of matter as well? I mean if at the start point they appeared from the same origin, is it possible to assume that matter and space may have had a kind of common ancestor and may have been one single entity of the same fabric?
So my questions are as follows:
1- Can space be converted to matter and matter be converted to space?
2- Can space have opposite polarity gravity? In this case could space-space have similar gravity polarity and matter-matter have similar gravity polarity but opposite to space-space polarity? This doesn't contradict dark energy. Among matter there is space and among space there is matter.
3- Do we have to have the same original fabric to convert it to space and matter?
4- Perhaps they could not be converted to each other but do we get the original fabric if they were combined?

If not so, what was the combination of these before the said big bang occur?
Why is matter excluded from space-time?

kevin1981
2012-Apr-07, 06:55 PM
If not so, what was the combination of these before the said big bang occur?

Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. There may not of even been a before. Whatever anyone reads about what
happened before the big bang is speculation. Today, i am comfortable with this !

Tensor
2012-Apr-08, 05:48 AM
Matter, Space, Time


So my questions are as follows:
1- Can space be converted to matter and matter be converted to space?

Nope. Care to explain how kilograms can be converted to kilometers?


2- Can space have opposite polarity gravity? In this case could space-space have similar gravity polarity and matter-matter have similar gravity polarity but opposite to space-space polarity? This doesn't contradict dark energy. Among matter there is space and among space there is matter.

What you just said makes no sense in physics. Space is described by the Ricci Tensor. Matter and energy by the stress-energy tensor. Plus some various constants.


3- Do we have to have the same original fabric to convert it to space and matter?

Again, you are using terms in non-standard ways as to make your comment somewhat unintelligible.


4- Perhaps they could not be converted to each other but do we get the original fabric if they were combined?

Define original fabric.


If not so, what was the combination of these before the said big bang occur?

Anything before the Big Bang is speculation, so there really isn't an good answer for this.


Why is matter excluded from space-time?

Because they are on opposite sides of the Field equations. Energy is also excluded. So what?

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-08, 05:17 PM
Nope. Care to explain how kilograms can be converted to kilometers?

1- Ok. But if the ratio of matter to space is assumed to be constant, i don't know if experimentally it has been proved to be so from the onset of the big bang .So does it mean that from the beginning of the big bang, the ratio of matter to space has been constant which is said to be 4% apart from dark matter? Is there any reason for it to be at this particular ratio?

One thing that strikes my mind is that, no one exactly knows what the fabric of matter is. Extensive research are being carried out to find it out. So far matter is only converted to energy. Can we say after this conversion the space occupied by this energy is exactly equivalent to the space occupied by the original matter?

HenrikOlsen
2012-Apr-08, 08:45 PM
1- Ok. But if the ratio of matter to space is assumed to be constant,
It's not, so the rest can be ignored.

grapes
2012-Apr-08, 10:36 PM
Nope. Care to explain how kilograms can be converted to kilometers?
The mass of the Sun is 1.4 kilometers, by the usual definition, I think, but that's probably not what they're talking about. :)

Probably converting kilograms into meters cubed.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-09, 02:44 PM
The mass of the Sun is 1.4 kilometers, by the usual definition, I think, but that's probably not what they're talking about. :)

Probably converting kilograms into meters cubed.
The mass of the sun is 10^48 Jouls, or your distance to the sun is 500 seconds at SOL.,if you live on earth! As an exercise: How many kilometers is a light YEAR?

Anyway you see if nuclear energy converts to kinetic energy and fragments of mass find speed, now mass has converted to kinetic energy. Does this energy occupy the same space as the converted mass did it? If so it then seems that speed occupies some space does it?(it is related to time in the context of space-time). Don't bother to reply if you find it nonsense:rofl: Kilometers, Jouls, kilograms, watts, all come from the same fabric but with different phases of existence(just a quotation, don't argue please).

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-09, 02:51 PM
It's not, so the rest can be ignored.

If it's not so then how did this ratio change if the total mass and space is said to be constant? If the ratio changes then either mass or space is created(destroyed) or one changes to the other.

Shaula
2012-Apr-09, 02:53 PM
Kinetic energy is a property associated with matter, or at least particles. It doesn't occupy space. And did you seriously just ask an Astronomy board to work out how many km there are in a light year as a 'homework exercise'?

Edit

If it's not so then how did this ratio change if the total mass and space is said to be constant?
It was said by you, apparently. I certainly don't say that.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-09, 03:20 PM
Kinetic energy is a property associated with matter, or at least particles. It doesn't occupy space. And did you seriously just ask an Astronomy board to work out how many km there are in a light year as a 'homework exercise'?
Of course not.



It was said by you, apparently. I certainly don't say that.
Apparently physics text books say : Energy is neither created nor destroyed. I think it means that mass/energy has always been a constant amount. But my question is if all mass is converted to energy does this energy occupy the same amount of space as the mass did? Perhaps my question about occupying space may be vague, but however i think matter occupies space. Back to my original question I must say that it seems to me that matter and space have the same fabric in two different phases, so occupying space by matter may be equivalent to occupying matter by space. You see mass(matter) and energy are convertible, at any moment mass is energy or energy is mass.

Shaula
2012-Apr-09, 04:40 PM
What do you understand 'different phases' to mean?

No one here is disputing that matter occupies space, what I am disputing is that kinetic energy occupies space. It is a property of something, it is not standalone. Even EM radiation and so on has an associated particle description (or field description in the more accurate model).

If you convert matter to energy, what form of energy is it? That is the important question you seem to skip over. You can convert it to photons, to other bosons, you can use those photons to raise the energy of other matter. Energy is a catch-all term, whereas you seem to be treating it as a material in its own right. For example you cannot convert a lump of coal into pure potential energy. The potential energy has to be associated with other objects (a gravity well and another mass). Similarly you cannot turn that lump of coal into pure kinetic energy - because KE is associated with another mass.

Plus energy conservation is a funny one. It is conserved in the standard model because it is associated with a fundamental symmetry (time IIRC) but it is not conserved except locally in GR. So physics books beyond about A-level rarely make such an unqualified statement as "Energy can neither be created or destroyed"

HenrikOlsen
2012-Apr-09, 05:43 PM
If it's not so then how did this ratio change if the total mass and space is said to be constant? If the ratio changes then either mass or space is created(destroyed) or one changes to the other.
"The total mass and space" is not said to be constant.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Apr-09, 06:02 PM
And did you seriously just ask an Astronomy board to work out how many km there are in a light year as a 'homework exercise'?
Of course not.
So what was this:

As an exercise: How many kilometers is a light YEAR?
Was it a failed attempt at sarcasm?
Failed because for it to work you need the reader to be ignorant of elementary physics.

If you're using all caps it's LIGHT YEAR, it's a phrase with a well defined specific meaning which is not a measure if time.

We are not converting between time and duration, but simply applying d=v*t by plugging in v=299792.458 kilometers per second and t=1 year=31556926 seconds.


Don't bother to reply if you find it nonsense:rofl: Kilometers, Jouls, kilograms, watts, all come from the same fabric but with different phases of existence(just a quotation, don't argue please).
This board is not here to be a place where you can promote your nonsense, if you write nonsense you'll be told so.

You're writing nonsense.

BTW the units for energy is Joules not Jouls. Could you at least try to spell them right even if you can't use them right? If it's a quotation, provide the source.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-09, 06:38 PM
"The total mass and space" is not said to be constant.
Your answer is short but with a lot of meaning or interpretation behind it with less explanation for me to understand your exact point. I mean if space is expanding lets say from the start of the big bang, it either means that there is a fixed space whose volume is meant to be getting larger or there is more and more space inflating by being created.
Let me ask it this way: If total mass and space.... = x1 at the beginning of the big bang, do you mean that it is all now=x2 something different from x1?
BTW, I should have written: As an example, to compare "kilometers" to "year time" in light term.
The editor underlined jouls but when i changed it to Jouls it didn't. It was a bit strange for me and i felt it to be wrong but i trusted the editor. :)

Swift
2012-Apr-09, 06:50 PM
So what was this:

Was it a failed attempt at sarcasm?
Failed because for it to work you need the reader to be ignorant of elementary physics.

...

This board is not here to be a place where you can promote your nonsense, if you write nonsense you'll be told so.

You're writing nonsense.

BTW the units for energy is Joules not Jouls. Could you at least try to spell them right even if you can't use them right? If it's a quotation, provide the source.
Henrik,

This is the second thread where I'm going to have to ask you to turn down the attitude. Your tone is too strident, bordering on rude and on playing moderator. You know the routine; if you have a problem with someone's post, you report it, you do not act upon it. If you keep it up, I'm going to have to give you an infraction.

Swift
2012-Apr-09, 06:55 PM
Your answer is short but with a lot of meaning or interpretation behind it with less explanation for me to understand your exact point. I mean if space is expanding lets say from the start of the big bang, it either means that there is a fixed space whose volume is meant to be getting larger or there is more and more space inflating by being created.
Let me ask it this way: If total mass and space.... = x1 at the beginning of the big bang, do you mean that it is all now=x2 something different from x1?
BTW, I should have written: As an example, to compare "kilometers" to "year time" in light term.
The editor underlined jouls but when i changed it to Jouls it didn't. It was a bit strange for me and i felt it to be wrong but i trusted the editor. :)
KhashayarShatti

Frankly, the moderation team doesn't know what to do with you. It is one thing to ask questions, to try to better understand physics. But your ideas are very non-mainstream (as is your English), and it is difficult to know if you are arguing with the mainstream answers you are given (and are thus promoting non-mainstream physics). Tensor answered your questions in Post # 3. If you continue to argue with the answers given to you, we will have to infract you.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-11, 03:24 PM
.... It is one thing to ask questions, to try to better understand physics. But your ideas are very non-mainstream (as is your English), and it is difficult to know if you are arguing with the mainstream answers you are given (and are thus promoting non-mainstream physics).
Please accept from me that I have no intention, by no means, whatsoever, to promote non-mainstream physics in science and technology forum. Perhaps raising engineering problems in physics causes such a feeling. For example Wikipedia refers to matter occupying space as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
"Mass is said by some to be the amount of matter in an object and volume is the amount of space occupied by an object". I'm trying to understand how much volume does a specified amount of mass occupy space? And to some extent I was going to understand the 4% mass contribution that mainstream specifies in the universe.Is this by volume. Honestly I'm trying to be scientific. However if they think so, I'm prepared for the thread to be closed and my apology to every scientist and the science board. I don't know what else I should say.

Shaula
2012-Apr-11, 05:59 PM
Mass doesn't occupy a set amount of space - it depends how it is ordered. Think of a kilo of gas and a kilo of lead. They have the same mass but very different volumes.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-13, 12:23 PM
Mass doesn't occupy a set amount of space - it depends how it is ordered. Think of a kilo of gas and a kilo of lead. They have the same mass but very different volumes.

The amount of volume of a kilo of gas or lead is a kind of dimensional volume, which is not the actual volume occupying space. There is a lot of space between gas molecules.

By the gravity formula, if two small particles of mass m are brought close to each other, gravity increases. If we assume that we could fuse them and bring their centre(center) of mass to the same point then we must get a bit larger object but infinite gravity.

Force of gravity = Gmm/r^2 as r approaches zero, we get infinite force or infinite energy is required to do that.

or If we assume m to be proportional to r^3 then in this case gravity becomes zero and if one single particle can exist then gravity may be said to be zero.
Can we say that we can never have a particle that fully occupies space? If there could exist such a particle, there would be either infinite energy or zero energy(converting to no mass). Of course I don't know if this formula is correct in quantum physics.

Shaula
2012-Apr-13, 12:41 PM
If we assume that we could fuse them and bring their centre(center) of mass to the same point then we must get a bit larger object but infinite gravity.
No. You only get that if the size of the particles tends to zero as well. I can take two bits of plasticine and squash them together to make a bigger one by equalising their centres of mass without them turning into a black hole. The infinities come when you take zero sized objects and give them mass.

The size of an atom is a dimensional volume too. Are you after the size of the most fundamental building blocks we know? Are you talking about confinement scales? All of the models we use approximate the fundamental particles as points because even if they have a volume it is far smaller than their effective volume

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-13, 01:21 PM
... Are you after the size of the most fundamental building blocks we know? ...
Not really. I'm looking for proof or disproof of conversion from mass to ,lets assume, a kind of dimensional massless space that may have to occur by lessening size and distance, a kind of dissimilar process that usually occurs by the conversion of mass to energy. I mean a kind of decrease of mass and increase of existence of massless particles called space. I'm not in fact developing non mainstream ideas, but using current scientific achievements and formulas to see what may have to(might) happen when conditions(properties) change.

Strange
2012-Apr-13, 01:50 PM
I mean a kind of decrease of mass and increase of existence of massless particles called space.

You can't convert mass to space. Space is not made of massless particles. It is not "made" of anything. It is not "stuff".

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-13, 02:11 PM
No. You only get that if the size of the particles tends to zero as well. I can take two bits of plasticine and squash them together to make a bigger one by equalising their centres of mass without them turning into a black hole.
In fact , by assuming small masses of m, I meant the smallest possible masses that fully occupy space before or after combination.

Shaula
2012-Apr-13, 02:47 PM
Mass and energy are both properties of something. Spacetime is not a property of particles, fields or anything else. As far as we know you cannot convert between spacetime and matter. Your statement "the smallest possible mass that fully occupies space" is pretty much meaningless. Massive and massless things can both occupy space.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Apr-14, 04:58 PM
Mass and energy are both properties of something. Spacetime is not a property of particles, fields or anything else. As far as we know you cannot convert between spacetime and matter. Your statement "the smallest possible mass that fully occupies space" is pretty much meaningless. Massive and massless things can both occupy space.

I've got one or two more engineering question,if you don't mind to answer. When we think of the bending of spacetime around massive objects, Is this also true for extremely high density objects? As an example:

mass of neutron= 1.67 x 10^-27 kg

volume of neutron= 10^-45 m3

Now density of neutron= mass/volume = 1.67 x 10^18 kg/m3

It sounds like one of the most massive objects.

Now that we have an interaction between mass and spacetime, which I honestly don't know if this is mainstream or not, but if it is, how far a high density neutron could affect curvature of spacetime?

Shaula
2012-Apr-14, 10:08 PM
When you get down to those scales you really need a quantum theory of gravity to get the right answers rigorously. As far as we know mass is what is important, not density (aside from black hole formation). Neutrons are not massive enough to affect space time by a measurable amount.

Relative
2012-Apr-15, 07:11 PM
Well, have you ever been thinking of the possibility that not „space could be converted to matter“ – but time. Let‘s think about some particle travelling at c in a straight line, like a photon. If this particle for some reason is forced to circulate around a given centre, its speed remains, but it probably causes a „big mess“ either to space or time around its center of rotation.

Well, I don‘t want to get this thread off-topic. It was just a remark...