Matter and Systems.

[foodchain]

Would the composition of matter determine the physical reality of phenomena that can occur in a giving system. Basically could a ball of iron for instance by itself become a star, or would a jet aircraft on earth be able to function the same on say Mars of Venus as a more basic example. To try to get even more basic a car most likely could not function if attempted to be used in a large body of liquid such as an ocean, but on more detailed levels such as the use of refraction for example used to gauge where boundaries or different substances may be in regards to our planets structure, does the make up of a system in regards to its matter have a large or minor impact overall in the physical phenomena that occurs in it? I think it has a huge impact, but going on what I know I cant say for any real certainty past a gut feeling, such as the idea of angular momentum in say a body of sulphur vs. a body of dihydrogen monoxide(dangerous stuff!) for instance. Basically I would say yes without a doubt, but I cant come up with overall with some definitive reason as to why, I looked on the net but I don’t think I can word it right.

 

Thanks in advance.

[insane_alien]

if a process is designed to operate in a specific environment and is not closed then any environment outside the tolerances will cause the process to cease or become undesirable. i think thats what your asking anyway.

[swansont]

The fundamental physics doesn't change when you change the conditions. If you know enough about the physics, you can predict if the system will behave differently when you change the surroundings. Nonlinear and multiple-variable systems are harder than linear and single- (or at least fewer) varable systems.

 

People do, after all, make things like spacecraft and submarines, which operate in very different conditions and are quite complex.

 

Given what we know of nuclear physics, a ball of iron is one thing that could never become a star. It's the end of the process.