space v's anti-space

[derek w]

If I take a singularity and in one second extend it to make a line length ©,then extend that line to create a square (c x c),then extend that square to make a cube (c x c x c).Can i then say that this space contains (c x c x c) metres of energy/sec.With the singularity at the centre.Each and every point co-ordinate has a potential negative tendency to return to

singularity or a potential positive tendency to expand,or remain neutral.Giving rise to positive energy,neutral energy,negative energy.E = MC2.So I can have areas that have a greater mass of positive than negative,and areas with a greater mass of negative than positive,or neutral areas.

Is my logic flawed?

 

[mathematic]

Your logic has nothing to do with physics.

[derek w]

Is it not a fact that even if we could create a perfect vacuum,there would still be quantum fluctuations,infinitely small amounts of matter and anti-matter popping in and out of existence.Big bang theory seems to suggest that something is created from nothing.So can I postulate that space has a latent energy but needs a catalyse?

[questionposter]

Is it not a fact that even if we could create a perfect vacuum,there would still be quantum fluctuations,infinitely small amounts of matter and anti-matter popping in and out of existence.Big bang theory seems to suggest that something is created from nothing.So can I postulate that space has a latent energy but needs a catalyse?

 

Wait, INFINITELY small? Matter and energy are quantized. Also, those particles are undetectable and even at that stage they are only semi-existent, we only see their indirect effects in very very specific experiments. They are like imaginary numbers.

[derek w]

yes I agree,but i cant help wondering if a photon is just a massless point of high density quantum fluctuations.Or am I out of bounds with that idea.If I could condense the space back towards a singularity.

Edited November 7, 2011 by derek w

[IM Egdall]

yes I agree,but i cant help wondering if a photon is just a massless point of high density quantum fluctuations.Or am I out of bounds with that idea.If I could condense the space back towards a singularity.

 

 

Why just photons? Gluons, the strong force carrier are also massless and travel at the speed of light (as supposedly do the yet to be found gravitons, the gravitational force carrier.)

 

And the W and Z bosons, the weak force carriers, have mass. But I believe electroweak theory (the unification of electromagnetism and weak forces) says that at extremely high temperatures, these weak bosons are also massless and travel at the speed of light.

 

All I am saying is that photons are not the only particles which are massless.

Edited November 8, 2011 by IM Egdall

[derek w]

yes,your right,but is that not a question of how much space is condensed back to a singularity,producing a greater density of quantum fluctuations,producing particle pairs(negative & positive).

[DrRocket]

Your logic has nothing to do with physics.

 

nor mathematics