basics

[dimreepr]

I believe the universe fundamentaly is made of 2 things (for want of a better word) ENERGY and SPACETIME.

I think the start of our universe was a black hole (being made of spacetime) that, having reached a crittical mass, would reach planks max temperature

at the core thus melting spacetime creating an event that creates our universe. In this event energy condenses spacetime into matter (imagine your fist is energy and rubber foam is spacetime, the fist grabs the foam thus creating a dimple in spacetime E=MC2)

 

my Question, please tell me why this statement is wrong

[granpa]

the universe is fundamentally made of 'events'.

 

space and time are just aspects of how events in our universe interact.

 

the interaction of 2 events is itself an event

Edited November 30, 2011 by granpa

[swansont]

Neither spacetime nor energy are substances.

[DrRocket]

I believe the universe fundamentaly is made of 2 things (for want of a better word) ENERGY and SPACETIME.

 

How about earth, air, fire and water ?

[Anilkumar]

Neither spacetime nor energy are substances.

 

Energy - Not a substance?

 

Wikipedia says -

 

'In physics, energy is an indirectly observed quantity'

 

'In the context of chemistry, energy is an attribute of a substance as a consequence of its atomic, molecular or aggregate structure'.

 

'In classical mechanics, energy is a conceptually and mathematically useful property, as it is a conserved quantity'.

 

'In Relativity, the amount of energy is directly proportional to the mass of body'

 

And lastly;

 

'Energy density is a term used for the amount of useful energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume'

 

And there is also a definition for Substance/Matter as follows;

 

'Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume'.

 

So from all the above we can infer that Energy has mass & and volume. So it has to be a Substance, I suppose.

 

If not, what is it?

 

I have read somewhere that it is a property.

 

Please explain.

Edit: Italics.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2011 by Anilkumar

[DrRocket]

So from all the above we can infer that Energy has mass & and volume. So it has to be a Substance, I suppose.

 

 

So then, please supply me one cubic meter of Joules.

[Anilkumar]

So then, please supply me one cubic meter of Joules.

 

Thank you DrRocket,

 

for connecting.

 

Can we produce Energy without Matter?

 

The inability of man to do somethings, sure, does prove certain things. But is not an adequate explanation in itself.

[dimreepr]

Thank you DrRocket,

 

for connecting.

 

Can we produce Energy without Matter?

 

The inability of man to do somethings, sure, does prove certain things. But is not an adequate explanation in itself.

 

E=MC2 says energy and matter are the same

 

the universe is fundamentally made of 'events'.

 

space and time are just aspects of how events in our universe interact.

 

the interaction of 2 events is itself an event

 

You are quite right in saying that everything is a process, this however doesn't refute the existance of matter.

Edited December 2, 2011 by dimreepr

[swansont]

Energy - Not a substance?

 

I have taken the liberty of emphasizing different words from part of what you quoted

 

 

Wikipedia says -

 

 

'In the context of chemistry, energy is an attribute of a substance as a consequence of its atomic, molecular or aggregate structure'.

 

'In classical mechanics, energy is a conceptually and mathematically useful property, as it is a conserved quantity'.

 

 

Energy - Not a substance?

I have read somewhere that it is a property.

 

Bingo. Useful, as noted above, because it is conserved within a reference frame.

 

E=MC2 says energy and matter are the same

 

The m in E=mc^2 refers to mass

[Anilkumar]

I have taken the liberty of emphasizing different words from part of what you quoted

 

Wikipedia says -

 

'In the context of chemistry, energy is an attribute of a substance as a consequence of its atomic, molecular or aggregate structure'.

 

'In classical mechanics, energy is a conceptually and mathematically useful property, as it is a conserved quantity'.

 

Bingo. Useful, as noted above, because it is conserved within a reference frame.

 

The m in E=mc^2 refers to mass

 

 

Though many in number, these different credentials, fail to give an indepth meaning of the Omnipotent & Omnipresent entity.

 

What are the intricacies involved in & the rationale in support of, the affirmation that, "It is useful because it is a conserved quantity "?

 

If it is the property of Matter or Mass, what makes it, to be recognized as a property of Matter/Mass.

 

There are contradictions also, like;

 

"Matter is annihilated & converted into energy"- which shows that both are two different manifestations of the same thing.

 

AND

 

"Energy is held inside Matter as Bonds between particles and molecules. If these Bonds are broken, energy is released" - which gives the impression that they are two different things.

 

E=MC2 says energy and matter are the same . . .

 

It also shows Energy is a produce of mass.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Anilkumar

[swansont]

Though many in number, these different credentials, fail to give an indepth meaning of the Omnipotent & Omnipresent entity.

 

What are the intricacies involved in & the rationale in support of, the affirmation that, "It is useful because it is a conserved quantity "?

 

If it is the property of Matter or Mass, what makes it, to be recognized as a property of Matter/Mass.

 

Continuous conservation laws stem from symmetries. Energy being conserved is tied to time-translation symmetry, i.e. the laws of physics are constant in time.

 

There are contradictions also, like;

 

"Matter is annihilated & converted into energy"- which shows that both are two different manifestations of the same thing.

 

AND

 

"Energy is held inside Matter as Bonds between particles and molecules. If these Bonds are broken, energy is released" - which gives the impression that they are two different things.

 

As I pointed out, the m in E=mc^2 represents mass, so one says that mass is converted to some other form(s) of energy.

 

The second statement is not only atrocious, it is quite wrong. Energy is released in forming bonds.

[dimreepr]

Continuous conservation laws stem from symmetries. Energy being conserved is tied to time-translation symmetry, i.e. the laws of physics are constant in time.

 

 

 

As I pointed out, the m in E=mc^2 represents mass, so one says that mass is converted to some other form(s) of energy.

 

The second statement is not only atrocious, it is quite wrong. Energy is released in forming bonds.

 

I am aware the m = mass, but in my theory energy/spacetime interaction is matter, the equation describes the amount of energy needed.

Edited December 2, 2011 by dimreepr

[swansont]

I am aware the m = mass, but in my theory energy/spacetime interaction is matter, the equation describes the amount of energy needed.

 

Ah, I see. This is the physics section, so here we discuss mainstream physics, as we are in saying what might be wrong with your statement. If you have your own theory of how things work and want to defend it, you need to post that in Speculations, as per the rules. I can move this thread if that is what you intend.

[csmyth3025]

...I think the start of our universe was a black hole (being made of spacetime) that, having reached a critical mass, would reach planks max temperature

at the core thus melting spacetime creating an event that creates our universe...

 

my Question, please tell me why this statement is wrong

(Bold lettering added by me)

 

As Swansont points out, you're delving into territory that is not part of mainstream science. This is quite clear by the phrase I put in bold print.

 

At temperatures greater than or equal to T_P{Planck temperature}, current physical theory breaks down because we lack a theory of quantum gravity

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....re#Significance )

 

To properly discuss interactions that take place at or above T_p you'll need to formulate a new theory of the physical interactions that occur in this extreme temperature domain. Until such a theory can be peer reviewed and becomes widely accepted in the scientific community at large it will be considered a speculation.

 

As I'm sure you're already aware, a phrase like "melting space-time" has no scientific meaning. You're going to have to be more rigorous in defining your terms. Some math describing the interaction of matter, energy and the distortion of space-time in this high temperature regime would be helpful.

 

Chris

[Anilkumar]

Continuous conservation laws stem from symmetries. Energy being conserved is tied to time-translation symmetry, i.e. the laws of physics are constant in time.

 

I feel the Universe & its contents behave not according to Laws of Physics. But they behave according to their inherent properties.

 

The Laws of Physics are formulated according to the observations of the behavior.

 

When our ability to observe/interpret, enhances/changes; the the Laws of Physics are prone to change.

 

But the properties of the Universe & its contents remain the same.

 

The second statement is not only atrocious, it is quite wrong. Energy is released in forming bonds.

 

I regret. That was a mistake. I should have typed 'formed' instead of 'broken'.

[swansont]

I feel the Universe & its contents behave not according to Laws of Physics. But they behave according to their inherent properties.

 

The Laws of Physics are formulated according to the observations of the behavior.

 

When our ability to observe/interpret, enhances/changes; the the Laws of Physics are prone to change.

 

But the properties of the Universe & its contents remain the same.

 

I'm not sure how this would happen. Past results cannot be causally changed by future observations. That limits what changes you can get in a law. You can find that in some set of cases it doesn't apply or needs to be modified.

 

From a more semantic point, if we discover that some law varied, then it wasn't actually a law.

[dimreepr]

Ah, I see. This is the physics section, so here we discuss mainstream physics, as we are in saying what might be wrong with your statement. If you have your own theory of how things work and want to defend it, you need to post that in Speculations, as per the rules. I can move this thread if that is what you intend.

 

Thats fair enough, if you can move the thread thanks. I'm just a noob looking for some help fleshing out or destroying this theory thats been encroaching on my ponderings for so long.

 

(Bold lettering added by me)

 

As Swansont points out, you're delving into territory that is not part of mainstream science. This is quite clear by the phrase I put in bold print.

 

 

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....re#Significance )

 

To properly discuss interactions that take place at or above T_p you'll need to formulate a new theory of the physical interactions that occur in this extreme temperature domain. Until such a theory can be peer reviewed and becomes widely accepted in the scientific community at large it will be considered a speculation.

 

As I'm sure you're already aware, a phrase like "melting space-time" has no scientific meaning. You're going to have to be more rigorous in defining your terms. Some math describing the interaction of matter, energy and the distortion of space-time in this high temperature regime would be helpful.

 

Chris

 

 

Thanks for your input Chris your absolutely right, what I really need is help with the math, but that part of the theory is more speculation. The main part is the energy/spacetime interaction.

Edited December 3, 2011 by dimreepr

[Anilkumar]

I'm not sure how this would happen. Past results cannot be causally changed by future observations. That limits what changes you can get in a law. You can find that in some set of cases it doesn't apply or needs to be modified.

 

From a more semantic point, if we discover that some law varied, then it wasn't actually a law.

 

Before 1905,

 

the Kinetic Energy was given by the Formula;

 

E=mv²/2.

 

After 1905,

 

it had to be altered to;

 

E=mc²g-mc².

[swansont]

Before 1905,

 

the Kinetic Energy was given by the Formula;

 

E=mv²/2.

 

After 1905,

 

it had to be altered to;

 

E=mc²g-mc².

 

If you do a series expansion of the relativistic KE equation, the first term is mv^2/2. The relationship at low energies was unchanged, to a fairly high degree of precision.

[Anilkumar]

If you do a series expansion of the relativistic KE equation, the first term is mv^2/2. The relationship at low energies was unchanged, to a fairly high degree of precision.

 

The new version came in because,

 

the older version had shortcomings.

 

I just meant to say that, our perceptions change as new observations come in.

 

I would like to keep away from any contention.