Matter and space

[DarkStar8]

Isn't matter simply highly condensed space? It seems a lot of people describe them as separate phenomena.

 

[timo]

That does indeed seem to be the case. Which of course begs for the question why matter and space should not be something different. I've seen people treating iron and glass as being something different, and on first glance they seem to have more in common than matter and space.

[elfmotat]

What is "condensed space?" I've never heard of anything remotely like this before.

[swansont]

Where does the angular momentum come from? Elementary matter is Fermionic, i.e., with half-integral spin. How do we get that? Why does it stay in that form?

[altergnostic]

Jesus christ... Space is empty, it is simply a background, by the definition of space, it has no inherent physical properties. Matter can only be condensed IN space, move THROUGH space and so on. In GR, spacetime is curved, but even Einstein said that he could't think of GR without some sort of aether concept, but that it was senseless to apply the concept of motion to this aether. What I'm trying to say is that anything that has physical properties exists in space, but is not space itself. Space has no mass, no inertia, no density and no speed. These things are characteristics if things existing in space. If there's any meaning in this, I'm sure it is not defined by relativity and maybe this thread should be moved to the quatum mechanics section.

[abisha]

no thing exist as *massless space* vacuum decay also, do to Higgs boson 125 GeV.

[ox1111]

Jesus christ... Space is empty, it is simply a background, by the definition of space, it has no inherent physical properties. Matter can only be condensed IN space, move THROUGH space and so on. In GR, spacetime is curved, but even Einstein said that he could't think of GR without some sort of aether concept, but that it was senseless to apply the concept of motion to this aether. What I'm trying to say is that anything that has physical properties exists in space, but is not space itself. Space has no mass, no inertia, no density and no speed. These things are characteristics if things existing in space. If there any meaning in this, I'm sure it is not defined by relativity and maybe this thread should be moved to the quatum mechanics section.

Empty space is something for it exist. Einstein a side. Many say ST was created in the big bang. Sciences currant understanding of empty space is ignorant for many reasons. To name a few. We know in empty space particle are constantly popping in and out of existance. 2 we believe 90% of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy and we have know idea what either of them are. 3 This is my own: existance is positive, empty space can be measured so it diamentionally exists. Energy finds balance in every form we know of so for space to be empty it must contain enough energy in some form to be balanced.

[DarkStar8]

If the universe on the large scale is accelerating towards an infinitely large state of emptiness, then isn't it conceivable that it would contain an infinite amount of infinitesimal small regions collapsing in the other directions that eventually produce particles.

 

Perhaps that space is the nearest we can get to nothing. Perhaps light is made of nothing? Perhaps all matter is of light? Perhaps everything is made by the division of nothing.

As a hypothesis I like to say...

Is it possible using Heisenburg uncertainty principle for cosmic rays to form by popping out of the contraction of space at small scales while the universe expands in the opposite direction?

With this hypothesis matter would be continually being created out of the void spontaniously and in synchronicity with the expansion of Spacetime.

Anyhow, as Newton said every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We know the universe is expanding.. It has to be contracting in the the opposite direction.

Remember the balloon analogy used to expand the universe.. Doesn't someone's lungs contract?

Edited December 24, 2012 by DarkStar8

[ox1111]

Particles pop into existence all the time in empty space. They pop in and most the time pop right back out of existence. Something to remember is all the matter in the universe is believed to be expanding because of the red shift. This however does not prove that space-time or space itself is expanding that is unproved theory. Even this expansion has flaws. One of the witches we can only prove one half of the universe is expanding. In theory, the singularity could've been struck on one side and only exploded in one direction.

[altergnostic]

Tell me how do you "compress space". Higgs, particles popping in and out of existence by probability fluctuations, and such, are material or energetic things in space, not space itself. You can compress things in space, not space itself, and even if you achieve such a thing, how does compressing coordinates assigned to empty space generate matter and energy? By what mechanism would you generate something from nothing? And further still, if space is being compressed, it must be compressed by some other thing acting upon it, or you'd be postulating space acting upon itself with no mechanism.

And why assign the generation of particles to the compression of space and not to the fact that energy causing this compression must be transformed into some other form of energy (matter?). But all this talk is fantasy, we can't even assign coordinates to empty space and apply force on this emptyness to cause compression of the coordinates. Again, by what mechanism? And by what mechanism the distance between coordinates alone (no matter how small) can create matter? This is crazy talk and I don't see how relativity is related. Spacetime, in GR (or anywhere else), can cause no forces, since it is a set of coordinates, a mathematical abstraction. If something is curved or compressed, it is something in space, it must be the "fabric" of spacetime, whatever it is made of, and we only measure it by tracking the motions of matter, not of spacetime itself, of course. How do you detect space? Or, back to what I said earlier, how do you define space? Again, Einstein himself said that spacetime is only physically conceivable as a sort of aether: we need something to curve and compress and act upon other things. We need a field. If there's no field, we are still dealing with uncaused action at a distance.

Not even a photon is made of "nothing". If it is a fundamental particle, it is made of "a photon", but it isn't made of "zero photons". It can't be made of "empty space". Nothing can only be "made" of nothing.

In numbers, empty space is equivalent to 0. 0 can't be composed of non-zero parts. Non-zero numbers can result in 0 if they cancel, but they cease to exist after they get cancelled, they are not hiding behind 0. And you can't compress 0 to get any non-zero value. Compressing 0 is equivalent to increasing it's magnitude over a smaller area. Zero squared over any number is still zero.

Logically and mathematically and most of all physically, empty space can't be compressed, let alone generate matter by itself. Not due to some hypothetical contraction, nor anything else. This logic can't even make up a coherent sentence, it's like saying that you can create apples by compressing love. It can be poetry, but not physics.

Edited December 26, 2012 by altergnostic

[ox1111]

I don't believe you can compress space. Particles do pop in and out of existence in empty space, this we know as fact; why that is not factually known. Empty space is only all 0, because we can't measure or our brains can't conceive of what is their. Without instruments there are many things we can’t detect, magnetic fields, neutrinos, even temperature above the it burnt me point, unless you consider man that is super hot or dude it is cold out good measurements.

You keep referring to all the things you can’t do in space, change your perspective. How can light, planets, you, or stars travel trough or exist in zero. You s

I don't believe you can compress space. Particles do pop in and out of existence in empty space, this we know as fact; why that is not factually known. Empty space is only all 0, because we can't measure or our brains can't conceive of what is their. Without instruments there are many things we can’t detect, magnetic fields, neutrinos, even temperature above the it burnt me point, unless you consider man that is super hot or dude it is cold out good measurements.

You keep referring to all the things you can’t do in space, change your perspective. How can light, planets, you, or stars travel trough or exist in zero. You spend most of the beginning of learning trying to understand the emptiness of space, now it is hard to think different. How can you travel through something that isn’t their. I am saying there is great, no enormous energy allowing this. Imagine living in a solid universe and ask yourself how much energy it would take to create space.

All energy is pure energy. IDK why they say light is, but if I had to call one thing pure energy I would call the emptiness of space pure energy.

Edited December 26, 2012 by ox1111

[DarkStar8]

Compressing space.. Well you need an accelerated frame of reference.It is taken as common fact that spacetime expands. If it can expand, hypothetically it can contract somewhere too.

 

I find nothing a fascinating subject. Many great philosophers pondered such a thing. As I said near nothing has a duality of infinite number of infinitesimal small points contained in infinite large expanse of emptiness. Nothing contains everything.

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle shows that if you slow Time down so that you can observe an exact location in space the momentum at that point has the potential to be infinite.zero location has infinite energy.

We can not think of zero size, so I suggest you think of the smallest thing you can. A point. now if we get a magnifying glass out to look at that point it now looks bigger, if we want to get this point towards zero size we need to shrink it faster than we can magnify it. We have to shrink this point at an ever faster and faster rate. Now what we have is a huge amount of momentum at a specific location in the direction towards smaller scales, towards nothing. Nothing therefore potentially has as much energy as the entire universe contained within it. There is no fundermental particle if space time is fractal, (except perhaps the photon whose wavelength (size)is dependent on frequency/energy). Controversially I suggest that there is a limit to the rate of collapse similar to speed of light in SR.

Is there any evidence yet that photons slow at high energies?

Edited December 26, 2012 by DarkStar8

[ox1111]

Kind of hard to follow you. Matter does collapse in the formation of, say a neutron star. Theoretical at C, though that isn’t proven, nor can it be at this point in time. Photon slows at high energies? They slow when going through dense clear matter like diamonds. The wave length has different energy. Speed in a vacuum is always C I believe?

[alpha2cen]

Isn't matter simply highly condensed space? It seems a lot of people describe them as separate phenomena.

Is this concept wrong?

How do you explain the antimatter existence?

Edited December 30, 2012 by alpha2cen

[ox1111]

What are asking?

[MigL]

I don't know whether you can compress space, but you can certainly expand it ( I believe it is happening as we speak ). This expansion is vastly accelerated by extreme negative pressure ( read Guth's 'Inflationary Universe' for a non technical explanation of inflation ). I'm not sure whether positive pressure, as a form of energy, would have the opposing effect.

Also I would argue with Altergnostic that GR has a 'background' on which everything acts and operates ( it would then have an absolute frame ).

But as for the rest of his assertions, I agree wholeheartedly. All this talk of large scale expansion/small scale compression and condensed space ( Huh ?? ) equivalence to matter are rubbish.

[altergnostic]

Empty space and energy are not the same thing. Empty space is the background of the energy burst in that picture (otherwise you wouldn't need to draw one in blue and the other in red).

Relativistic effects on space do not create energy out of nothing, since they are not absolute, but frame dependent, and you can't create a particle in one frame that never exists in another. Furthermore, if length contraction is the effect being used here to describe how matter is created from empty space, this is just wild speculation based on nothing.

In nature, nothing is created, everything is transformed.

[alpha2cen]

How to explaining the annihilation phenomena correctly?

Which one is more correct between the below two models?

Edited December 31, 2012 by alpha2cen