Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: georgosn on 25/12/2015 01:17:14
-
I wonder if it has ever been questioned whether it's not mass that distorts (bends) time-space but the other way around. If space is seen as a field then a distortion in that field is capable of producing work which means it exerts energy. If the distortion is of a specific type, the energy related to the distortion will also have specific characteristics. How about considering that in fact a specific set of characteristics (a.k.a specific space field tensions) would be what we call mass.
thank you for your thoughts.
-
I wonder if it has ever been questioned whether it's not mass that distorts (bends) time-space but the other way around. If space is seen as a field then a distortion in that field is capable of producing work which means it exerts energy. If the distortion is of a specific type, the energy related to the distortion will also have specific characteristics. How about considering that in fact a specific set of characteristics (a.k.a specific space field tensions) would be what we call mass.
thank you for your thoughts.
Consider this: If I move an object from one position in space to another, does that object retain it's physical integrity? If it were a field in space causing the phenomenon of mass, moving that mass to another field matrix would change it's character. So I don't think your questions about this match up with physical observations.
-
Thank you Ethos_ for your thought.
I'm sorry if I'm being naive but isn't it true that every object that is subject to movement changes in fact changes due to the energy exchange that is taking place? is that the part of change you had in mind?
From your suggestion I wonder if I have caused you a misunderstanding. I do not consider the object being the field, I consider space to be the field and the object being the distortion in the field. How would moving the distortion in a new location in the field change the distortion (as long as the distortion does not pass through another distortion that interacts with it)? why would you consider its character changed if the entire set of characteristics stay the same? In the end, I may be misinformed but I thought everything is changing all the time, we simply do not notice it due to the size of change. Is that incorrect?
I consider a simple box outside in the interstellar space away from any galaxy. moving this box around would be moving the space distortion. I don't see why would that change the distortion to a degree noticeable by human senses. Of course if this box was to pass through a star, it would probably incinerate it but that would be because the star's distortion of space would alter the box's distortion in a way (or more).
I truly want to find out how my "postulation" fails, I'm not a physicist.
-
I know of just two categories of fields:
- a scalar field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field#Uses_in_physics), just having a value (also called a magnitude). Eg Potential Energy, Temperature or Pressure
- and a vector field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field#Uses_in_physics), having a magnitude and direction. Eg the Electric field, the Gravitational field, wind speed.
However, we see many kinds of matter around us:
- charged particles and uncharged particles
- particles with integer spin and non-integer spin
- particles that travel at the speed of light, and those that don't
I think that there are just too many kinds of matter to be described as just the value (and possibly the direction) of a single field.
See here for a list of the kinds of fields that physicists think are required to describe the different kinds of matter we see around us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field#Examples_in_quantum_theory_and_relativity
-
... I do not consider the object being the field, I consider space to be the field and the object being the distortion in the field.
It is your use of the term field which is causing the confusion. Read again what Ethos and Evan have written.
In physics a field is just a description of what is there. For example, place a magnet on a table and we can describe the magnetic field around it with iron filings, but to say that field caused the magnet would be illogical.
Another field would be the wind arrows on a weather map. They show, as vectors, the direction and strength of the wind, but to say they cause the wind would again be illogical they are just a measure of what is there.
It is however possible that something other than mass is causing the gravity field, but mass and that other something must be connected in some very basic way.
The real problem is that we are dealing with a very fundamental phenomenon, a building block, and so many of the definitions are interdependent or rely only on observation. For example, we describe an object's mass in terms of how easy or difficult it is to accelerate, how it attracted to other masses, and how it is influenced by gravity. This link between mass, acceleration and gravity indicates that there is a property of mass, or some connection to it, that is common to both gravity and inertia.
-
Or that gravity and inertia are asymmetric.
-
I think I need to qualify that last statement. If we apply a force to an object to accelerate it this will have to increase exponentially to achieve an instantaneous velocity near to c. This becomes infinite at c. It just gets harder. In the case of gravity it is simply a case of converting positive kinetic energy into negative kinetic energy on the whole part of an object that effectively accomplishes the same task. This would require there to be infinite gravitational energy to be present at an event horizon if there was a direct connection between inertia and gravity.
-
First I would like to thank all of you that have spent your time with my thought. It is truly humbling to know that there are people that are willing to entertain such questions.
Secont I think I may have to write a few more things to explain and further question my line of thought.
Let me start with the magnet example. As an electrician I was told the electromagnetic field extends in space even if there is no medium for it. So, even if there are no ferromagnetic particles, the field around the magnet exists and if it is disturbed by a ferromagnetic object, a force will appear to be applied to the object (attractive or repulsive) due to the existence of the field. Therefore the field must be present and propagated by something beyond the mass of the magnet. The only available explanation to me is that the empty space has some property(ies) that makes it conduct the electromagnetic field. In fact, since light is a form of electromagnetic energy and since it is propagated at the highest speed known to us, space would need to be in some way a 'conductor' of electromagnetism. This idea of conductivity I call "field". I may be ignorant but as I was told that light behaves both as matter and as wave and since I was also told that matter cannot travel at the speed of light, I take the liberty of assuming that light travels at c only as a wave. I do need to see the sea in order to imagine the wave. Is that wrong?
Now there seems to be yet another miscommunication. I never said that the field forms the matter. I said the distortion of the field establishes/concentrates/generates enough energy in one point in space for us to see it as mass. I happen to read and watch every popularised science article/video I can put my eyes on and I recently heard that in a way "Matter is Energy in high density". What type of matter we see is something I would leave for those that could prove a theory based on these thoughts but it would probably be connected to the type of the distortion of the field and other factors. In that I will add the curl of the distortion which is a vector and can maybe give more characteristics to the concentrated energy than I can think of.
One last thing for tonight, I have read about different forms of matter but in all those readings, I never once read about different forms of mass. I must admit I have developed an understanding that the two are not the same. Matter to me has mass but different types of matter do not have different types of mass since mass sounds like a scalar measure of one characteristic of Matter. I'm sorry if I have failed in my understanding and again I wish to thank you for even reading my thoughts.
-
This idea of conductivity I call "field". I may be ignorant but as I was told that light behaves both as matter and as wave and since I was also told that matter cannot travel at the speed of light,
The photon is a particle of matter and it does travel at c. It is able to do this because it has zero "proper mass". Proper mass, commonly referred to as rest mass, is not to be confused with "relativistic mass" which is the product of the photons momentum.
I take the liberty of assuming that light travels at c only as a wave. I do need to see the sea in order to imagine the wave. Is that wrong?
The sea is made of molecules and atoms and these do construct the wave. Now imagine a sea of photons also making up this wave of electromagnetic radiation. So yes, you are in error to say that this radiation only travels as a wave. Physicists picture light; "photons" as existing as both wave and particle, thus defined as wave/particle duality.
I happen to read and watch every popularised science article/video I can put my eyes on and I recently heard that in a way "Matter is Energy in high density".
I disagree with this interpretation. Matter does possess energy but should not be defined as energy. In the equation E=mc^2, the "m" in this equation stands for "Mass" not "Matter". While "mass and energy" are equivalent, "matter and energy" are not.
I'm sorry if I have failed in my understanding and again I wish to thank you for even reading my thoughts.
We all fail in our understanding eventually, it's why new theories are always being presented. None of us has all the answers my friend, and that includes myself most assuredly.