The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does space surround matter or is there space also where the matter is?  (Read 3195 times)

Offline acecharly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
any thoughts....

Cheers Ace


 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
An interesting question.   From a quantum mechanical point of view space and matter are essentially the same thing it is just that what we call space on average does not contain any matter at the moment (but it might) and what we call matter has on average a particle of matter in it and not space.  however the fundamental paritcles of matter  that is leptons and quarks appear to extremely small.  Clearly to define your question you need to state a volume of space that you which to specify whether it has a particle of matter in it and the smaller you specify the space the less probable that is.

Even inside the nucleus of an atom if you specify a very spall amount of space you can find the probability that there is a particle of matter in that space is very low.

 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Galaxies fill a tiny fraction of the universe.
Solar systems fill a tiny fraction of galaxies.
Stars and planets fill a tiny fraction of solar systems.
Planets are full of atoms, but electrons and nucleons fill a tiny fraction of atoms.
Protons and neutrons fill only a tiny fraction of a nucleus.
We can't see cleary into protons and neutrons, but it seems likely that quarks fill only a tiny fraction of a proton or neutron.
We don't know if a quark is the smallest unit of matter. Conceivably, there might be no smallest particle. Perhaps every particle consists mostly of empty space with only a tiny fraction of smaller particles, all the way down to infinitely small. But we're into the unknown, and perhaps unknowable. I have my own ideas, but they belong in new thories.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
My bet would be that matter is just space taking up a particular form, and when matter moves through space it's just space doing a Mexican Wave. Again though, that's one for new theories (if it's new).
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Perhaps one can think of it as space providing a framework in which all matter and energy exists in.

What we think of "outer space" actually contains a significant number of particles.
 

Offline loose_nukes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Space/time and what we refer to as matter are all interconnected. We talk about the fabric of space but no one is exactly sure what this concept truly means. I suspect that matter is only a geometric form created by energy suspended within this thing we call space/time. In other words:

Matter is localized orbital energy flux; Resulting in a change in the topography of the local fabric. A change that can be represented in many different forms and shapes. Possibly, an infinite number of such characters we call sub-atomic particles?

This is precisely why: E=mc^2
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Yeah David :)

Sort of what I'm suspecting too, and with the 'arrow' as the conductor.
 

Offline Robro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
I would bet that there is no "real" matter, only energy vortexes that act as a solid would be thought to act. As nothing has ever been proven to exist other than electromagnetic phenomenon, the concept of "Space/time", is in my opinion, a flawed notion that only explains how billiard balls will roll across a table with dips and troughs, basically an experiment in geometry. How, 'in factum', are space and time linked? If electromagnetism is the only real thing to have been proven to exist so far, would it not go to reason that the observed phenomenon of the motion of massive bodies is a byproduct of electromagnetic interactions within itself, thus creating the "arrow" of time? Space and time need not be linked in any way for reality to occur.
« Last Edit: 06/07/2012 02:08:44 by Robro »
 

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
I think the phenomenon of vacuum energy is intimately connected with all this. That is based upon the notion that for quantized fields such as electromagnetism, zero is not an allowable value of the field. Therefore every possible velocity (or energy in the case of photons) and direction and orientation of particle virtually exists. Each such "track" constitutes a world-line in space-time, strongly suggesting that space-time itself is a "fabric" woven of these tracks. But higher energy states of the tracks are also possible. When, for example, a mode of electromagnetic vibration is kicked up from one possible eneregy state to the next, we say it has gained a photon. So photons that are actually detectable correspond to tracks in a higher energy state than the bottom one. Crudely simplified, this says that wherever we have tracks in the lowest possible energy state, we have empty space-time. Wherever we have tracks in a higher energy state, we have what we call matter or radiation. This view also accords with the notion that concentrations of matter cause gravity. If, perchance , tracks that are energized above the ground state do not quite fit into the universe exactly like those which are in the ground state, then, like dissimilar threads in a carpet, they could cause warpage in space-time, which is the Einsteinian interpretation of gravity. This notion may also be consistent with those theories stating that gravitation should be quantized, inasmuch as in this view it derives out of a picture that in inherently quantized.  Also, understanding space-time and matter and energy as a fabric of threads that are capable of varying quantum states is consistant with the Einsteinian view that there is no absolute distinction between space and time -- it depends on your frame of reference. As for the "arrow" of time: I believe it has been pretty well settled that the arrow of time has noting per se to do with the exact structure of space, time, matter, and energy; but rather has to do with the way they are organized statistically -- that is, with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So it really is not an issue here. These thoughts are, of course, highly general and do not take into consideration more advanced issues such as string theories, which undoubtedly require that the ideas be refined significantly.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The thing is.

If one want to express matter as some geometry, warped into/upon itself somehow, what makes/allows it to keep its coherence in motion? Motion consists of three things, something that moves, a arrow of time in where it exist, and a (or more) dimension in where it can be seen to do so. A dimension is also called a 'degree of freedom', the more dimensions you add, the more degrees of freedom for (whatever) object to move in.

But what makes the whole thing possible, to me that is, is the existence of an arrow. Without a 'linear' arrow of time, what would a movement be? A Jojo, or maybe something that exist 'everywhere' simultaneously? And as far as I know we live under a real arrow. It exist, but why and how it exist might be a answer to the rest.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Robro, you've been around here long enough (and been warned enough times) to know that pushing your own theories on electromagnetism isn't allowed outside of the New Theories board.  Please respect the forum rules.  Future discussions of your own theories in inappropriate areas of the forum will be deleted.

Thank you,
JP (moderator)
« Last Edit: 06/07/2012 15:55:20 by JP »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums