Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Are Space, Energy & Matter Equivalent ?
Print Are Space, Energy & Matter Equivalent ? | |
|
TriXstaH
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 12, 2007 Total Topics: 11 Total Posts: 99 |
 #1
Subject: Are Space, Energy & Matter Equivalent ? I've been thinking about this for quite while and although it seems to make sense, I'm not sure how to formulate it correctly. When I think about the laws of physics and how everything seems to be interconvertible, like energy and matter, I wonder what role space plays in all this. Is it just an arena for matter and energy, or is it just as involved in all these processes ? How could we even know ? Space is immeasurable and inert to our senses, yet if we think about it , is it really ? Couldn't space have it's own mechanics like matter and energy ? Are space, energy and matter actually the same thing ? For instance take gravity. Gravity is commonly thought of as a curvature of the fabric of spacetime, however, I think that this analogy is too simplistic. Personally, I like to use fog (and it's density) to picture the field of gravity. So consider for a second, the earth and its gravity field and picture it as a fog surrounding the earth. If we then consider that the density of that fog represents the strength of the field, we instantly have good mental picture of how such a field "looks". But what is that fog ? Well as stated before, it is the curvature of spacetime. Or to put it in other words, closer to the earth the "spacial grid" is compressed, so in essence space is more concentrated there than further away. The point of all this is that space, like energy and matter, is a something (an aether if you will) , and that it can concentrate. Now think of virtual particles. In the vacuum of space, suddenly particle pairs spring into existence for a brief moment and then suddenly dissappear again into nothing. Isn't that strange ? Where did they come from, and where did they go ? If I consider that space can concentrate, as due to gravity, could it also precipitate into something and then evaporate again? (Like water vapor , being compressed to such a degree that water droplets can form.) Consider an electron and a proton, and for the sake of argument, assume that the space they inhabit is their own space. If these two particles meet, they interact and release energy. But where did this energy come from ? Could it be that the bonding of these particles influences the space they inhabit ? So that because these particles are in close proximity, their personal spaces are overlapping. Perhaps this excess space is converted to a photon ? Also, the wavefunction of a particle tells us only the chance of finding a particle in a certain volume of space. Couldn't it just be that, that space has the potential to act as a particle ? (this in essence means that there is no definite "ever existing" particle ,but that the examined space contains a disturbance which let's it act as if there were a particle). Taking it a bit further , if we consider the various particles as different phases of space , like the different fases of phosphorus, they logically can only arise in certain circumstances. And, like the phases of phosphorous, some particles are stable whereas others, detected only in high energy particle collisions, are unstable. I'm still in a haze about all this , but feel free to let me know what you think. Edited by TriXstaH on Sep 8, 2007 - 12:55 PM |
|
wuliheron
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 02, 2003 Location: Chesapeake, VA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 5098 |
#2
Galleleo discovered what is called the "weak equivalency principle" when he dropped two differently weighted balls off the leaning tower of Piza and they hit the ground at the same time. The reason they hit the ground at the same time is because the greater gravitational pull of the more massive ball was slowed down by its equally increased inertia. Later Einstein expanded upon this principle when he wrote E=MC^2, where mass equals energy, space equals time, acceleration equals gravity. This is known as the "strong equivalency principle". What you are talking about is yet another expansion of the equivalency principle, which is relativistic physics. At the same time there are people attempting to simplify the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and both are expected to be accomplished when Einstein's relativity is reconciled with quantum mechanics. Like all of modern physics, this would be a holistic theory, which means you could imagine it from any number of points of view. For example, you could describe everything in terms of energy or spacetime or whatever. When in trouble, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and Shout! |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.