Matter made of space not energy?

[humility]

The standard interpretation of particle physics and relativity equations like E=MC2 is that matter and energy are forms of the same thing.Therefore you can change matter into energy in a nuclear reaction. But I believe that matter isn't a form of energy but a form of space.I believe that energy doesn't exist in the spacial dimension it meerly interacts with the spacial dimension. Energy is by its very nature atemporal and non spatial. the lorentz transformation equation says this. Taking the model of the space/time continuum when something travels at the speed of light i.e, electromagnetic radiation, space contracts to zero and time expands to infinity. Therefore energy is non spatial and atemporal. Not very good carachteristics for matter. energy isn't travelling through our spatial dimension it is interacting with space. I don't know what space is obviously and most scientific explanations have concentrated on the energy side of things or at least what we thought was energy. So if we think of non-local energy interacting differently with these different forms of space and thats why we observe different forms of energy. And when we have a sudden spacial rearrangment such as a nuclear rearrangement we have vast amounts of energy released.We aren't turning matter into energy.We are changing the spacial arrangement so energy interacts with it in a very different way. e.g what was so uranium has become a massive explosion.

[Thelonious]

The standard interpretation of particle physics and relativity equations like E=MC2 is that matter and energy are forms of the same thing.Therefore you can change matter into energy in a nuclear reaction.

 

Matter is not made into energy in a nuclear reaction. Rather, the energy in the strong force bonds between the subatomic particles is released.

 

theory

 

Sorry, but I do not quite understand how matter can be made of "space" when "space" is nothing.

[humility]

why does space have to be nothing? Why can't space have mass.In fact space has mass.It is that Energy does not have mass. This is reply to Thelonius. I Know my theory sounds strange and I might not have represented it in the best possible terms but you have to start somewhere . I have some better analogies of what I was trying to say but I didn't want my post to be to long. I wanted to see what sort of response I got first to see where I have to clarify my views. Which I will do in the near future if people show a interest in the topic.I'm glad of your response . :cup:

[pgrmdave]

It is an interesting idea, but is there any evidence, other than it doesn't seem to violate any science? Is this an example of where Ockham's Razor would be employed?

[Thelonious]

It is an interesting idea, but is there any evidence, other than it doesn't seem to violate any science? Is this an example of where Ockham's Razor would be employed?

 

Well, first he would have to build a mathematical model to test and see if the same results were the same as the current model. Then you could think of applying Occam's Razor, but still, you would need definitive proof either way as Occam's Razor would do nothing to validate the theory.

[TeleMad]

humility: The standard interpretation of particle physics and relativity equations like E=MC2 is that matter and energy are forms of the same thing.Therefore you can change matter into energy in a nuclear reaction.

 

Matter is not made into energy in a nuclear reaction. Rather, the energy in the strong force bonds between the subatomic particles is released.

 

Mass is converted into energy in a nuclear reaction.

[Thelonious]

Mass is converted into energy in a nuclear reaction.

 

No, no, no! The mass is conserved. Whether you are fusing or splitting the nuclei, the strong force bonds between the protons and neutrons is breaking and releasing the incredible amount of energy.

 

For an example of the mass being conserved in nuclear fusion, two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium, are combined to form helium isotope and a free neutron.

 

Deutrium (D) has one proton and one neutron with an atomic mass of about 2.014 amu. So, D (2.014) + D (2.014) → ³He (3.02) + n (1.008)

 

In nuclear fission, the massive nuclei that is being split forms two smaller nuclei, most commonly each is about half as massive as the original nuclei, plus a few free neutrons.

[maddog]

why does space have to be nothing? Why can't space have mass.

If you consider Vacumn Fluctuations (using Heisenberg Uncertaincy Principle near a

Temperature of Absolute 0) you can derive energy from nothing (borrow for a short

time). Energy is still conserved overall. This is a quick way to get something from

nothing. Then energy can be converted to mass. Thus you could construe that nothing

has mass. This was the Lambda the Einstein said was his greatest mistake. All models

now need to take into account of Lambda (Vacuum Energy Density of the universe)

whether it be Inflation by Guth or VSL by their group.

 

So you can get something for nothing... :) You just can't use it long. :D

 

Maddog

[humility]

If you look at my original post I agree with Thelonius I say that mass can't be converted to energy.But Thelonius is also wrong when he states that the mass is conversed in the orthodox interpretation of the equation.He says that it is the energy contained in the strong nuclear force that is released.This may be the mechanism of energy release in the standard interpretation but overall the equation reads that a very small amount of mass in the interacting nuclei is converted into mass. You stated yourself Thelonius that two hydrogen atoms fusing in a nuclear reaction have almost the same mass after the reaction( almost being the operative word). The overall standard idea being that mass and energy are equivical in the long run. And that some mass can be converted into energy in a nuclear reaction.

Lets step back from nuclear theory for a moment and look at relativity which might help make my point in a simple way.

If you look at the lorentz transformations equations they say the dimensions of space decrease as you approach the speed of light and time intervals increase. You can't travel at the speed of light because there is no dimension of space to travel through. That is why the speed of light is a velocity barrier.Its more the limit of spacial dimension and hence velocity than the speed of light.Light therefore sits exactly where space ceases to exist and time becomes infinite. Therefore light/energy doesn't exist in space.Therefor what we perceive as light is the interaction threshold of spacial dimensions and energy/time. Now lets go backwards. We've traveled up to the point where space diminishes to nothing. Lets go the otherway to the point where space is infinite and time intervals reduce down to zero.Slightly below this intersice of extremity, movement would be on a very large scale and extremely fast ( because of the relatively small amount of time in which things would have to occur.)

Could gravity be a phenomena of this end of the space/time spectrum.It operates at a very large distance and speed.Which seems to break the speed of light but doesn't when you consider gravity to be a spatial phenomena. Light on the other hand is a temporal phenomena of the space/time spectrum. What I was saying about mass is that is more towards the spactial end of the space/time spectrum than the temporal end. Energy is closer to the temporal end of the space/time spectrum than the spatial end . Therefore I was saying that mass isn't close to energy it is relativily closer to space in this spectrum.

[WebFeet]

But I believe that matter isn't a form of energy but a form of space.I believe that energy doesn't exist in the spacial dimension it meerly interacts with the spacial dimension. Energy is by its very nature atemporal and non spatial.

 

Energy has no Mass, and because of this it does not have spatial dimensions, but this does not exclude Energy from having spatial coordinates.

 

The combination of 2 or more of these spatial coordinates would result in a spatial dimension and the subsequent system would have Mass.

[paultrr]

There is a bit of a misunderstanding there on Lorentz. Its time and length only that contract as one accelerates. Height and width stay the same irrespective of the velocity involved. So in general, anything accelerated still has dimensional properties. Our spacetime since the advent of Relativity is considered 3+1 dimensional.

 

Also, it is correct that mass is conserved in all reactions known. In fission and fusion that applies.

 

The vacuum does have energy. Cashmir experiments have shown this many times over. However, that energy cancels to at least 120 powers across the board as experiments and observations also show us.

[alxian]

i always understood that matter was super compact energy (atoms being made up of very little actual 'stuff' its mostly the bonds as mention earlier that we get our energy from), at least in such a way that the bonds between atoms can be broken, this potential energy is so great that a reaction based on a football worth of reactant can turn into a city leveling mushroom cloud.

 

while i never proffessed a perfect understanding of nukes i never though about whats left over after (after part of that nuclear energy, from the atomic bonds, is used to propagate the explosion (shattering even more nuclei nearby)), i.e. sure the reactant will be used up (in controlled nuke reactors this efficiency is like 5%) but in a nuclear bomb built with enriched uranium and specifically design for maximum yeild.. what is that yeild? what is the efficiency of a nuke? a better wording would be if matter (at its most fundamental) isn't 100% compressed energy and the potential within an inefficient nuke is still great enough to cause a mushroom cloud a the resulting fallout (that which is left over after the nuke has stopped reacting (violently)) how much power is stored within the strong force of enriched uranium (any atom for that matter). can controlled nuclear reactions ever tap that potential? with recycling they say sure why not, but i mean in one shot ultimate power in a regenerative controlled nuclear melting process, where the nuclear explosion is slow and controlled but complete leaving very little waste when its complete.

 

now... as for the topic.. technically yes the atom is made up mostly of space (between the electrons and nucleus, and then again between that individual components of the core), the rest is minute amounts of stuff that makes up the nucleus. so at least looking at the atom from its furthest electron orbit inward, yes, its mostly space, more akin to a solar system than a few billiard balls forming a core and ping pong ball electrons spinning in close orbits. the power of the atom that we use is manipulating the loose outer electrons, while the power gained from shattering the core of large atoms is still being debated...

[Tormod]

The "solar system" model of the atom is long since outdated. Rather, the electrons form shells around the nucleus at distances dictated by the energy levels of the electrons. The electron cannot be observed in orbit but the electrical charge of an atom can be easily measured (unless it is an ion, it is most likely to be neutral).

 

The lower the orbit, the less energy the electrons have.

 

In a nuclear fission bomb, a minute amount of uranium (or plutonium) is needed. But to make it explode you need to create a reaction so that the uranium atoms decay and emit neutrons to make other uranium atoms decay etc. The decay of uranium creates vast amounts of energy - when uranium is split in half, both halves repel each other with a vengeance...

 

To get the explosion going, you need to compress the matter at the exact same time from all sides to that the uranium reaches a critical pressure level and the fission reaction starts.

 

A very good explanation of this is found in David Bodanis' book "E=mc2 - a biography of the world's most famous equation".

[BlameTheEx]

Energy has no Mass, and because of this it does not have spatial dimensions, but this does not exclude Energy from having spatial coordinates.

 

The combination of 2 or more of these spatial coordinates would result in a spatial dimension and the subsequent system would have Mass.

 

I am not sure you are right there. A photon is perhaps pure energy. It has no rest mass but it DOES have mass.

[WebFeet]

I am not sure you are right there. A photon is perhaps pure energy. It has no rest mass but it DOES have mass.

 

The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant quantity that does not depend on velocity

 

If a photon has zero invariant mass, then that is how we define its mass, as zero. If it has no mass, then the only way to locate it would be with a coordinate.

[paultrr]

Photons have no rest mass. But they do have energy in the form of kenetic energy. Using the old formula E=MC^2 they still due to that kenetic energy have an energy equal to a certain amount of mass. As that matter goes there is no such thing as a photon or anything else in this universe at absolute rest. The term rest actually is itself a relative term where usually one can use the earth as a rest state against which things are measured. Something traveling at C or slightly less has more energy than something stationary, in a sence of the word, here on earth. However, the earth and the solar system itself is in motion so even here nothing is really at rest.

[WebFeet]

Photons have no rest mass. But they do have energy in the form of kenetic energy. Using the old formula E=MC^2 they still due to that kenetic energy have an energy equal to a certain amount of mass. As that matter goes there is no such thing as a photon or anything else in this universe at absolute rest. The term rest actually is itself a relative term where usually one can use the earth as a rest state against which things are measured. Something traveling at C or slightly less has more energy than something stationary, in a sence of the word, here on earth. However, the earth and the solar system itself is in motion so even here nothing is really at rest.

 

How can a photon have kinetic energy ?

 

Objects that are not in motion possess potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when a force acts upon the object to put it in motion. So an object in motion possess kinetic energy.

 

What force has acted upon a photon to put it in motion ? A photon's natural state is in motion, in fact its ONLY state is in motion, at a fixed velocity.

 

If a photon's velocity cannot be effected in any way, then is it really in motion ?