What IS space?

[Qfwfq]

so the answer to your question is nothing.

Just as I thought. That's why I failed to see your point.

;)

 

A particle that can only be detected through reverse decay that can subsequently decay into something different ?

Do you blame me for leaving them out ? This thing is complicated enough.

As a matter of fact, I do blame you for leaving them out. You are supposing the photon to be the only massles particle. Sure?

 

Are you sure a neutrino can subsequently decay into something different? Why would that be a good excuse for leaving them out?

 

Still don't see your point.

 

Suppose one region of vacuum is more polarized than another. Would they have different c, or only different velocity of light?

[lindagarrette]

Depending how much energy you pump into a gauge boson, it tends to curve local space/time topologically. At some point it closes space in on itself and ceases to appear or influence our spacetime as it "curls' itself dimensionally shut.

 

That is an upper topological dimensional bound. In the case of the electro-magnetic force, I suspect that the photon ceases to have force effect if it exceeds its vacuum velocity. I also suspect that it has a minimum velocity at which it ceases to be observed-the velocity of a photon in flat space.

 

For convenience, I label these conditions "nothing" and "infinity".

 

Since the observed conditions at either end of the apparent velocity range appear to us identical(no photon observed), there could be equivalence in effect as far as we are concerned.

 

So that might explain the velocity constant c, with the apparent "mass effect"(actually potential energy) the photon, has as being tied directly to its frequency, as that is the only means that it can pack all that energy into its tiny little self as we observe it from our respective local space/times.

 

It should be obvious that there is no such thing as a frozen photon(A gauge boson at rest? Ridiculous!) under these conditions?

 

Photons have no mass, but they do have that topological dimensional limit. So the more potential energy you pump into the photon, the more kinetic energy it releases as soon as it makes the force transfer.

 

The fact that space/time is quantized means that there is a limit to how much density you can pack into a volume(i.e. that photon or any particle). You couldn't pack infinite energy into a point even if space/time was infinte in volume. At a certain radius space/time curls in on itself(Matter and energy behave topologically the same exact way when concentrated !E=mc^2 remember?

 

If you could achieve infinite concentration despite the lower and upper topological bounds then then all space/time collapses to a point at either condition.

 

unity(one point)=infinity(infinite concentration of all energy/mass)

Meaning what? I can't even begin to follow your train of thought. Your assumptions are misleading to say the least. A photon cannot exceed it's maximum speed ©, a point has no volume (or radius), space/time is a finite continuum...

[WebFeet]

As a matter of fact, I do blame you for leaving them out. You are supposing the photon to be the only massles particle.

Just trying to inject a little humour ;)

 

Are you sure a neutrino can subsequently decay into something different? Why would that be a good excuse for leaving them out?

I didn't say that the neutrino decayed, but what the neutrino reverse decayed into.

 

Suppose one region of vacuum is more polarized than another. Would they have different c, or only different velocity of light?

Here's the catch 22.

Every region of the vacuum can have its own value of c, yet they will all have the same value.

 

A photon cannot exceed it's maximum speed ©

True. However, whenever you measure the speed of light, you always measure it against itself.

 

Distance=Mass => Mass = Energy => Speed of Energy = Energy/Time

And since Time is directly related to Mass (GR), Speed of Energy = Energy / Energy

 

You will also end up with the same value.

[sergey500]

....i just realized something....i never knew that nuetrinos and photons can dacay (sp?) into other particles like quarks...now i am lost.

[WebFeet]

....i just realized something....i never knew that nuetrinos and photons can dacay (sp?) into other particles like quarks...now i am lost.

Quarks decay into photons and neutrinos, among other things, not the other way around.

[sergey500]

Oh, was this proven?

[Erasmus00]

Quarks decay into photons and neutrinos, among other things, not the other way around.

 

Baryon number must be conserved, as must lepton number. How then can such things decay the way you claim? Unless you count Baryon-anti baryon annhilation as decay...

-Will

[Qfwfq]

If anyone wants to get particle physics straight, there are some excellent books, such as "Quarks and Leptons" by Perkins.

 

Here's the catch 22.

Every region of the vacuum can have its own value of c, yet they will all have the same value.

Evasive answer...

 

The distinction I'm trying to point out is that between c and "velocity of light". In a piece of glass, at scales greater than the atoms, the velocity of light is less than c. The material slows propagation of EM waves but this isn't an alteration of space-time geometry, it can even depend on frequency/wavelength. It isn't equivalent to space-time curvature through a choice of atlas. If otoh the material did reduce c, things would be very different, e. g. there wouldn't be the effect of Cherenkov light.

 

True. However, whenever you measure the speed of light, you always measure it against itself.

 

Distance=Mass => Mass = Energy => Speed of Energy = Energy/Time

And since Time is directly related to Mass (GR), Speed of Energy = Energy / Energy

 

You will also end up with the same value.

Distance=Mass????? ;)

 

Time is directly related to Mass (GR)???? :doh:

[damocles]

Meaning what? I can't even begin to follow your train of thought. Your assumptions are misleading to say the least. A photon cannot exceed it's maximum speed ©, a point has no volume (or radius), space/time is a finite continuum...

 

Unclear?

 

Then try this.

 

The faster you go in the direction of blue, the more massive you appear to an observer that you whizz past. At the moment you equal the velocity of c in a vacuum, you also equal infinite mass. Net result? You become a hypermass as far as the observer who looks at you is concerned. You generate gravitation so powerful locally as far as he can see that it prevents the light you shine out(Did I forget to mention that you had a flashlight?) from reaching him. There might be Hawking evaporation going on as you zip along but as far as the rest of the Universe is concerned, you ceased to have any non-local effect aside from gravitation.

 

Now consider yourself a photon. You are massless (SO YOU GENERATE NO GRAVITATIONAL FORCE) but aside from that for the purposes of space/time you behave like any other particle. Consider that you only show up at two points? When you are seen sent with force and when you are seen arriving with force. Other than that you might as well not exist for all that an observer notices you.

 

You still flatten or curl local space/time on yourself if you don't abide by the constant velocity that the lower and upper topological bounds impose. That is why I don't believe that you can have any but a moving photon to observe, and that at a very narrow velocity range.

 

Incidentally, points may not have discrete quanta(intervals) in mathematics, but space/time does in REALITY. Spacetime is finite? Into what then is it inflating? Nothing, which as far as we are concerned can have two simultaneous values, zero and infinity.

 

Nothing has an existence all of its own at those extremes, but nowhere else along the continuum.

[sergey500]

Well thanks for all your help......now i will move to my next big question and hours of research of time travel? heh, it can happen.

[coldcreation]

Unclear?

 

Then try this.

 

Nothing has an existence all of its own at those extremes, but nowhere else along the continuum.

 

Not bad damocles, you have potential.

 

Here is my definition of space. Space is a four dimensional surface, manifold. Its limitations in spatial extent are nonexistant in both directions of time. There is no boundary.

 

cc

[Boerseun]

I'm going to open myself up to all kinds of criticism here. But here goes:

 

What if Space is, actually, in essence, nothing at all? Because the moment we assign attributes of any kind to it, it implies that space is something, and anything which is something needs to be hosted in another container, one level up, if you will. Assigning any kind of topography to it is pointless. Objects exist in space, because space is just the emptyness needed for something to float in.

 

This is obviously not compatible with space expanding, as such. Which might force a rethink of c. Which I'm not qualified to do, and all the above is probably hogwash. But think about it - maybe our misunderstanding of c have forced us to use space as a scapegoat and assign attributes to it that it does not have; serving only to cover up our weak grasp of the essence of light, and the speed at which it propagates.

 

...but it's probably hogwash, so don't break your head over it. I'm just suffering from diarrhoea of the keyboard.

[C1ay]

What if Space is, actually, in essence, nothing at all?

That has always been my view of space, that it is the void that contains everything else.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is my half a cent. I believe that space has mass, distance and time, with each of these three components having two light speed components in the other two aspects. For example, the finite mass component of space allows it to be bent by gravity. While its complementary light speed components also allowing it to conduct distance and time components at the speed of light. These two light speed components conduct the light speed of wavelength/frequency phenomena like EM energy without lose of energy. It also defines the equivilent of mass and energy.

 

The finite time component of space conducts distance and mass effect at the speed of light. The change of distance and mass occurs via the conduction of the speed of light of gravity. The finite time of space is an artifact of a finite universe and its place in its evolutionary cycle. It defines both long and short time.

 

The finite distance component conducts time and mass effect at the speed of light. Time and mass affect is heat and nuclear force (mass changing over time). The finite distance effect of space is the finite size of the universe both large and small and is connected to the changing size of the universe both large and small.

 

These are intermeshed and evolve with the universe. Evolving space allows the evolving universe to conduct differently over time, thereby helping to define inertial expression of force and energy at that point in time. This is connected to relativity and average space referecne.

[coldcreation]

To say that space is nothing is to say that matter is something. It means nothing.

 

If space where nothing, it wound not have very specific quatities, or properties. Polarization of the vacuum would be impossible. Curvature, gravity would be meaningless. After all, what would be curved? If the universe is expanding, as 99% of you think, what is expanding?

 

If space where nothing how could one ascribe a coordinate system to it.

 

If space is the absence of matter, energy and field, then the vacuum is something.

 

See...

 

Barron, R.F. 1985, Cryogenic Systems, Second Edition

Coudec, P. 1952, The Expansion of the Universe

Eddington, A., 1921, Space Time and Gravitation

Eddington, A., 1958, The Expanding Universe

Einstein, A. 1916, 1961,Relativity, The Special and the General Theory

Einstein, A., Infeld, L. 1938, 1961, The Evolution of Physics, The Growth of Ideas from

Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta

Ellis, G.F.R. 1975, Cosmology and Verifiability 245-263

Ellis, G.F.R., 1977, Is the Universe Expanding?, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 9,

No. 2 (1978), pp. 87-94

Gómez-Flechoso, M. A., and Domíniguez-Tenreiro, R. 2001, On the Stability of Quasi-

Equilibrium Self-gravitating

Gunzig, E., Diner, S., 1997-98, Le Vide, Univers du Tout et du Rien

Havas, P., 1993, The General-Relativistic Two-Body Problem and the Einstein-Silberstein

Controversy, from The Attraction of Gravitation, New Studies in the History of General

Relativity (Einstein Studies Vol. 5) pp. 90, 91, 117

Hawking, S.W., 1989, The New Physics, The Edge of Spacetime, 61-69

Manzhelii, V.G., Freiman, Y.A. 1997, Physics of Cryocrystals

Monastyrsky, M. 1979, 1987, Riemann, Topology and Physics 18-31

Pobell, F. 1992, 1996, Matter and Methods at Low Temperatures 8-13

Prigogine, I., 1996, The End of Certainty, Time Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature

Roth, A. 1990, Vacuum Technology (introduction)

Saffman, P.G. 1992, Vortex Dynamics

Schneider, P., Ehlers, J. Falco, E.E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses

Sedov L.I. 1983 Macroscopic Theories of Matter and Fields: A Thermodynamic Approach

Smith, R. 1982, The Expanding Universe

Thouless, D.J. 1989, Condensed mater physics in less than three dimensions 209-235

Thouless, D.J. 1998, Topological Quantum Numbers in Nonrelativistic Physics

 

...to name a few

 

Coldcreation.

PS. If space were nothing we wouldn't be here...

[Qfwfq]

I fail to see the point of arguing about whether space is "something" or "nothing".

 

Space certainly is something: it is space.

[coldcreation]

I fail to see the point of arguing about whether space is "something" or "nothing".

 

Space certainly is something: it is space.

 

Space is space? Why didn't anyone think of that before?

 

How about this one. Water is water.