Can we change space into matter?

You are assuming mass was created? Why do you assume that instead of assuming, say, mass is being consumed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This still avoids a definition of space or "empty" space, with a claim that there is no space devoid of some identifiable particulate form. It does not separate space from "matter" or its constituent parts.

You can still think of space as the box that holds that which prevents it from being empty, without discussing whether it has any "substance" itself.

General relativity requires that space be considered as having some intrinsic substance of its own, which does not have any particle like structure or observable independent motion. That substance being the basis of its interaction with mass that results in the curvature of spacetime and thus gravitation.

Quantum mechanics proposes a zero point energy or vacuum energy, which in and of itself has no "real" particle form and yet may through an interaction with matter or charged subatomic particles, generate, both virtual and under the right conditions even "real" photons. The zero point or vacuum energy state representing nothing more than a potential, for an EM interaction, leading to "real" photons.

It is possible to imagine space where there is no matter, subatomic particle or photon. It may even be possible, to imagine that in the abscence of some EM interaction with "matter" or the presence of photons, the zero point or vacuum energy may not exist. It is not possible to think of any space that has no intrinsic substance of its own, as even though we can imagine a space where there exists no EM field, we cannot imagine any space where there is no gravity.

How then is empty space defined? When we can imagine a space involving a hard vacuum, that excludes even subatomic particles and at the same time mechanisms that prevent the presence of photons, neither of which precludes external gravitational influences and thus a curvature of the involved space.

Does the zero point or vacuum energy of QM itself emerge as an interaction of matter and photons with an otherwise undefined intrinsic substance of space itself? And what are we using as a basis for a definition of "empty"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I said much earlier, space is volume, and volume can be measured without talking about the mass contained in the volume. 1 cubic meter of volume can contain oxygen at 10 psi, or it can contain oxygen at 5,000 psi. You can talk about space (volume) without mentioning the mass that volume contains. There is volume and there is mass, two entirely different concepts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because I (for some strange reason) believe every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For something to be created something else must be destroyed. For something to be destroyed another must be created. When mass is destroyed the resulting energy travels until it is all absorbed by an existing mass. This is how hawking radiation keeps the galaxy together. When "anything" falls in some mass is destroyed and the resulting energy is received by every atom in our world. (even the hydrogen ones in space)

The strange part is that there should be a layer of hydrogen that surpasses the visible universe. Then farther out as the pressure is too low to maintain hydrogen we should have layers of subatomic particles lined up from largest to smallest. And further out pure photons driving the expansion of the universe by occasionally falling and pushing these particles together.

 

Newton had essentially the same definition, it works for space as we experience it in everyday life and to a limited extent when we look to our planetary system. If falls far short of describing the "universe" and the larger context of what we have come to understand of the world beyond our garden window.

Space cannot be limited to just the background dimensions as Newton saw it. It is dynamic and does from experience consistent with observation interact with matter. It does appear to be curved and dynamic and be far more complex than the simple description of a box that holds the matter we see.

 

Apologies to all (to whom it applies) for inserting my alternative thinking . . . . it seems that no one (here) is really interested in 'considering' ideas that are not Standard Model . . . for now, I'll give you all a 'brief respite' . . . but leave you with the following to consider:

. . . . continuous CMBR generation (in, for example, a hypothetical energy --> mass 'reaction'), evolving at a constant rate, will yield qualitative and quantitative observational qualities not unlike those in the Big Band 'black body radiation' interpretation.

. . . . . dark energy has not been observed - only inferred. If it exists, then it is essentially unobservable using our "current" observational tools. For that matter also, dark matter has not been observed - only inferred to satisfy the universe's mass-gravity balance.

. . .space 'volume' is just that . . . a mathematical volume. Volume does not infer or imbue mass, energy, gravity, comsological constants, or any other 'component' within that mathematically-defined volume. If one desires to imbue the 'volume' with any the aforementioned attributes (m, E, G, etc.), one can then qualitatively and quantitatively describe and discuss the distribution and densities of such attributes within that volume, and by extension, derive a suitable 'model' for the entire universe (observable and unobservable), be it finite or infinite

 

That is very strange indeed. You believe that mass was somehow created, with no explanation for your belief, and then use that as a basis for all your facts?

 

The infinite volume of space is not dynamic. Volume can not be in motion. It can't expand, contract, nor any other physical phenomena that you can think of. Volume is simply the three dimensional aspect of distance, which too can not have any physical characteristics.

 

IMO (only) . . . . agreeing with NH, "'mass was somehow created" . . . but I further hypothesize that new mass is continually "being created" via an unobserved energy --> mass process.

 

So you think E=mc^2 is BS in the opposite way that I do, in that energy actually CREATES mass?? So you think a physical process has a GREATER efficiency that 100%. You actually believe that you get MORE out of a system than is present?? Wow, you really are off the deep end. So you really believe the universe is getting more massive as it gets less dense???

 

No. I believe mass has always been there. It just hasn't always taken the symmetric form of atoms. I'm explaining to you how hydrogen is made, what perpetuates decay, and what happens to all the energy after it is released from its mass.

I also believe the symetry of mass is caused by matter's radiant energy from the universe and antimatter's radiant energy from black holes. This doesn't mean the outer universe is entirely matter and the inner galaxies are entirely antimatter. The energy traverses the whole thing before it changes and heads the opposite direction.

 

Let's examine your beliefs so I can be more clear.

There is mass and volume. You say the same mass was always in existence. Do you think the volume of the mass was greater or less in the past? I assume that if you agree with expansion, and you say the mass was always the same in the past that you agree the mass is becoming less dense, correct? In the biggest picture you can imagine, you see the volume of your mass in the past. What surrounds that volume, more volume? I assume you agree there is more volume surrounding your mass volume. In that volume of surrounding volume, the mass (if any) is not part of the equation, as you already are talking about a specific mass and volume of your universe, hence, you are not going to try to pull a rabbit out of a hat and tell me the surrounding volume has energy and it is causing your mass to increase in your universe, are you??

We are talking about a specific mass and volume. You can not add to it. You can either say the mass is getting more dense, less dense, or staying the same. Which is it?

 

E = mc^2 is NOT BS . . . .energy CAN create mass . . . . the (hypothetical) process has an efficiency LESS than 100% . . . actually get LESS out of the 'system' (process) than is 'put in'. . .but, one hell-of-a-LOT of energy is involved (est. 10^120 erg/cc!) . . . . 'observable' universe is getting more massive (total mass) while becoming LESS dense due to "near" equilibrium EXPANSION (I also have a speculation on HOW this occurs!) . . . visit my related EEMU thread on Sciforums.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments . . .

 

I have a table. Under the table there is mass. The universe can take the whole volume and change it into any other atom or energy given the right conditions.

If the universe does all three why are you making me choose?

Black holes- more dense(in general)

Outer edges of visible universe- less dense(in general)

Middle- variable (generally stays the same)

How do you control something so variable it rarely changes?

 

. . . I think I agree with you NH . . . !! . . .particularly regarding the 'outer edges' of the (sic, observable) universe . . . in addition to at the 'middle' (sic, expansion accelerating). Near the 'outer edges' the Energy --> mass process (IMO) may be 'pulling' (expansion illusion?) the middle outward (toward the edges) as the process reaction front expands.

 

Well if you get less out of the system than is put in then what happened to the remainder, and how do you figure 4-2=1???

 

So the universe can take heat and turn it into a rabbit?

Because the universe is 1 object, as a whole. We are talking about the entire system as a whole. I am not denying you can make a sponge more dense by squeezing it. I am saying that it requires energy to squeeze it, and that the more you squeeze it the more energy it takes, to the point where you would run out of energy and you wouldn't be able to squeeze it anymore. Do you understand what entropy is, and how a system comes to a point of equilibrium and has no potential energy??

 

Did and does.

"The engineering discipline of heat transfer recognizes heat transfer by conduction, by convection, by mass transfer, and by radiation."

"
Heat generated from the nuclear fusion in the Sun, and transported to Earth as electromagnetic radiation, is one of the driving forces of life on Earth."

Wikipedia

And that is why bunnies exist.... That... supernovas, chemicals being polar, and somewhere along the line mass's inherent ability to store information...

 

You ALWAYS get less out of the system that you put in (thermodynamics, ya' think?) . . . in the hypothetical/speculative scenario we're discussing (?) . . . a portion of the energy --> mass process 'left-overs' is simply CMBR . . there's like other 'stuff' as well . . . perhaps dark matter? (as an intermediary component?) . . . perhaps gravity (once mass is created)? . . . perhaps the cosmological (repulsive) constant? . . . probably others that we've not yet 'met' . . . .

. . . And of course! . . . IF you are an 'over-unity' enthusiast . . . . the energy --> mass process may leave some 'tappable' (useable) energy . . . just a thought here to keep "everyone" here happy!!. . . .

 

No, Bunnies exist because the sun gets less dense by means of the earth departing the sun. The earth gets less dense by means of mass evolving to bunnies!

What does not happen is that bunnies can become part of the earth and make the earth more dense, and that the earth once again becomes part of the sun and makes the sun more dense.

The process is one way, that is, mass evolves to space, not the opposite. The natural progression of mass is that mass gets less dense over time.

You can not turn heat to burning wood. You can not turn heat into a gallon of gasoline. You can not turn shit into pizza!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!