
#37
Nov1811, 08:52 PM

P: 47

Matter, when in motion, acts on time. The faster some object goes relative to me, the slower its time elapses compared to my time. Protons fired near the speed of light in accelerators become more massive, heavier and harder to accelerate faster as they get closer to the speed of light. They are also flattened perpendicular to the direction of flight, so they become vertical ellipses, because their space is shortened in that direction. Particles called muons which have a known rate of decay, when fired in accelerators, take longer (in our time) to decay because their time slows down as they approach the speed of light. A large gravitational mass like the Earth bends the space around it, and also slows down time near it. These are some of the interdependent relativistic relationships of space, mass and time. They are why "spacetime" is more than a convenient way of expressing something about two unrelated entities. These relationships have been proven to exist many times in experiments of many different types. Before making generalizations about what space is and its relationship to time, I suggest you guys might want to read the stickies and the FAQ in the Relativity forum. I am a layman myself and know that it can be cutting to be spoken to this way, and I am sorry about it. But these forums are supposed to be places dealing with verified physical conclusions, not opinions.




#38
Nov1811, 09:35 PM

P: 219





#39
Nov1911, 09:56 AM

P: 695

Space and Time are simply dimensions and Spacetime is the apparent warping of these dimensions as a result of the interactions of Bosons and Fermiions.
Space and Time are therefore not like ponderable matter, Space and Time are simply the total range of all possible locations. According to the standard model of particle Physics all large scale, macro, physical phenomena, ultimately must be derived from the behaviour, characteristics and interactions of Bosons and Fermions. The standard model of particle Physics is the fundermental heart of all of Physics which is itself the root from which all of science is derived. I feel like a preacher of religion, but I really do mean this in a rhetorical tone. Also these views are still relatively young and so are still being tested. 



#40
Nov1911, 10:54 AM

P: 366

Space is the area that matter occupies, we measure it by the yard and the second. Relative spacetime we measure using a photon, our yard stick, and a clock, us.




#41
Nov1911, 12:24 PM

P: 476

There only a kind of space in the equations of the Big bang. There are different speculations for what there was before the Big Bang, but none scientific hypothesis that can be tested. 



#42
Nov2011, 10:40 AM

P: 47

In the meantime, the Standard Model needs the Higgs boson to be found, which may happen in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. If it is not found, there may be a lot of trouble in the Standard Model. So it is not quite fundamental in any sense as yet. Also many have remarked over the years at the large number of constants in nature that must be "just exactly so" for the Standard Model to work. It may, or may not be, showing cracks in its foundation. Relativity also may have serious challenges presented to it in (1) The possible exceeding of the speed of light by neutrinos, and (2) quantum entanglement where communication between two particles appears to take place at fasterthanlight speeds. So perhaps quantum mechanics, which has no such challenges currently, and is the most successful physical theory of all time, is winning the fundamental wars at this point. But it has little to say on space and time. Perhaps we may agree to disagree here on the nature of space and time, whether they are real ponderable entities or not, since there are no true authorities to fall back on in "fundamental" theories that disagree with one another and cannot at this time be reconciled. I at any rate am willing to leave it there. 



#43
Dec611, 01:05 PM

P: 28

Bosons and Fermions:
Are they floating in space? If space is expanding. Is there a dilution of Bosons and Fermions? Is there a vacuum in space? I would say that if there was a vacuum then space is nothing. Can space expand into nothing? 



#44
Dec711, 08:24 PM

P: 186

Think of the Universe as having two possible shapes, infinite or finite. Imagine you’re on Earth and you’re going to travel the Universe in a space ship. You can start off in any direction but you have to travel in a straight line (i.e. a geodesic). If the Universe is infinite, then it doesn’t matter the direction you choose. You can never come back to where you started from. If the Universe is finite (i.e. compact), then you can choose a direction, following a spacelike geodesic (i.e. straight line), and you will eventually come back to where you started from. Space doesn’t have to be expanding into nothing.




#45
Dec711, 10:06 PM

P: 124





#46
Dec711, 10:49 PM

P: 186

If the Universe is finite and forms a closed manifold, then it’s compact without boundaries. There doesn’t need to be an edge. The density of Bosons and Fermions can change locally, but their density could be globally homogeneous. If the Universe is finite and compact, then it could take a very, very long time to circumnavigate a closed spacelike geodesic. Just because it could be closed does’nt mean that the Universe is small or static. It's possible that we or multiple generations could never live long enough to circumnavigate the Universe.




#47
Dec811, 06:47 AM

P: 259

When the Universe came into existence it was completely crammed with unthinkably dense stuff. Though for some reason it began to expand rapidly, there was no empty space whatsoever for quite some time. According to Albert Einstein, time and space have no meaning unless there is matter and energy around. Matter and energy create time and space. I believe that no one at this time has any idea what was there before the big bang. 



#48
Dec811, 08:24 AM

P: 28

Perhaps stars and planets in the universe are the equivalent of protons and electrons within an atom and they are somehow bound together by a force that we are trying to explain. 



#49
Dec811, 08:35 AM

PF Gold
P: 5,705





#50
Dec811, 08:58 AM

P: 28

LOL, at least it was the 1930s and not 1905. Thanks for your sarcasm. The issue is we do not yet understand gravity. 



#51
Dec811, 09:16 PM

P: 259





#52
Dec911, 07:56 AM

P: 695

My present understanding is that all macro forces and effects including gravity are as a result of the interactions of Bosons with Fermions and their residuals. The bending of space is simply an illusion because space itself has no objective existence. The same applies to spacetime and time.




#53
Dec911, 08:51 AM

P: 28

Gravity weakens with increased distance among objects. Do bosons and fermions behave differently when they are in close proximity to mass. Is the boson and fermion network (or concentration) in the universe a constant? 



#54
Dec911, 11:13 AM

P: 695

McCartney please take a look at this page. It details the Fermions (matter) and Bosons (force carriers). This should help answer your questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Topological space, Euclidean space, and metric space: what are the difference?  Calculus & Beyond Homework  9  
How does the space station survive the damages caused by debris in space?  Astrophysics  6  
Would an energy diffraction ring in five space form a Minkowski space?  Differential Geometry  2  
Solution space of linear homogeneous PDE forms a vector space?!  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2 