Is Space Merely a Manifestation of Matter and Energy?

[mee]

Perhaps space doesn't exist apart from matter and energy? I. e. matter and energy aren't in space, matter and energy are space? Maybe silly I know.

 

[Erck]

Is space empty... and is matter full (solid)?

 

[kurious]

Dark energy could be space because space increases in volume as dark energy increases its total energy.

 

[Metallicbeing]

Dark energy could be space because space increases in volume as dark energy increases its total energy.

OK, this ought to be good. What is "dark energy" and why do you think it can increase the volume of space? Do you also think that whenever matter is created (dense space?) that space decreases in volume? I'm curious, Kurious.

 

[force5]

OK, this ought to be good. What is "dark energy" and why do you think it can increase the volume of space? Do you also think that whenever matter is created (dense space?) that space decreases in volume? I'm curious, Kurious.

I think this is true.

 

[Prometheus]

Perhaps space doesn't exist apart from matter and energy? I. e. matter and energy aren't in space, matter and energy are space? Maybe silly I know.

Why would your idea be silly, even if it were not commonly accepted.

Space is not a container for matter. Space is matter, as you suggest.

The only suggestion that I would make is to recognize the importance of time as well. All of space must be in motion through time, as space-time. There is no such thing as space by itself, independent of time.

 

[Metallicbeing]

Kurious;Prometheus,

Could you please elaborate. Some of this may answer vague areas of my theory.

 

[Chronos]

There ain't no space without time. Just ask a photon.

 

[Prometheus]

Could you please elaborate. Some of this may answer vague areas of my theory.

After the Big Bang, the universe is composed of space and time, which always exist in a bound form, as space-time.

Matter is space-time. Space is not the container, and space and matter do not exist outside of their context with time.

If you have a specific question, you might post it and let people respond to it.

 

[mee]

Why would your idea be silly, even if it were not commonly accepted.

Space is not a container for matter. Space is matter, as you suggest.

The only suggestion that I would make is to recognize the importance of time as well. All of space must be in motion through time, as space-time. There is no such thing as space by itself, independent of time.

But what if time is merely change in space? No absolute "time" independent of the change in space? Something without change is timeless?

 

[mee]

OK, this ought to be good. What is "dark energy" and why do you think it can increase the volume of space? Do you also think that whenever matter is created (dense space?) that space decreases in volume? I'm curious, Kurious.

Could the decrease in volume be gravity?

 

[mee]

Dark energy could be space because space increases in volume as dark energy increases its total energy.

Maybe it doesn't increase in energy, just the geometry of space changes giving rise to an appearance of change in energy?

 

[Metallicbeing]

Could the decrease in volume be gravity?

Gravity in a nutshell...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In our universe there is a matter plane (ours) and an antimatter plane (the one we can't see).

2. Mass on both planes occupy the same space in the universe. Since we are on the "matter" plane, we only see matter (with a little antimatter here and there). The opposite is true for the antimatter plane, except we can't see that plane.

3. The "barrier" separating our planes is space-time or perhaps Zero Point Energy. (Maybe these are part of the same thing)

4. Matter and antimatter are mutually attracted to each other across the barrier. This "sqeezes" the barrier, causing space-time to curve (a gravity well).

5. This curvature in space-time draws in other matter/ antimatter pairs who have space-time curvature of their own.

6. Once these masses have combined (matter with matter & antimatter with antimatter), they merge their mutually attractive forces to squeeze the barrier even more, creating a deeper curvature in space-time.

7. This deeper curvature in space-time is able to reach out even farther to draw in even more matter/ antimatter pairs.

8. This "observable" action on our plane is what we call gravity.

What I propose is that the force of attraction between matter and antimatter is actually something like the electro-weak force, and that "gravity" is probably not a "force" at all. "Gravity" is most likely just a property of space-time (curvature).

Here's an interesting note: Imagine if the cycle repeated itself until the barrier could no longer resist (the grand-daddy of all black holes). Matter and antimatter would finally meet and create a "Big Bang".

 

[mee]

Gravity in a nutshell...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In our universe there is a matter plane (ours) and an antimatter plane (the one we can't see).

2. Mass on both planes occupy the same space in the universe. Since we are on the "matter" plane, we only see matter (with a little antimatter here and there). The opposite is true for the antimatter plane, except we can't see that plane.

3. The "barrier" separating our planes is space-time or perhaps Zero Point Energy. (Maybe these are part of the same thing)

4. Matter and antimatter are mutually attracted to each other across the barrier. This "sqeezes" the barrier, causing space-time to curve (a gravity well).

5. This curvature in space-time draws in other matter/ antimatter pairs who have space-time curvature of their own.

6. Once these masses have combined (matter with matter & antimatter with antimatter), they merge their mutually attractive forces to squeeze the barrier even more, creating a deeper curvature in space-time.

7. This deeper curvature in space-time is able to reach out even farther to draw in even more matter/ antimatter pairs.

8. This "observable" action on our plane is what we call gravity.

What I propose is that the force of attraction between matter and antimatter is actually something like the electro-weak force, and that "gravity" is probably not a "force" at all. "Gravity" is most likely just a property of space-time (curvature).

Here's an interesting note: Imagine if the cycle repeated itself until the barrier could no longer resist (the grand-daddy of all black holes). Matter and antimatter would finally meet and create a "Big Bang".

Yes, perhaps in a nutshell. :) No disrespect intended.

 

[mapper]

2. Mass on both planes occupy the same space in the universe. Since we are on the "matter" plane, we only see matter (with a little antimatter here and there). The opposite is true for the antimatter plane, except we can't see that plane.

If it were possible to see the antimatter plane (say someone made anti matter goggles for ex) could we see matter in the same plane. What would that look like, for both planes and a single plane?

 

[Metallicbeing]

Yes, perhaps in a nutshell. :) No disrespect intended.

A cheap shot none the less...

If you try to visualize it, it will make sense. Why be so dismissive?

 

[Metallicbeing]

If it were possible to see the antimatter plane (say someone made anti matter goggles for ex) could we see matter in the same plane. What would that look like, for both planes and a single plane?

If I had to guess, I think they would look the same. But, one could imagine the "anti" plane as a "photogragh negative" I suppose. Who knows...

 

[north]

Gravity in a nutshell...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. In our universe there is a matter plane (ours) and an antimatter plane (the one we can't see).

2. Mass on both planes occupy the same space in the universe. Since we are on the "matter" plane, we only see matter (with a little antimatter here and there). The opposite is true for the antimatter plane, except we can't see that plane.

3. The "barrier" separating our planes is space-time or perhaps Zero Point Energy. (Maybe these are part of the same thing)

4. Matter and antimatter are mutually attracted to each other across the barrier. This "sqeezes" the barrier, causing space-time to curve (a gravity well).

5. This curvature in space-time draws in other matter/ antimatter pairs who have space-time curvature of their own.

6. Once these masses have combined (matter with matter & antimatter with antimatter), they merge their mutually attractive forces to squeeze the barrier even more, creating a deeper curvature in space-time.

7. This deeper curvature in space-time is able to reach out even farther to draw in even more matter/ antimatter pairs.

8. This "observable" action on our plane is what we call gravity.
___________________________________________

Define the plane of observation of gravity,is it the north pole(Canada) or the south pole(Australia) and which is right and why.? there is a plane of direction. and if there is why does not each direction cancel themselves leaving neutrality. what plane of rotation do we start at?

 

[north]

Perhaps space doesn't exist apart from matter and energy? I. e. matter and energy aren't in space, matter and energy are space? Maybe silly I know.

___________________________________________

i have always thought that,matter(something) and space became together.since something needs space and space needs something,that there is a minimum of space that is needed for matter to exist,therefore it is possible to calculate the minimum amount of space needed for something to exist,atomicly and better yet in the form of chiral condensate.

it is also possible that space existed before something,since for both(something and spaces together) there almost needs to be space there in the first place. a sort of space within a space.hmmm...

 

[Metallicbeing]

Define the plane of observation of gravity,is it the north pole(Canada) or the south pole(Australia) and which is right and why.? there is a plane of direction. and if there is why does not each direction cancel themselves leaving neutrality. what plane of rotation do we start at?

I believe that gravity could be observed on both planes. On the "matter" plane, matter gravitates towards other matter. On the "antimatter" plane, antimatter gravitates toward other antimatter.

Please keep in mind that, according to this theory, matter and antimatter occupy the same space, but exist on separate planes of existence. The barrier is space-time.

If we were somehow able to view the "matter" plane on the North hemisphere and the "antimatter" plane on the South hemisphere, we would see that both masses were rotating in the same direction. Since both masses are rotating in the same direction, there would be no cancelation.

I hope I answered your question.

 

[north]

I believe that gravity could be observed on both planes. On the "matter" plane, matter gravitates towards other matter. On the "antimatter" plane, antimatter gravitates toward other antimatter.

Please keep in mind that, according to this theory, matter and antimatter occupy the same space, but exist on separate planes of existence. The barrier is space-time.

If we were somehow able to view the "matter" plane on the North hemisphere and the "antimatter" plane on the South hemisphere, we would see that both masses were rotating in the same direction. Since both masses are rotating in the same direction, there would be no cancelation.

I hope I answered your question.

___________________________________________

think about this, each are 180 degrees in perspective and are opposites,lets imagine this again.

 

[mee]

A cheap shot none the less...

If you try to visualize it, it will make sense. Why be so dismissive?

Sorry, I couldn't help it. :) I am not wise enough to be completely dismissive, but something doesn't feel right in spite of its symmetry. I would be happy to be proved wrong.

 

[Metallicbeing]

___________________________________________

think about this, each are 180 degrees in perspective and are opposites,lets imagine this again.

Please be more discriptive...You have a "picture" in your mind that I'm not seeing (or vise-versa).

 

[Metallicbeing]

Sorry, I couldn't help it. :) I am not wise enough to be completely dismissive, but something doesn't feel right in spite of its symmetry. I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Something? Can you narrow it down a bit for me, please?

 

[force5]

All just energy

Dark matter = energy state a ...very dense/low volume
Space = energy state b ......less dense/high volume
normal matter = energy state ab ...elements/mass
gravity = energy state b^x ......X = source systems input
gravity = space density

 

[Chronos]

The anti-planes have no theoretical underpinnings. Specifically, they are not required to explain current observations.

 

[Metallicbeing]

Dark matter = energy state a ...very dense/low volume
Space = energy state b ......less dense/high volume
normal matter = energy state ab ...elements/mass
gravity = energy state b^x ......X = source systems input
gravity = space density

Actually, no one is disputing that it's all about energy. I'm just trying to get into more detail about gravity. Gravity is the result of having dense space (mass), not that gravity is dense space (mass). That would be like saying the magnet is the magnetic field.

I'm sure that's not what you meant. The point I'm trying to make is that language is not perfect. Often, we write things that we think reflect the image in our mind, when in fact they're lacking key descriptions (I'm not immune either). This is something I see a lot in this forum. Usually, it ends up with people arguing on the basis of a misunderstanding or someone not even wanting to understand.

 

[Metallicbeing]

The anti-planes have no theoretical underpinnings. Specifically, they are not required to explain current observations.

Sure they have "theoretical underpinnings". They just aren't supported by observations or experiments (which doesn't always mean they're true or untrue, just unproven). Besides, how would you even test for something like that?

This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway.

Knowing that gravity curves space-time, then since when does something (mass) push (or pull) against something else (space-time) for no apparent reason? This is why I've used the matter/ antimatter "squeeze" symmetry. Only, the pinch (2D) becomes a point (3D).

 

[mee]

Something? Can you narrow it down a bit for me, please?

Sorry, I just think that in spite of its good points, the theory is unlikely. I'm just not sure I believe in parallel universes occupying the same space as us.

 

[Metallicbeing]

Sorry, I just think that in spite of its good points, the theory is unlikely. I'm just not sure I believe in parallel universes occupying the same space as us.

Yes, and the world's leading scientists once "believed" the world was flat. I know, new ways of thinking are always hard to swallow.

But it doesn't matter, it's not like I'm trying to write a TOE or anything. I'm just here to collect ideas for my sci-fi novel. As long as the readers think it's interesting enough, that's good enough for me.