Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Conceptional Space/Matter Cosmology,PART2

  1. Oct 11, 2003 #1
    In my model Space and Matter do not exist as seperate absolute
    entities. The complexity of space/time/matter in scientific
    understanding reaches far beyond singular absolute conceptions.
    What I am constructing in this model a hypothetical point in
    time in order to visualize space and matter seperately, and in
    doing so an understanding of what is possible and what is not
    possible emerges. What is absolute solid, what is absolute space,
    can such conditions exist and under what conditions?
    We may find such thinking ludicrous,waste of time and so on.

    So to continue with my model,lets go another step further and
    see where this will take us.

    Our model consist of space and matter as both existing together
    of which if one condition was non-existent then space and
    matter will also be non-existent, both occuping one existence.
    Next we will add to our hypotheical model another condition in
    order for our model to animate or evolve, otherwise we have a
    dead model so to speak. So I will add ,"Motion" how will affect
    the model? which condition will motion affect first? space?
    matter? since at the beginning I said space and matter exist
    together as one then I would say more then likely motion would
    affect space and matter simultaneously. In this concept one
    could say that since both conditions have been given the
    properties of motion that motion in matter is motion in space
    and that motion in space is motion in matter? Motion here,
    motion there, matter here, matter there, space here,space there.
    In this model we now have, Space,matter and motion, but still
    incomplete. In part three we will take up the next construction.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 12, 2003 #2
    So you are saying that we should consider the universe in these 3 terms of space matter and motion, but does the motion of matter give the matter it's properties? Should one assume that space is empty by definition or would it be better to choose that "space" be considered empty with the implicit understanding that there could always be more to it?
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2003
  4. Oct 12, 2003 #3

    Thank you for your response. Most of your question is already
    in Part #3. In this model I am taking small steps so to speak advancing further into a conceptional cosmology as we proceed.
  5. Oct 12, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    when you say "space", what do you mean?
    pure vacuum, with no structure?
    or do you give it some "properties?
  6. Oct 12, 2003 #5
    to Wolram

    Fair enough. In this conceptional model the term space and
    matter are used as a point of reference,the final structure
    is in the developing. (under construction) :wink:
  7. Oct 12, 2003 #6


    User Avatar

    Even a pure vacuum has geometric structure. But if we were to claim matter and vacuum are both aspects of the same thing, we still have to explain how they are at least slightly different. Obviously, regions of space that appear to have matter in them behave very different than regions of empty space.

    This goes back to the old problem of what the illusive property of "solidity" actually is. Netwon at one time believed that the universe was fundementally just a vacuum, with matter being regions of empty space that had somehow obtained this undefinable property of solidity. But if everything is really a uniform thing, be it a vacuum or some ether, how is the concept of motion even valid?

    There appears to be a geometric solution. If we think of space not as a big continuous blob, but as a collection of grid lines, we can picture how things are different one region to the next. Start with a vacuum, which is just 3 sets of flat grid lines. Now add matter, and the lines become curved. For every physical event we can imagine, such as an asteroid colliding with the earth, we can also see an equivalent geometric picture, where the set of grid lines is constantly evolving. So geometry seems like a good answer to the question of how a vacuum is any different than a filled region of space.
  8. Oct 12, 2003 #7
    Reply to EH

    I found your comments very interesting and understand your
    point. We can see space as grid lines and that would make sense.
    I was trying to make an approach to see without the grid lines
    and conceptualize space (as already posted as matter,etc.)
    from a dimensional perspective. I.E. suppose for the moment we
    have two objects in space, one marbel with 1"dia. and another
    with 10,000 1"marbels, and we were to increase the distance
    from one marbel to the next,say 10" space from marbel to marbel
    in our 10,000 marbel mass,we have now expanded our 10,000 marbel
    mass 10 times which now occupies more space but with more holes
    between marbel to marbel. Let's say now we expanded our mass much
    further until there is 100 feet of space between each marbel,now
    our mass occupies a lot more space but have not icreased actual
    single marbel size,only increased the distance from marbel to
    marbel. To further illustrate,say in our larger mass now with
    100 feet distance marbel to marbel we increase the mass of each
    single marbel from 1" dia. to 100 feet dia. now we have more mass
    and less space from our original larger mass. In this model no
    attempt was made to justify where the extra mass came from,but
    you have noticed we have not questioned where the extra space
    came from?:wink:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook