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

Explain space time

  1. Sep 2, 2006 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Or how a metric can have an encoded evolution, quite simply a none intelligent evolution must have at least some (natural) rules, define those rules within known and testable scientific principles and methods
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 2, 2006 #2

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    now you have gone and done it wolram!

    you have asked the blindman elephant question that has every blindman saying a different thing.

    if I understand you, you are asking why does the universe have a mathematical description-----what are the rules that any mathematical description must obey-----what imposes those rules----
    what forces the universe to comply with equations?

    if the metric that describes geometry of the universe follows an orderly evolution then---WHY IS THERE THIS ORDERLINESS, WHY IS THERE PATTERN, WHAT DOES ORDER CONSIST OF, WHO OR WHAT FORCES THINGS TO BE ORDERLY?

    heh heh

    WOLRAM what have you been thinking?

    that is not a scientific question. orderliness is a mystery. science comes AFTER you notice that it is orderly and you start studying the order. for science, you just ASSUME that it has a mathematical description and you start studying possible patterns that might fit.

    maybe I didnt understand, in which case someone else will see what you are asking and give a more cogent satisfactory answer:smile:
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2006
  4. Sep 2, 2006 #3

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Afterthought: maybe Kea has some natural rules.
    but if you get her to tell them it is apt to sound like the Delphic Oracle
     
  5. Sep 3, 2006 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :smile:
    Thinking of why a rapidly increasing volume of plasma has become what is now, and the possible outcomes at various (stages) of the evolution of that plasma to what is seen now.
    May be some one has run similuations from the first milli seconds of that expantion, changing values to see how constrained they must be for our universe to be what it is.
    I think some of these constraints are all ready known, but not why there value is such, or what controled the constraint, so if one worked backwards from now to the first milli seconds with all possible outcomes constrained
    the controling factor may be obvious.
     
  6. Sep 3, 2006 #5

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    May i say that E=Mc2, is only true if matter interacts with anti matter, and the equation should not be used to promote any other reaction? it is the bare truth of these equations that matter, not what they are proposed to prove.
     
  7. Sep 3, 2006 #6

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed


    That is, if you will pardon my sumerian, crap. Where did you get it?
     
  8. Sep 4, 2006 #7

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    SA, i am only talking about the actual conversion of matter to energy, one can not be just switched to other in the lab, unless it is a matter anti matter
    reaction, but then where did the anti matter come from?

    Added

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2006
  9. Sep 4, 2006 #8

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Sure they can; consider nuclear fission which proceeds through neutron exchange by the fissile nuclei. In the fission of a uranium nucleus into lighter elements, the total mass of the lightler nuclei is less than the mass of the uranium nucleus, and the difference appears as kinetic energy. That uranium mass was converted to energy and there was no antimatter involved.

    For that matter how do you think the Sun shines? Antimatter?
     
  10. Sep 4, 2006 #9

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think this is not correct, to turn all the matter in the univese to energy,
    one would have to import an anti matter matter univers, and since we do not have one or know if one exists, i think we can not say matter = energy.
    on the other hand we do not know what mass is yet, do we know what e=mc2 means?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
    I think e=mc2 has been proven on many occasions, but only where (total) conversion of a Mass is not seen on any large scale.
     
  11. Sep 4, 2006 #10

    SF

    User Avatar

    That's just like saying ice and water are tottaly different things, with no connection to eachother whatsoever.

    There's no major difference between matter and antimatter, other than the particularity of the reactions that occur if you put them together.

    Anti-matter is still just matter. There's no aE = aM*c^2 (aka: there is no correspondant anti-energy for anti-matter). :)

    Bottom line:
    Just because you can't turn it completely into energy, it doesn't mean it isn't energy.
     
  12. Sep 4, 2006 #11

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed


    This is just pet theory which has now been refuted both ways on this thread; your primary statement that anti-matter is necessary for conversion of matter to energy has been refuted with well known examples (your not believing them is as worthless as the original comment). And your use of this to deny the reality of the mass-energy equivalence has been refuted too. So there is nothing left for you but acceptance of the supported view or blind adherence to your unsupported fantasy. You chhoose.
     
  13. Sep 4, 2006 #12

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wolram, you are incorrect. E=mc^2 is applicable to ALL situations where fission or fusion occurs. The amount of energy you get out of these reactions can be calculated by comparing the starting and ending masses of the relevant particles, and appliyng the formula to the difference.
     
  14. Sep 4, 2006 #13

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    wolram,
    one way to straighten it out in one's mind is like this:

    in order to make an electron cease to exist, and just have light left over, nothing but a flash of light, you DO need an anti-electron to cancel it.

    so in a sense you are right. same with a proton, if you want to have nothing left but a flash of light----if you want to get rid of all the massive particles, all the "matter", and have nothing but what is obviously energy, a flash of light, then you DO need an anti-proton or some equivalent kit of anti-particles to react with it.


    but a larger object like an atom or a cannonball is made up of LOTS of these particles, lots of protons and electrons (and neutrons...)
    and THE MASS OF THE BALL DOESNT JUST DEPEND ON HOW MANY of each kind there are but rather on how they are arranged and WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

    so if you take a cannonball and change what the particles in it are doing you can change the MASS
    or if you rearrange the particles in the iron atoms into some other kinds of atoms that also will sometimes change the mass, it is an empirical fact backed up by experiment

    that doesnt involve any antimatter and it tends not to change the NUMBERS of various type things----you just put in some energy and change how things are arranged and what they are doing and that changes the mass---according to the formula.

    or the things spontaneously rearrange in the cannonball and some energy comes out and now it has less mass---according to the formula

    (but no antiparticles were involved because the numbers of different types didnt change)

    I find that real intuitive and easy to accept. How about you, wolram?
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2006
  15. Sep 4, 2006 #14
    There is no order without an observer. :P
     
  16. Sep 5, 2006 #15

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :smile: yes Marcus i understand this very well, and with no want to cause any fuss i would call that trivial, what it says to me is that a tiny amount of matter can be converted to energy, which makes e=mc2 true on a very small scale, but i can not see how it is true on a large scale,there is just no way to covert say a lb of lead or the mass of a star to pure energy.
    So who knows that more fundamental particles that may or may not exist
    could be anhilated (the Higgs) if such a large scale conversion were possible making e a bit more than mc2.
     
  17. Sep 5, 2006 #16
    Black holes.
     
  18. Sep 20, 2006 #17

    paw

    User Avatar

    Not trivial....

    The beauty of physics, and science in general, is when you prove something on a small scale you can confidently expect it to work on a larger scale. If that weren't true we'd be living in a chaotic universe and science and technology wouldn't be possible (for that matter life wouldn't be possible either).

    The way I understand it, there are a number of facilities producing anti-matter (albeit in small quantities) world wide. If we were willing to spend the money it is technologically feasible to make and store gram quantities of anti-matter. It would be simple then to react the anti-matter with matter and prove by the resulting explosion that matter and energy are equivalent on larger scales.

    But why. ALL our smaller scale experiments confirm the relationship already.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Explain space time
  1. Emergent space/time (Replies: 9)

Loading...