Is atom created if time is taken away from space and acceleration?

[flamingyawn]

When acceleration reach to the point of speed of light, we know that space will collapse(3D) and time will slow down(relative) does this leads to the creation of atom?

Will space collapse to a single point if time is take away? I view the space(3dimension) as a sphere in which time(relative) increases the size of it. Am I correct. Please give me your insights gurus?

Im newbie, so don't bash me or anything.. :shy: T = time
S = Space of 3Dimension
m = Mass
c = light speed constant
a = acceleration

TSa = mc² or E=mc²

TS = mc²/a , the greater the acceleration the smaller the time and space will be.
m=TSa/c² , the mass is equivalent to time space with accelaration
m/TS = a/c² , the greater the mass over compressed space the greater the acceleration. Black hole.

 

[Calimero]

When acceleration reach to the point of speed of light...

There is no limit on acceleration, other that it must have some finite value.

 

[flamingyawn]

There is no limit on acceleration, other that it must have some finite value.

If so, then when acceleration reach the point where time is so dilated and space is so constricted where it would react into a single point. Like the mass of the black hole is so massive that gravity(acceleration) constrict space and slows the time so much that it reach into a single point. Does this action creates atom(matter)? We all know that mass has a great potential energy? Is an atom is just a constricted space (3D) without time or very slow time?

 

[Calimero]

Huh... acceleration of what creates matter? Only thing that can accelerate is matter already.

 

[flamingyawn]

Huh... acceleration of what creates matter? Only thing that can accelerate is matter already.

i see. so what creates matter? its a force created during big bang what i mean by acceleration i have no other term for my lack of information.

 

[Calimero]

Well, matter-energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only change form. There are various processes in nature in which matter can be converted to energy and vice versa.

 

[flamingyawn]

There are various processes in nature in which matter can be converted to energy and vice versa.

What are the process?

 

[Naty1]

No one knows what "creates" matter,space,time, nor energy (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, and weak forces). It hypothesized they originated in a big bang but we have NO theory for that actual "singularity"...only what happened afterwards...inflationary stuff...It appears that a very unstable and high energy uniform (low entropy) initial state gave way to the environment see observe today...our universe...with many pieceparts that were once all the same entity...now space and time, for example, seem separate

So everything is connected, but nobody knows how. As an example, the strong and weak and electromagnetic forces have been combined (unified) mathematically but not gravity.
We can control and manipulate the first three forces to some extent, but not gravity.

Likewise with mass we don't know much about it's origins...most of what we think we know is that mass is another form of energy (via E = mc²...and inertial mass and gravitational mass appear to be equal...but nobody knows precisely why that is...There is a theory based on the Higgs boson (a aparticle) that says that as yet undiscovered theoretical particle is what gives mass to most particles...but not photons, for example.

 

[Calimero]

What are the process?

Well, mass to energy conversion is all around us. Sun, nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons, etc. They are based on either nuclear fusion or fission. As far as energy to mass conversion, it is routinely happening in particle accelerators, where upon impact kinetic energy of particles can be transformed to massive subatomic particles. These particles are always created with their anti-pairs. Sometimes they meet and annihilate back to energy, sometimes they don't.

 

[Dale]

T = time
S = Space of 3Dimension
m = Mass
c = light speed constant
a = acceleration

TSa = mc²

What does it mean to multiply a scalar by a space by a vector? I have never seen this kind of formula.

Also, remember that this forum is for discussing mainstream physics, not personal or alternative theories.

 

[flamingyawn]

What does it mean to multiply a scalar by a space by a vector? I have never seen this kind of formula.

Also, remember that this forum is for discussing mainstream physics, not personal or alternative theories.

Thanks for the info about not seeing that kind of formula.

I join this forum to be corrected and i want to be contradicted. Just inform why this is not possible like many experts do.

Thanks

 

[Pengwuino]

Thanks for the info about not seeing that kind of formula.

I join this forum to be corrected and i want to be contradicted. Just inform why this is not possible like many experts do.

Thanks

You can't just throw random symbols together and think they mean something. I don't know where you have accumulated your ideas from, but if you're really interested, start from the very beginning with an introductory physics textbook and develop an understanding of what energy and time and space mean in their most general form. From there you can start building up an understanding of more advanced concepts such as space-time and relativistic particle physics and gravitation. At this point, you're simply putting words together in nonsensical forms.

 

[flamingyawn]

You can't just throw random symbols together and think they mean something. I don't know where you have accumulated your ideas from, but if you're really interested, start from the very beginning with an introductory physics textbook and develop an understanding of what energy and time and space mean in their most general form. From there you can start building up an understanding of more advanced concepts such as space-time and relativistic particle physics and gravitation. At this point, you're simply putting words together in nonsensical forms.

t

i see, physics teacher.

 

[Dale]

Just inform why this is not possible like many experts do.

It is not possible because multiplication of a scalar by a space by a vector is undefined.

 

[flamingyawn]

It is not possible because multiplication of a scalar by a space by a vector is undefined.

Thanks for the insight...

 

[rchase]

You imagine mass as energy in a sphere isolated by a time based radius? A valid model in dimensional terms, physicist call this a charicteristic frequency(time) of mass.
Regarding removing the radius? Small radius, high frequency;zero radius, infinite mass. Inifinite mass is impossible, even in a black hole. If there wasn't any mass in there, it wouldn't have any gravity would it?
Try again with more study, you're asking the right questions.

Note:
I see that you are combining space-time-acceleration as energy. [t][x][t]/[t][t]<>[f][x] Not right. Study unit balancing.

We don't know how to create an atom from scratch.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I think you mean hawking radiation? But that's not really creating matter although I can't think of anything else that would come close to fitting your criteria. Also you shouldn't really confuse the gravitational field of a black hole with acceleration because the equivalence of those two things are valid up to certain distance scales and in the case of black holes I think tidal forces are evident at much smaller distance scales than something like the Earth.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's probably a good time to remind everyone of the forum's rules on Overly Speculative Posts.