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

I Is the universe actually just mass and length?

  1. Sep 5, 2018 #1
    After reading some classical physics I learned that the entire physics is actually studying the combination of 3 quantities mass, length and time. Anything in the universe is just the combination of mass and length and time. And why i say that? Because if you notice the formulas that the physicians have invented until now, every object or non object like energy is being described using the quantities length and mass, while time is actually taking place in the change of rate. And if we stay at Newton's region, mass is constant so in other words time causes one thing, the change of length. What is speed? m/s .What is energy? kg * m^2 / s^2 . So the only thing that actually changes is length and time.

    So time is a variable quantity which might cause length to change (usually position).

    So everything in the universe is actually just mass and length with the the possibility that length might change under some circumstances over time. For example if forces are being applied in an object the object might change position over time.

    So what if time didn't exists or stopped? Would things then just stop to change (freeze) and become static?
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 5, 2018 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Just out of curiosity, where do you think, for example, charge, comes into play in your concept of the universe?
  4. Sep 5, 2018 #3
    Well charges are measured in Coulombs which is a number of electrons and electrons actually have mass and size.
  5. Sep 5, 2018 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So do neutrons. I really don't think you've thought this through.
  6. Sep 6, 2018 #5
    I think
    I think I got you now. You're saying Culomb is just an amount of electrons and so is not a combination of mass, length and time like Newtons or Joules.
  7. Sep 6, 2018 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, I'm saying that charge is a PROPERTY, like length, mass, etc. Coulomb is just a measure of that property like the meter is a measure of length. You clearly have not thought through the characteristics of the various properties that things can have and for some reason you believe that there are only 3 properties. I just demonstrated another. It doesn't stop there.
  8. Sep 6, 2018 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    2018 Award

    Modern physics has a number of things which could be considered fundamental. Some of them are part of how we define the relationships between the relative location, shape, and size of objects along with the properties of the space they exist within (space in a geometrical sense, which may or may not include time). Some of them are properties of objects, such as charge, mass, spin number, or many of the flavour numbers of quantum physics. These are usually considered to be fundamental because we have no way of describing how they arise, we only know what effect they have.

    I would not consider everything in the universe, which includes the properties of objects and spacetime, to be solely made up of length, mass, and time.

    This is simply not true. I can find many formulas which do not have terms for mass, length, or time in them. The equations that do have terms for these three properties do so because they are concerned with the position, mass, energy, momentum, velocity, or any of the other properties derived from or having to do with these three. The equations which do not have terms for mass, length, or time are not concerned with them.

    I think what you've stumbled across is that most of science is concerned with how things change. A situation in which there is absolutely no change is a.) boring, b.) unrealistic, and c.) of little use. And most of the types of change that you've ever dealt with up until now consists almost solely of change with the position and/or mass of objects (usually by constructing or destructing an object, and I use those words in a very general sense), which requires time.

    While time, length, and mass are extremely important in science, and a great many things are derived from or are in units involving them, they are not everything.
  9. Sep 6, 2018 #8
    I where saying the same, I just didn't know that property was the word to describe it. I understand what you're saying thought. Thank you.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?