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

Matter Forms Space & Time is Relative Motion

  1. Aug 11, 2004 #1
    Questions related to the Topic Title of this Thread:

    STM Question: "Which factor should dominate Space-Time-Matter discussions?"
    Time Question: "Does time exist or is it a human construct?"
    Matter Question: "Should mass be used in place of matter?"

    My thoughts on the STM Question:
    Matter forms space, so matter defines space. Time is actually the relative movement of matter. Time is a human construct that was conceived only because the Sun appeared and disappeared.

    My thoughts on the Time Question:
    Time is a human construct. Time is best replaced by the relative movement of matter.

    My thoughts on Matter Question:
    Yes, mass is a collection of persistent force fields, eg the electron or a proton. This means that a unit of mass contains one or more EM force fields and potentially one or more still unknown force fields. Mass is perceived when another set of persistent force fields exerts a force on initial set of persistent force fields. Since Matter is composed of Mass, Mass should be term used in place of Matter in these discussions.

    A Radical Extension of these Thoughts:
    There is no proof that "mechanical mass" exists within the center of any elementary particle. If we assume that mechanical mass does indeed NOT exist, and that every particle is comprised of an electromagnetic force field, then this leads to an interesting conjecture on inertia. What is inertia? Within this framework, inertis is the relative interaction of differents sets of differently sized masses which are herein defined as sets of EM fields. This suggests that the relative motion and relative collective number of these EM force fields constitutes inertia and gravity.
    What, if anything, is wrong with this conjecture?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 11, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    My comments:

    rulers define space, and clocks define time.

    Rulers and clocks are to some extent human inventions, but what isn't? After a lot of work carried out on how to measure things, we get _reproducible results_ from our measurements with both sets of instruments.

    Our best candidate for something that's truly fundamental about the universe is neither space nor time, both of which vary with the observer. A better candidate for something truly fundamental about the universe is the Lorentz interval, which is a combination of both. The Lorentz interval is the difference of the squares of the space interval and the time interval, except for some pesky factors of a constant called 'c' which can be avoided by the proper choice of units.

    We now watch this thread get moved to "theory development", with much talk about what "should" be fundamental rather than what we have actually _observed_ by experience to be fundamental.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook