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

On space

  1. Aug 3, 2004 #1


    User Avatar

    Perhaps space doesn't exist apart from matter and energy? I. e. matter and energy aren't in space, matter and energy are space? Maybe silly I know.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 3, 2004 #2
    Is space empty... and is matter full (solid)?
  4. Aug 3, 2004 #3
    Dark energy could be space because space increases in volume as dark energy increases its total energy.
  5. Aug 3, 2004 #4
    OK, this ought to be good. What is "dark energy" and why do you think it can increase the volume of space? Do you also think that whenever matter is created (dense space?) that space decreases in volume? I'm curious, Kurious.
  6. Aug 3, 2004 #5
    I think this is true.
  7. Aug 3, 2004 #6
    Why would your idea be silly, even if it were not commonly accepted.

    Space is not a container for matter. Space is matter, as you suggest.

    The only suggestion that I would make is to recognize the importance of time as well. All of space must be in motion through time, as space-time. There is no such thing as space by itself, independent of time.
  8. Aug 3, 2004 #7

    Could you please elaborate. Some of this may answer vague areas of my theory.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2004
  9. Aug 3, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There ain't no space without time. Just ask a photon.
  10. Aug 4, 2004 #9
    After the Big Bang, the universe is composed of space and time, which always exist in a bound form, as space-time.

    Matter is space-time. Space is not the container, and space and matter do not exist outside of their context with time.

    If you have a specific question, you might post it and let people respond to it.
  11. Aug 4, 2004 #10


    User Avatar

    But what if time is merely change in space? No absolute "time" independent of the change in space? Something without change is timeless?
  12. Aug 4, 2004 #11


    User Avatar

    Could the decrease in volume be gravity?
  13. Aug 4, 2004 #12


    User Avatar

    Maybe it doesn't increase in energy, just the geometry of space changes giving rise to an appearance of change in energy?
  14. Aug 5, 2004 #13
    Gravity in a nutshell...


    1. In our universe there is a matter plane (ours) and an antimatter plane (the one we can't see).

    2. Mass on both planes occupy the same space in the universe. Since we are on the "matter" plane, we only see matter (with a little antimatter here and there). The opposite is true for the antimatter plane, except we can't see that plane.

    3. The "barrier" separating our planes is space-time or perhaps Zero Point Energy. (Maybe these are part of the same thing)

    4. Matter and antimatter are mutually attracted to each other across the barrier. This "sqeezes" the barrier, causing space-time to curve (a gravity well).

    5. This curvature in space-time draws in other matter/ antimatter pairs who have space-time curvature of their own.

    6. Once these masses have combined (matter with matter & antimatter with antimatter), they merge their mutually attractive forces to squeeze the barrier even more, creating a deeper curvature in space-time.

    7. This deeper curvature in space-time is able to reach out even farther to draw in even more matter/ antimatter pairs.

    8. This "observable" action on our plane is what we call gravity.

    What I propose is that the force of attraction between matter and antimatter is actually something like the electro-weak force, and that "gravity" is probably not a "force" at all. "Gravity" is most likely just a property of space-time (curvature).

    Here's an interesting note: Imagine if the cycle repeated itself until the barrier could no longer resist (the grand-daddy of all blackholes). Matter and antimatter would finally meet and create a "Big Bang".
  15. Aug 5, 2004 #14


    User Avatar

    Yes, perhaps in a nutshell. :) No disrespect intended.
  16. Aug 5, 2004 #15
    If it were possible to see the antimatter plane (say someone made anti matter goggles for ex) could we see matter in the same plane. What would that look like, for both planes and a single plane?
  17. Aug 5, 2004 #16
    A cheap shot none the less...

    If you try to visualize it, it will make sense. Why be so dismissive?
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2004
  18. Aug 5, 2004 #17
    If I had to guess, I think they would look the same. But, one could imagine the "anti" plane as a "photogragh negative" I suppose. Who knows...
  19. Aug 5, 2004 #18
  20. Aug 5, 2004 #19

    i have always thought that,matter(something) and space became together.since something needs space and space needs something,that there is a minimum of space that is needed for matter to exist,therefore it is possible to calculate the minimum amount of space needed for something to exist,atomicly and better yet in the form of chiral condensate.

    it is also possible that space existed before something,since for both(something and spaces together) there almost needs to be space there in the first place. a sort of space within a space.hmmm.......
  21. Aug 5, 2004 #20
    I believe that gravity could be observed on both planes. On the "matter" plane, matter gravitates towards other matter. On the "antimatter" plane, antimatter gravitates toward other antimatter.

    Please keep in mind that, according to this theory, matter and antimatter occupy the same space, but exist on separate planes of existence. The barrier is space-time.

    If we were somehow able to view the "matter" plane on the North hemisphere and the "antimatter" plane on the South hemisphere, we would see that both masses were rotating in the same direction. Since both masses are rotating in the same direction, there would be no cancelation.

    I hope I answered your question.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook