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

Space/Matter : Update

  1. Oct 27, 2003 #1
    After reading over Sikz, FZ+, Eh and jammieg reply,I have been
    reviewing the questions from other websites and sources.

    Perhaps I have been leaning too much towards a Metaphysical theory
    or idea then a conventionual one, a thin line perhaps? interesting?
    yes. Reading Einstein's theory that gravity is space/time curvature
    and Stephen Hawking's thoughts on the nature of space/time, I was
    motivated to look into this line of thought much further to see if
    it was possible to flush out conceptions that are and were ignored
    as being too radical and not having proofs. I for one would not
    throw away in my mind the theories of General Relativity merely for
    some unproven theory. Thus I arrived upon the idea of making a mental
    model, "Conceptional Cosmolgy" and begin with Space/Matter leaving
    out "Time" and "Velocity" in order to bite into raw material, later
    evolving or progressing towards Space/Time/Velocity but it was to be
    a step by step process building an engine by first constructing the
    block and progressing towards a unified power plant.

    The construction for a "Conceptional Cosmology" model has begun,but
    there lies some questions first.

    What are your thoughts on:

    A: Space/Matter as a unified Continuum?

    B: Matter as the primary state?

    C: Space as the secondary state?

    If yes to the above three questions what would the next most
    important addition be? if no on anyone of the above,why?

    D: Your Comment.

    Thank you for your help.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 28, 2003 #2


    User Avatar

    Why not first find out how matter and space are different in concept? Let's take any given volume of an arbitrary size of space and compare it to the same for matter.

    So in the time of the Greek atomists, before the findings of modern physics, we would have:

    Properties of a cubic meter of empty space

    -Geometry (Flat)

    Properties of matter the same size

    -Geometry (Flat)
    -The fact these properties change values, while those of space stay the same.

    Doing so, you'll notice that the concept of matter is nothing more than the concept of space with additional properties tacked on. Thus the question of whether space has independent existence of matter loses it's ontological force, and the question is now merely asking if there exists any space which does not have the same properties as matter. That means matter is a special kind of space.

    But modern physics has done much to change the picture above. First off, space is no longer seen as an unchanging fixed stage in which matter moves about. Space too is ever changing, and the property of geometry no longer need be flat Euclidean space. In General Relatvity, space and time do not have independent existence but are structural properties of the gravitational field. For every physical event in the universe involving interactions between matter, there is also a corresponding geometry to it. If you change the relations of matter in the universe, you're also changing the geometry of spacetime. From this we see that the difference between empty space and space filled with matter is a question of curvature. A perfect vacuum would be a case where spacetime is flat. The more matter you have, the more spacetime curvature.

    The properties of matter have changed as well. Quantum theory has replaced the atomist vision of billiard ball like objects floating around a void with quantum fields. However, there does not yet exist a quantum theory of spacetime itself. That means we don't know if matter has the property of space or are just points located throughout a background of spacetime. From string theory of LQG it would seem they do not posses the propery of volume. Just as space can be seen as being made of 1D lines, fundemental matter may also only have one spatial property, that being length. Area and volume would not be a fundemental property, but merely a result of the relations about fundemental things.

    In such a case, matter and space are ultimately the same fundemental thing. But you can see this by comparing the properties of spaces and matter, just as you could with the assumption that volume (length, width, breadth) is a property of matter.
  4. Oct 28, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    COnceptually, I like it. If we start looking deep into matter (+energy), we get the idea that matter is essentially space, and that suggests we don't really have such solidness at the fundamental scales. But as for evidence, I am not really aware of much to support this.

    The logical third one would be that they are both states of what?
  5. Oct 29, 2003 #4
    Reply to EH

    Good point Eh. I am thinking on it and will respond.
    Thank you for taking time to reply to my update post.
  6. Oct 29, 2003 #5

    Thank you for your reply FZ+.
    True,for evidence at this time I do know know of any to support it.
    Just like String Theory, it is interesting to say the least, as
    for proof? well you know what happened, now there are several
    theories from the original and still counting. The way I see it
    ideas,philosophies,concepts all have their place and because of it
    many other workable theories were developed. Sometimes proofs or
    evidence are found, but for now my model is merely an idea.
    Your input like Eh helps me a lot. Your question "Both states of
    what?" I will respond on it,it's that I forgot your last question.
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook