What is space ?
- Thread starter hansda
- Start date
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
hansda, et al,
What we know about the forces (weak, strong -- nuclear, electo-magnetic) and gravity (whatever that is) today, will change in time. The same way that Newtonian Physics was amended by Einstein and Quantum Mechanics evolved.
Just like the experiment we all did as children in school (iron fillings on a paper showing the field lines of the magnet underneath), we can detect the field, manipulate them, spin them, concentrate them, expand them, cause them to generate the manifestation of other forces (emf), what the field lines are - we don't know. But they are there and we know how to effectively use them to our advantage.
In order for the other forces to work (excluding gravity), and following the pattern, they must manifest their individual powers through space in the same way as the magnetic lines of force.
These lines of force (energy) are in constant motion. We suspect, that line of force are in constant motion. In the space at the subatomic particle level, there are force lines in motion.
Most Respectfully,
R
What we know about the forces (weak, strong -- nuclear, electo-magnetic) and gravity (whatever that is) today, will change in time. The same way that Newtonian Physics was amended by Einstein and Quantum Mechanics evolved.
(COMMENT - OPINION)
Just like the experiment we all did as children in school (iron fillings on a paper showing the field lines of the magnet underneath), we can detect the field, manipulate them, spin them, concentrate them, expand them, cause them to generate the manifestation of other forces (emf), what the field lines are - we don't know. But they are there and we know how to effectively use them to our advantage.
In order for the other forces to work (excluding gravity), and following the pattern, they must manifest their individual powers through space in the same way as the magnetic lines of force.
These lines of force (energy) are in constant motion. We suspect, that line of force are in constant motion. In the space at the subatomic particle level, there are force lines in motion.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Do you mean to say , these lines of force (energy ) as you explained above are same as path-line of light ?
Light , Light particle or particle photon is emitted by an electron or other massive particles from an atom . As long as there is no such emission of light , the atomic space is without light though the force-lines (as you explained above) are still there .
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
hansda, et al,
E=mc^2=hf
Not exactly the same as a path of light. Light paths follows the laws of motion, especially the part were they continue until acted upon by another "force."
But lines of force extend between two poles; opposite points of attractions, or subatomic particles. Lines of force move in concert - as the points of attraction move. The repetitive motion is its frequency (f).
Remembering: Strong, Electromagnetic, Weak Forces
No particle has to be emitted. Energy is another form of mass.
The repetitive motion of the lines of force between the constituent sub-atomic particles [or its frequency (f)] times Planck's Constant equals the energy (E) exchanged (or the mc^2)(mass-energy equivalence).
(SIDEBAR)
As long as it does not emit (radiate photons, neutrinos, etc), beyond the two points of attraction, the system will not loose mass; and remain in balance. However, neutrino interaction (absorption or loss) or beta decay can effect the overall mass and may increase or decrease the field line strength.
Just My Interpretation,
Regards,
R
E=mc^2=hf
(COMMENT)
Not exactly the same as a path of light. Light paths follows the laws of motion, especially the part were they continue until acted upon by another "force."
But lines of force extend between two poles; opposite points of attractions, or subatomic particles. Lines of force move in concert - as the points of attraction move. The repetitive motion is its frequency (f).
(COMMENT)
Remembering: Strong, Electromagnetic, Weak Forces
No particle has to be emitted. Energy is another form of mass.
The repetitive motion of the lines of force between the constituent sub-atomic particles [or its frequency (f)] times Planck's Constant equals the energy (E) exchanged (or the mc^2)(mass-energy equivalence).
(SIDEBAR)
As long as it does not emit (radiate photons, neutrinos, etc), beyond the two points of attraction, the system will not loose mass; and remain in balance. However, neutrino interaction (absorption or loss) or beta decay can effect the overall mass and may increase or decrease the field line strength.
Just My Interpretation,
Regards,
R
Do you mean to say that 'lines of force' is consisting of photon particles ?
( As the equation E=hf is true only for photon particle )
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
hansda, et al,
I may have made a mistake in making an association between the equation E=mc^2=hf and the force carriers of the weak force, the strong force, and the electromagnetic forces. It is an unproven extrapolation that the individual force carriers of all four fundamental forces have a mass-to-energy or energy-to-mass equivalency.
I am also not sure that gravity is a force at all, although that is what we are generally lead to believe; close to a prevailing opinion. But if it is a force, then under the general models, it - as well - might be transmitted via a, yet to be discovered, force carrier.
So, obviously, I do not know the nature or character of the actual composition of these lines of force. It was an assumption that the lines of force (when in motion) were a form of energy which had a mass equivalency. It just seemed logical. I apologize for making that unsubstantiated leap.
Most Respectfully,
R
I may have made a mistake in making an association between the equation E=mc^2=hf and the force carriers of the weak force, the strong force, and the electromagnetic forces. It is an unproven extrapolation that the individual force carriers of all four fundamental forces have a mass-to-energy or energy-to-mass equivalency.
I am also not sure that gravity is a force at all, although that is what we are generally lead to believe; close to a prevailing opinion. But if it is a force, then under the general models, it - as well - might be transmitted via a, yet to be discovered, force carrier.
(APOLOGY)
So, obviously, I do not know the nature or character of the actual composition of these lines of force. It was an assumption that the lines of force (when in motion) were a form of energy which had a mass equivalency. It just seemed logical. I apologize for making that unsubstantiated leap.
Most Respectfully,
R
So , atomic space is consisting of these lines of force but not light(or light particle photon ) .
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
hansda, et al,
I woud say that this is implied by the model we use to describe an atom and all its constituent components.
Field Lines implies energy extending between two, or more, points. The more energetic the atom, the faster field lines move between the components. Moving field lines inductively impart energy.
Most models imply that photons, gluons, bosons and mesons are the force carriers. These force carriers establish a network of field lines across the entire atomic structure.
That is how I see it.
Most Respectfully,
R
I woud say that this is implied by the model we use to describe an atom and all its constituent components.
(IMPLICATIONS)
- The Electromagnetic Force extends rapidly moving field lines (thermal reactive) between the orbiting elections and the nucleus of the atom; and any other positively charged subcomponent.
- The Strong Force field lines interact between the quarks forming baryons, which in turn make protons and neutrons; with Strong Force Field Lines containing these particles into a nucleus.
- The Weak Force regulates inner free radiated particle and neutrino activity.
Field Lines implies energy extending between two, or more, points. The more energetic the atom, the faster field lines move between the components. Moving field lines inductively impart energy.
Most models imply that photons, gluons, bosons and mesons are the force carriers. These force carriers establish a network of field lines across the entire atomic structure.
That is how I see it.
Most Respectfully,
R
So , this can be said that ; force-fields are distributed throughout the space .
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
hansda, et al,
Yes, assuming that the temperature is above absolute zero.
There is a secondary set of highly probable and potential implications:
Just my thought
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, assuming that the temperature is above absolute zero.
(PROBABILITIES+)
There is a secondary set of highly probable and potential implications:
- That because these lines of force are carried by a particle (photons, gluons, bosons and mesons), that there must be a mass-to-energy equivalency.
- That these force carries are wave particles and can create interference patterns in energy form.
- That the field lines can excite other particles and induce energy.
Just my thought
Most Respectfully,
R
How temperature affects space or force-fields ?
I am not saying that space is consisting of force-fields . I am only saying that force-fields are contained within the space and are distributed throughout the space .
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
hansda, et al,
No, I'm saying that (it is probably the case) all space-time has one or more force carriers active within it.
The implication I see is that when a region of space is at absolute zero, there is no movement. All the moving parts of an atoms collapse upon themselves, attaining maximum density. All energy has been drained or evaporated away - creating a completely disordered state of the subatomic particles. The three forces (weak, strong, electromagnet) collapse completely and emerge, algebraically added to the gravity of the object.
(IMAGINATION)
Seyferts, quasars, and blazars -- pictured which huge jets of energy emerging from them --- may be, on a larger scale, a result of the energy being completely squeezed out of material as it is absorbed by a strong gravitational field, reaching its maximum density and a state absent energy (absolute zero). This could be the point at which all the force carriers, from the three forces, are channeled into the service of gravity.
Most Respectfully,
R
No, I'm saying that (it is probably the case) all space-time has one or more force carriers active within it.
(THOUGHT)
The implication I see is that when a region of space is at absolute zero, there is no movement. All the moving parts of an atoms collapse upon themselves, attaining maximum density. All energy has been drained or evaporated away - creating a completely disordered state of the subatomic particles. The three forces (weak, strong, electromagnet) collapse completely and emerge, algebraically added to the gravity of the object.
(IMAGINATION)
Seyferts, quasars, and blazars -- pictured which huge jets of energy emerging from them --- may be, on a larger scale, a result of the energy being completely squeezed out of material as it is absorbed by a strong gravitational field, reaching its maximum density and a state absent energy (absolute zero). This could be the point at which all the force carriers, from the three forces, are channeled into the service of gravity.
Most Respectfully,
R
RoccoR
Registered Senior Member
AlexG, et al,
i'm not sure that we know what the coldest temperatures are in the universe which naturally form. Certainly, we don't know what the temperature is in a Blackhole (an extremely high density environment), or a set of Seyferts, Quasars, and Blazars; which all might be the same thing.
It is my understanding that a Bose-Einstein condensate condition can be artificially reached at 170 nanokelvin. I understand that Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman, received the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work --- using rubidium atoms which were laser cooled to Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) condition. (I could be wrong.)
Again, that is just my limited understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Most Resepctfully,
R
i'm not sure that we know what the coldest temperatures are in the universe which naturally form. Certainly, we don't know what the temperature is in a Blackhole (an extremely high density environment), or a set of Seyferts, Quasars, and Blazars; which all might be the same thing.
(OBSERVATION by LAYMAN)
It is my understanding that a Bose-Einstein condensate condition can be artificially reached at 170 nanokelvin. I understand that Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman, received the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work --- using rubidium atoms which were laser cooled to Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) condition. (I could be wrong.)
Note - Clarification & Apology: In this context I said "absolute zero," defined as:
- 0K on the Kelvin scale
- 0R on the Rankine scale
- −273.16°C on the Celsius scale
- −459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale.
ERIC A. CORNELL AND CARL E. WIEMAN said:
Again, that is just my limited understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Most Resepctfully,
R
AlexG, I thought they had found at least one void "out there".
And the CMB is not measured at a meter scale. It is a general background radiation, the large arrays are not that finely tuned.
At any real distance even our optical telescopes don't reach a meter scale resolution.
____________
Getting a little philosphical...
That aside a large part of this discussion hinges on how space is defined. A problem that touches almost every model involved. While we can say with some certainty that the CMB has a defined temperature range, can we also say that the CMB is space or does it just travel through space.
For most of our ideas, models and theories to function, space must have some intrinsic substance. Otherwise it could not interact with matter and become curved, giving rise to gravity (from a GR perspective). What ever that intrinsic substance is, it is not well enough defined to say it has any temperature, apart form the objects and EM radiations that seem to exist and move through it.
An accurate definition of what space IS, is one of the issues that stands in the path of a true GUT.
BB theory predicted the number of photons at the time of the recombination, and it works out to 400 million photons per cubic meter. I've read that on the old style TVs, up in the UHF bands about 5% of the static you see is attributable to the CMB. It's not just far away, it's everywhere.
When you are watching a movie, is the picture the substance or the DVD player? The latter of course. The movie is a produced effect.
Is matter, space, time etc the only thing or is something bigger generating everything?
To answer your question, space is an effect created by forces much more powerful and complex than expected. As many of the postings point out - space is an empty effect by things that are not empty - its weird I know, and fascinating. The very fact that you wondered about that question, shows you are capable of finding out.
Is matter, space, time etc the only thing or is something bigger generating everything?
To answer your question, space is an effect created by forces much more powerful and complex than expected. As many of the postings point out - space is an empty effect by things that are not empty - its weird I know, and fascinating. The very fact that you wondered about that question, shows you are capable of finding out.
Does it mean that , atomic space is also full of photons ?
What do you mean by 'void' ?
Is it some region of space , where there is no force-field and no energy-field ?