What IS space?

[Qfwfq]

Maybe decay was the wrong word to use, but essentially all quarks can be broken down directly or indirectly to the photon (energy).

A quark, like any charged particle, interacts with the EM field (photon).

 

Photon => energy? :eek2: Any particle has energy, it isn't a prerogative of the photon.

 

Further, are you taking into account conservation rules besides that of energy?

[WebFeet]

Photon => energy? :eek2: Any particle has energy, it isn't a prerogative of the photon.

The photon is the only observable particle that has energy and no rest mass. So maybe it is a prerogative of the photon, and that all other particles are merely photonic systems.

 

Top quarks decay to bottom quarks and W bosons. W bosons decay to electrons or muons.

Bottom Quarks decay to an electron and a muon. A muon decays to an electron or a positron

 

Electron + Positron => Mutual Annihilation => 2 photons

• No charge. cancelled out + / -
  
• No mass. ? also cancelled out ?
  
• Energy - conserved
  
• All other convservation laws - observed

[CraigD]

That was really my point. You can't. It is not possible to measure the speed of a photon in complete isolation.

Is it necessary to measure it in complete isolation?

 

If the time (T) that a photon takes to cross a particular distance is related to the number (N) of photons it encounters, could one not increase N by supplying more photons (eg: perform the experiment during night, then day), and observe an increase in T?

The issue here is the density of the photons.

 

If you accept that all particles decay to photons, then by introducing any foreign substance between the emitter and receiver you will increase the number of photons. …

I believe we can all agree that the density of photons in a particular volume of space is greater when that space is exposed to the sun (day) than when it is shadowed from it (night).

 

I was hoping for a yes/no answer, or even better, a yes/no and a formula describing how much of a change to expect.

 

What I’m trying to do is define an experiment to validate/falsify the hypothesis “The speed of light is determined by how much energy is contained in a section of free space and the rate at which that section will allow energy through.” If such an experiment is easy to design and conduct, it’s sensible to do so before continuing a line of thought that assumes the hypothesis to be true.

[damocles]

The photon is the only observable particle that has energy and no rest mass. So maybe it is a prerogative of the photon, and that all other particles are merely photonic systems.

 

Top quarks decay to bottom quarks and W bosons. W bosons decay to electrons or muons.

Bottom Quarks decay to an electron and a muon. A muon decays to an electron or a positron

 

Electron + Positron => Mutual Annihilation => 2 photons

No charge. cancelled out + / -

No mass. ? also cancelled out ?

Energy - conserved

All other convservation laws - observed

 

By WebFoot

 

 

To clarify for schmucks like me;

 

http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~kdh1/ce/ce02c.pdf

 

I object to the notion that you would have solely photons at the symmetry break either at tau zero^ -123 sec or at tau^n+123 e((pop!).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

 

Photons are fundamental particles. They can be created and destroyed when interacting with other particles, but are not known to decay on their own.

 

Photons are gauge bosons, a class of particles(depending on the gauge boson) which have yet to be observed existing independently of their origin lepton or hadron "anchor pairs"(Origin/receptor space/time points in a binding force exchange-an "event". ).

 

So how do you wind up with a "pure photon soup" as a conditional or a single isolated photon; when it is more likely that photons didn't appear as a gauge boson until the force symmetry break?

[WebFeet]

What I’m trying to do is define an experiment to validate/falsify the hypothesis “The speed of light is determined by how much energy is contained in a section of free space and the rate at which that section will allow energy through.” If such an experiment is easy to design and conduct, it’s sensible to do so before continuing a line of thought that assumes the hypothesis to be true.

 

Here's a link that should cover what you're looking for: Polarized Vacuum

[sergey500]

If in the beginning there is only energy, then that's all you have to play with.

 

So, IMO, Space being energy is the way to go, although it's not uniform. Each bit of energy exists in a unique position, with its own size and direction. It is the interaction of these seperate identities that not only provides us with space, but everything else as well.

 

Space may well just be the simplest arrangement of energy, with each particle having its own seperate identity. When these particles align themselves with other particles to form systems, they cease to be space and become a more complex particle.

 

From this, everyting can be built from Space and will eventually decay back to being Space.

 

 

All matter is simply energy that has solid being. I have no idea how to define enery i am too lazy to look it up (and i need to do my hw asap). So what i am stating is energy somehow turned into a solid matter then this gain mass and more energy and eventaully the immense particles crashed together creating the big bang........or someting like that....i am not in my creative mood when i can solve any question thrown at me.

 

Also you guys are thinking to much, just keep it simple and answers will be revealed. Eintein said that if child can not understand a theory at it greatest simplicity then it is useless. He had a point.

[CraigD]

What I’m trying to do is define an experiment to validate/falsify the hypothesis “The speed of light is determined by how much energy is contained in a section of free space and the rate at which that section will allow energy through.” If such an experiment is easy to design and conduct, it’s sensible to do so before continuing a line of thought that assumes the hypothesis to be true.

Here's a link that should cover what you're looking for: Polarized Vacuum

The paper linked describes an alternative formalism for General Relativity, a well-experimentally supported theory that predicts that the speed of light is dependent on gravitational fields. The boson for gravity (“graviton”, although there is not consensus for including this boson in the Standard Model, or even that it exists and should be included) is certainly not a photon. The paper makes no mention of the speed of light being dependent on “photon density”.

 

I’m not too troubled by the experimental design – precise speed-of-light difference measurements are pretty easy to make, and I happen to actually have the necessary optics for this kind of thing just laying around. An alternative design involved a bit of deep-field spectroscopy, which an amateur astronomer friend of mine can do given a clear night.

 

:eek2: What I, the experimentalist, need from you, the theoretician, is a theoretical prediction, in the form of an answre to the following question:

Will the speed of a large collection of photons measured under conditions of increased photon density resulting from direct sunlight be less than the speed of a nearly identical collection of photons measured when shielded from direct sunlight?

While a simple yes or no is sufficient, a prediction of the amount of difference in the speed of light to be measured would be helpful.

 

Science is distinguished from Philosophy by its use of experimental verification. While Philosophy is enjoyable and rewarding, it’s important to be aware in which activity you’re engaging.

 

:beer: C’mon, predict! Science if the ultimate win-win game – whether falsified or not, theoretical predictions advance Science.

[CraigD]

Accidental miss post

[emessay]

Back to the question : " What is SPACE ?"

 

It seems to me that space has its paradox if we observe as a volume or a mass. I prefer to choose that space-time is binary couple similar like mass-energy, and the rest is mind as observer to complete what we recall as conscious universe.

 

Nature data that we're still staggering in observing life growth phenomena :

 

1. From one zygote --> 30 trillion cells well organized human body

2. From basic procaryote-->huge boundary 'Eden garden' of life biosphere

 

It means 'a big-bang' from 'zero' volume/mass-->huge volume/mass, then we may ask question how can mother-nature controls a volume/mass of a species from 'zero' volume of zygote to be huge balanced volume of a human body in 17 years ?

 

Try to analyze with automation system, figure out the huge loop of computation !!!

 

So do not judge huge volume of galaxies with our eyes as huge space only, it should be a long long journey of space-time in 13.7 bya ?

 

Am I wrong ?

 

It seems to me volume or mass is fictious or illusory.

 

Let's take other opinions :

 

Culbertson :

 

1.All spacetime events are conscious

2.Space-time does not happen: it always exists

3.All space-time events are conscious: they are conscious of other space-time events

4.The subjective features of the "psycho-space" of an observer derives from the objective features of the region of space-time that the observer is connected to

5.Our brain create the impression of a time flow

6.Conscious memory is not in the brain, is in space-time

 

And again Fred Alan Wolf:

 

1.Matter is created by mind

2.If nobody observes reality, reality doesn't exist

3.reality is created by the observer, where is the observer? Wolf claims the observer is not in the brain and it is not in the body

4.the observer, by observing, becomes the body

5.Mind "invents" a fictitious body and then it starts believing that "it is" the body

[Qfwfq]

The photon is the only observable particle that has energy and no rest mass. So maybe it is a prerogative of the photon, and that all other particles are merely photonic systems.

You seem to be forgetting the neutrino, except for the rather ad hoc conjecture of a few cosmologists. They also hope out of:

Top quarks decay to bottom quarks and W bosons. W bosons decay to electrons or muons.

Bottom Quarks decay to an electron and a muon. A muon decays to an electron or a positron

Despite your failure to indicate them.

 

The main thing I would like to get about PV, and I believe I queried you in past months, is whether it would explain c which, don't forget, isn't only the speed of light. I'll have a look through that paper, thanks.

[WebFeet]

The paper linked describes an alternative formalism for General Relativity, a well-experimentally supported theory that predicts that the speed of light is dependent on gravitational fields. The boson for gravity (“graviton”, although there is not consensus for including this boson in the Standard Model, or even that it exists and should be included) is certainly not a photon. The paper makes no mention of the speed of light being dependent on “photon density”.

 

The paper does describe an alternate solution to GR, but specifically using the variable refractive index of free space. The paper is an alternate gravitational theory and doesn't rely on gravitons or any other mythical particle.

 

The theory uses Maxwell's equations to derive the refractive index of free space based on its permittivity and permeability.

 

The permittivity of free space and its subsequent effect on the refractive index of that free space, is to do with photon density.

 

What I, the experimentalist, need from you, the theoretician, is a theoretical prediction, in the form of an answre to the following question:

Will the speed of a large collection of photons measured under conditions of increased photon density resulting from direct sunlight be less than the speed of a nearly identical collection of photons measured when shielded from direct sunlight?

While a simple yes or no is sufficient, a prediction of the amount of difference in the speed of light to be measured would be helpful.

 

The answer to your question is yes.

As for the prediction... The difference will have to take into account the average wavelength of the direct sunlight, both visible and non-visible and relate this to Planck's constant.

So the prediction would be somewhere in the region of 1 x 10 ^ -10 m/s variation.

[WebFeet]

You seem to be forgetting the neutrino, except for the rather ad hoc conjecture of a few cosmologists.

A particle that is only really detected through reverse decay...

I didn't forget it, just omitted it.

The main thing I would like to get about PV, and I believe I queried you in past months, is whether it would explain c which, don't forget, isn't only the speed of light.

The closest I have come to a clean definition of C is that it is derived from the inertia of energy.

I hope that makes sense.

[damocles]

The closest I have come to a clean definition of C is that it is derived from the inertia of energy. I hope that makes sense.

 

By WebFeet

 

unity=infinity

 

It makes perfect sense.

[sergey500]

I see. . . no i don't how does that make sense?

[damocles]

Depending how much energy you pump into a gauge boson, it tends to curve local space/time topologically. At some point it closes space in on itself and ceases to appear or influence our spacetime as it "curls' itself dimensionally shut.

 

That is an upper topological dimensional bound. In the case of the electro-magnetic force, I suspect that the photon ceases to have force effect if it exceeds its vacuum velocity. I also suspect that it has a minimum velocity at which it ceases to be observed-the velocity of a photon in flat space.

 

For convenience, I label these conditions "nothing" and "infinity".

 

Since the observed conditions at either end of the apparent velocity range appear to us identical(no photon observed), there could be equivalence in effect as far as we are concerned.

 

So that might explain the velocity constant c, with the apparent "mass effect"(actually potential energy) the photon, has as being tied directly to its frequency, as that is the only means that it can pack all that energy into its tiny little self as we observe it from our respective local space/times.

 

It should be obvious that there is no such thing as a frozen photon(A gauge boson at rest? Ridiculous!) under these conditions?

 

Photons have no mass, but they do have that topological dimensional limit. So the more potential energy you pump into the photon, the more kinetic energy it releases as soon as it makes the force transfer.

 

The fact that space/time is quantized means that there is a limit to how much density you can pack into a volume(i.e. that photon or any particle). You couldn't pack infinite energy into a point even if space/time was infinte in volume. At a certain radius space/time curls in on itself(Matter and energy behave topologically the same exact way when concentrated !E=mc^2 remember?

 

If you could achieve infinite concentration despite the lower and upper topological bounds then then all space/time collapses to a point at either condition.

 

unity(one point)=infinity(infinite concentration of all energy/mass)

[Qfwfq]

A particle that is only really detected through reverse decay...

I didn't forget it, just omitted it.

Now, talk about subtlety!!! :hihi:

 

The closest I have come to a clean definition of C is that it is derived from the inertia of energy.

I hope that makes sense.

What else has inertia, besides energy?

[WebFeet]

Now, talk about subtlety!!! :hihi:

A particle that can only be detected through reverse decay that can subsequently decay into something different ?

Do you blame me for leaving them out ? This thing is complicated enough.

 

What else has inertia, besides energy?

 

The fundamental equivalence between energy and inertial mass is well documented, E=MC^2, so the answer to your question is nothing.