1. If we snapped our finger and all matter and energy were removed from the universe, would there be vacuum? How much vacuum would there be? and how could you measure distances or know what is the scale (of what you wouldnt be able to measure)?

Can energy/matter be considered a extra dimension in space, beyond the familiar 3 dimensions of space?
EDIT: since mass appears to cause a curvature of space, this suggests for a layman like me that theres an extra dimension beyond the 3D, and that this extra dimension happens to coincide with the presence of matter/energy/mass?

2.

3. Originally Posted by icewendigo
If we snapped our finger and all matter and energy were removed from the universe, would there be vacuum?
Well there is no matter (at all) then yes its a vacuum.

How much vacuum would there be?
The Vacuum would be as big as the universe

and how could you measure distances or know what is the scale (of what you wouldnt be able to measure)?
Well If the universe is infinite then the vacuum is infinite... not sure I understand this question.
Can energy/matter be considered a extra dimension in space, beyond the familiar 3 dimensions of space?
I don't think so... Matter is something with mass that is within the three dimensions we know of (up and down, left and right, back and forth)

4. Originally Posted by icewendigo
Can energy/matter be considered a extra dimension in space, beyond the familiar 3 dimensions of space?
Let's reword that to:

Can energy and momentum be considered as extra dimensions beyond the four dimensions of space and time?

Yes. This is important to the understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle where the energy-momentum domain is connected to the spacetime domain via the Fourier transformation. However, it should be noted that the mathematically fundamental connection is between the position operator and the partial differential operator, and that the mass dimension arises through scaling with the Planck constant.

5. Yes. This is important to the understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle where the energy-momentum domain is connected to the spacetime
domain via the Fourier transformation. However, it should be noted that the mathematically fundamental connection is between position and the partial
differential operator, and that the mass dimension arises through scaling with the Planck constant.

This sounds interesting. Can someone translate this into something non physicists can understand?

6. Originally Posted by icewendigo
This sounds interesting. Can someone translate this into something non physicists can understand?
As an analogy, one can consider an audio waveform which is a description in the time domain. But alternatively, one can derive from the waveform a frequency spectrum which is a frequency domain description of the same waveform. Thus, the same waveform can be described in two ways: either in the time domain or in the frequency domain. There is even an uncertainty relation between the time and frequency domains, indicating the true origin of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

7. What is matter? What is a vacuum?

I thought one of the reason CERN build the Large Hadron Collider in the first place, is basically to determine just that.

Now I read some of the reports,... I can't make a cowshead outta it. I'm simply not educated enough, so I will have to wait untill some great new documentary will be made about it, on TV.

But what was said,... is that a vacuum actually does not exist. A vacuum has stuff (layman's words) in it too. That is what those experiments at CERN thusfar actually shown us.

At which,.. me uneducated in physics wondered first,... well if a vacuum has stuff in it... what is between the stuff?

...

We'll get at the total picture at some point I hope. And I hope it'll be in my lifetime.

8. It's what stops everything from being at the same place

9. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
It's what stops everything from being at the same place
...and spacetime is what stops everything from being at the same place at the same time.

10. What is Space?

T
he distance between my ears inside my head.

11. What is space?

12. It is Space-Time... And what it is, is stuff in space... How much stuff is unknown and how much space depends on how fast something is going. Really fast and space is small, really slow and space is huge.

13. Originally Posted by gonzales56
how much space depends on how fast something is going. Really fast and space is small, really slow and space is huge.
No.

14. Originally Posted by gonzales56
And what it is, is stuff in space... How much stuff is unknown and how much space depends on how fast something is going. Really fast and space is small, really slow and space is huge.
space is stuff and stuff is space. how much stuff is unknown and unknown stuff is very much. really fast stuff makes space small and small space makes stuff go very fast. (Einstein in alternate universe where youtube education rules)

15. I've got too much stuff for the space available.

16. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by gonzales56
how much space depends on how fast something is going. Really fast and space is small, really slow and space is huge.
No.
Writing "no", or saying "no", does not change facts. The speed of light is the same for everyone and everything traveling at all speeds, what changes for all objects traveling at different speeds is the distance of space, the size of space. Time changes, distance in space, size of space, space, changes.

17. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Writing "no", or saying "no", does not change facts.
Correct.
But then again you didn't post any facts.

The speed of light is the same for everyone and everything traveling at all speeds, what changes for all objects traveling at different speeds is the distance of space, the size of space. Time changes, distance in space, size of space, space, changes.
Again, no.
And again, no facts.

Can you find ANY scientific claim that space "changes size" with speed?

18. I thought you and I have been through this before, and we have lol.. I also thought you would have taken a bit of time to learn something concerning this topic but, you have chosen different, why?

13billion-light-years from earth and we can still see the light HOW

Size is distance, measured by time. Time speeds up and slows down with speed. Basic stuff.

19. Yeah, I ask for science to support your claim, and you post a link to a thread where you showed a failure to understand.
How does that work?
Clue: you're being less than precise.

20. Size is distance, measured by time. Time speeds up and slows down with speed. Basic stuff.
Basically wrong.

21. I will leave you guys to your world were time dilation is not reality.. For those that want to know something, to learn something, if your reading this, ignore those who argue against the reality of time dilation.

22. Originally Posted by gonzales56
I will leave you guys to your world were time dilation is not reality.
And you're wrong again.
No one is denying time dilation: only your peculiar "explanation" of it.

23. Originally Posted by gonzales56
ignore those who argue against the reality of time dilation.
i did not see one person argue against time dilation. not one. who are you meaning ?

24. Lets do this .Does the time it takes, thus the distance, reduce if someone travels from our galaxy to any other galaxy at .90 the speed of light vs .10 the speed of light in reference to their frame/perspective and earths frame/perspective? Its simple. If yes, then you have learned something new today and you can stop arguing...

25. Originally Posted by gonzales56
It is Space-Time... And what it is, is stuff in space... How much stuff is unknown and how much space depends on how fast something is going. Really fast and space is small, really slow and space is huge.
What ever happened to "I don't Know".

26. Does the time it takes, thus the distance, reduce if someone travels from our galaxy to any other galaxy at .90 the speed of light vs .10 the speed of light in reference to their frame/perspective and earths frame/perspective?
In their own frame of reference, the travelers experience time and distance to be normal. It's only when measured from another frame of reference that we see time dilation and length contraction.

27. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Lets do this .Does the time it takes, thus the distance, reduce if someone travels from our galaxy to any other galaxy at .90 the speed of light vs .10 the speed of light in reference to their frame/perspective
Yes, the time taken is reduced more at .9c than it is at .1c, because of length contraction of the universe around the spaceship, along the axis of motion. There is more length contraction of the universe, along the axis of motion, at 0.9c than there is at 0.1c.

Originally Posted by gonzales56
and earths frame/perspective?
The time the journey is seen to take is reduced more at .9c than it is at 0.1c, but in both cases from the earth frame the journey is seen to take a much longer time, because the distance is not contracted at all. Distance between the galaxies is not reduced. The spaceship is, however, shortened along its axis of motion.

28. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by gonzales56
how much space depends on how fast something is going. Really fast and space is small, really slow and space is huge.
No.
Writing "no", or saying "no", does not change facts. The speed of light is the same for everyone and everything traveling at all speeds, what changes for all objects traveling at different speeds is the distance of space, the size of space. Time changes, distance in space, size of space, space, changes.
That maybe so as you mention in one instance of space observation, but there are many instances where measuring the
immeasurable cannot be recorded. No one entity knows the size of space, unless I have missed the whole of my life.

29. Originally Posted by AlexG
Does the time it takes, thus the distance, reduce if someone travels from our galaxy to any other galaxy at .90 the speed of light vs .10 the speed of light in reference to their frame/perspective and earths frame/perspective?
In their own frame of reference, the travelers experience time and distance to be normal. It's only when measured from another frame of reference that we see time dilation and length contraction.
You are almost getting there.. Normal to them yes... Which means???? Much closer, shorter distance, less time, not as far, nowhere near the miles away for them, as for those doing the calculations on earth...

30. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by gonzales56
Lets do this .Does the time it takes, thus the distance, reduce if someone travels from our galaxy to any other galaxy at .90 the speed of light vs .10 the speed of light in reference to their frame/perspective
Yes, the time taken is reduced more at .9c than it is at .1c, because of length contraction.
Originally Posted by gonzales56
and earths frame/perspective?
The time is reduced more at .9c than it is at 0.1c, but in both cases from the earth frame the journey is seen to take a longer time, because the distance is not contracted at all. Distance is not reduced.
Thank You.. Thats all..Earths frame is no longer the only reference point. The ships is just as "real". The time and distance for them is much shorter. That reference point is just as important in understanding distance and speed.

31. Normal to them yes... Which means????
That their rigid measuring rods measure the same distance as they do when they're stationary, that each second consists of 9,192,631,770 transitions of cesium. In their own frame of reference, nothing has changed.

32. A metre is always a metre and a second is always a second, to whoever is measuring them. But different frames will measure different amounts of seconds and different amounts of metres, relative to other frames, depending on their relative motions.

Time and distance are relative quantities, not absolute quantities.

33. Originally Posted by AlexG
Normal to them yes... Which means????
That their rigid measuring rods measure the same distance as they do when they're stationary, that each second consists of 9,192,631,770 transitions of cesium. In their own frame of reference, nothing has changed.
Wrong. The calculations on time and what the actual distance has change between the frames. Time changes in the frames, thus, the distance changes in those frames. Those on earth, those traveling .10 the speed of light and those traveling .90 the speed of light will all disagree on the distance to a different galaxy. An inch will be an inch to all three but, how many inches all 3 will take or say it will take to get to that galaxy will all be different.

The distance changes.

34. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
A metre is always a metre and a second is always a second, to whoever is measuring them. But different frames will measure different amounts of seconds and different amounts of metres, relative to other frames, depending on their relative motions.Time and distance are relative quantities, not absolute quantities.
Thats all I have said/written, so whats the debate between you and I?

35. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
A metre is always a metre and a second is always a second, to whoever is measuring them. But different frames will measure different amounts of seconds and different amounts of metres, relative to other frames, depending on their relative motions.Time and distance are relative quantities, not absolute quantities.
Thats all I have said/written, so whats the debate between you and I?
Different amounts of seconds does not necessarily mean time is speeding up or slowing down. A different path through spacetime takes a different amount of proper time, which always passes at the same rate.

36. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Originally Posted by AlexG
Normal to them yes... Which means????
That their rigid measuring rods measure the same distance as they do when they're stationary, that each second consists of 9,192,631,770 transitions of cesium. In their own frame of reference, nothing has changed.
Wrong. The calculations on time and what the actual distance has change between the frames. Time changes in the frames, thus, the distance changes in those frames. Those on earth, those traveling .10 the speed of light and those traveling .90 the speed of light will all disagree on the distance to a different galaxy. An inch will be an inch to all three but, how many inches all 3 will take or say it will take to get to that galaxy will all be different.
In the frame of the ship, everything looks and measures normally. They measured the ship while it was stationary, and got an answer of 100 meters. They measure the ship in motion, using the same measuring rods as before, and get an answer of 100 meters. In the ship 1 second passes at it's normal rate. It's only when measured from a different frame of reference that we see time dilation and length contraction.

37. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Originally Posted by AlexG
Normal to them yes... Which means????
That their rigid measuring rods measure the same distance as they do when they're stationary, that each second consists of 9,192,631,770 transitions of cesium. In their own frame of reference, nothing has changed.
Wrong. The calculations on time and what the actual distance has change between the frames. Time changes in the frames, thus, the distance changes in those frames. Those on earth, those traveling .10 the speed of light and those traveling .90 the speed of light will all disagree on the distance to a different galaxy. An inch will be an inch to all three but, how many inches all 3 will take or say it will take to get to that galaxy will all be different.

The distance changes.
Yes, but the inches don't actually stretch or contract for any observer. It's just that different observers measure different amounts of inches. The same goes for time.

You might think this is nit-picking but it is actually important.

38. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by gonzales56
Originally Posted by AlexG
Normal to them yes... Which means????
That their rigid measuring rods measure the same distance as they do when they're stationary, that each second consists of 9,192,631,770 transitions of cesium. In their own frame of reference, nothing has changed.
Wrong. The calculations on time and what the actual distance has change between the frames. Time changes in the frames, thus, the distance changes in those frames. Those on earth, those traveling .10 the speed of light and those traveling .90 the speed of light will all disagree on the distance to a different galaxy. An inch will be an inch to all three but, how many inches all 3 will take or say it will take to get to that galaxy will all be different.The distance changes.
Yes, but the inches don't actually stretch or contract for any observer. It's just that different observers measure different amounts of inches. The same goes for time.You might think this is nit-picking but it is actually important.
I am not the one nit-picking here. Never claimed the ship experiences time different in thier frame, the just experience a lot less of it.. Infact, I have stressed over and over again that the only thing everyone will disagree on, and must disagree on, is the distance traveled. I have stated that everyone must agree on the speed of light, it does not change. Time traveled and distance traveled changes. I have said this over and over again, so your point now, as if I have not stressed that reality, is somewhat confusing to me but, so be it.... As long as everyone gets it now, I have not wasted a little time for nothing..

39. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Never claimed the ship experiences time different in thier frame, the just experience a lot less of it..
this makes no sense ?

40. "If we snapped our finger and all matter and energy were removed from the universe, would there be vacuum? "

WELL THERE WOULD BE NOTHING(IE.VACUME)
THE ONLY REASON ITS CALLED VACUME OR SPACE IS COZ THERE R ALL THE PLANETS AND OTHER COSMIC BODIES IN IT SO IF YOU DONT HAVE DAT THEN WAT DO YOU HAVE?
NOTHING.
AND R U THANOS BY ANY CHANCE ???

41. Originally Posted by gonzales56
I am not the one nit-picking here.
I didn't say you were. I said you might think I am nit-picking, but this is important.

Originally Posted by gonzales56
Never claimed the ship experiences time different in thier frame, the just experience a lot less of it.. Infact, I have stressed over and over again that the only thing everyone will disagree on, and must disagree on, is the distance traveled. I have stated that everyone must agree on the speed of light, it does not change. Time traveled and distance traveled changes. I have said this over and over again, so your point now, as if I have not stressed that reality, is somewhat confusing to me but, so be it.... As long as everyone gets it now, I have not wasted a little time for nothing..
It is actually a good thing to have these discussions. At first, your terminology was a bit loose an could have been misunderstood.

"How much stuff is unknown and how much space depends on how fast something is going. Really fast and space is small, really slow and space is huge."

Now I knew what you meant, and you knew what you meant, but you were answering a question someone else asked and the question should now become "did they understand what you meant?"

You know that motion is relative, so who is to say who is going fast and who isn't? Surely if you are going fast relative to someone else, then they are going fast relative to you also... do you see what I mean? If motion is relative, then when you are going fast you might also consider yourself to not be moving at all.

Length contraction only occurs along the axis of motion, so going "fast" or "slow" in space changes nothing about its width or height. So is "small" the best way to describe what you meant? It might imply, incorrectly, that the whole of space gets smaller, might it not, when in truth length only contracts along one dimension.

So are "fast", "slow" or "small" the best way to describe these things?

42. Originally Posted by theawesomeguyeee1969
"If we snapped our finger and all matter and energy were removed from the universe, would there be vacuum? "

WELL THERE WOULD BE NOTHING(IE.VACUME)
THE ONLY REASON ITS CALLED VACUME OR SPACE IS COZ THERE R ALL THE PLANETS AND OTHER COSMIC BODIES IN IT SO IF YOU DONT HAVE DAT THEN WAT DO YOU HAVE?
NOTHING.
AND R U THANOS BY ANY CHANCE ???

A poor showing for a first post. Yelling and contributing nothing of significance. And with your first post comes your first warning.
Lynx

43. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by gonzales56
Never claimed the ship experiences time different in thier frame, the just experience a lot less of it..
this makes no sense ?
The longer the path through space, between two distinct events in spacetime, the shorter the amount of proper time along that path. Any better?

Space and time are one entity that can be divided apart in different ways, depending on the relative motions of the observers involved. If two observers meet each other (a distinct event in space and time) and then later on meet each other again (another distinct event in space and time), the observer who took the longer path through space between these events will measure a shorter amount of proper time to have elapsed along their path.

44. Originally Posted by theawesomeguyeee1969
"If we snapped our finger and all matter and energy were removed from the universe, would there be vacuum? "

WELL THERE WOULD BE NOTHING(IE.VACUME)
THE ONLY REASON ITS CALLED VACUME OR SPACE IS COZ THERE R ALL THE PLANETS AND OTHER COSMIC BODIES IN IT SO IF YOU DONT HAVE DAT THEN WAT DO YOU HAVE?
NOTHING.
AND R U THANOS BY ANY CHANCE ???

Ditch the caps lock, but I always appreciate a reference to Thanos.

45. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by gonzales56
Never claimed the ship experiences time different in thier frame, the just experience a lot less of it..
this makes no sense ?
The longer the path through space, between two distinct events in spacetime, the shorter the amount of proper time along that path. Any better?

Space and time are one entity that can be divided apart in different ways, depending on the relative motions of the observers involved. If two observers meet each other (a distinct event in space and time) and then later on meet each other again (another distinct event in space and time), the observer who took the longer path through space between these events will measure a shorter amount of proper time to have elapsed along their path.
yes. thank you.

46. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by gonzales56
I am not the one nit-picking here.
I didn't say you were. I said you might think I am nit-picking, but this is important.
Originally Posted by gonzales56
Never claimed the ship experiences time different in thier frame, the just experience a lot less of it.. Infact, I have stressed over and over again that the only thing everyone will disagree on, and must disagree on, is the distance traveled. I have stated that everyone must agree on the speed of light, it does not change. Time traveled and distance traveled changes. I have said this over and over again, so your point now, as if I have not stressed that reality, is somewhat confusing to me but, so be it.... As long as everyone gets it now, I have not wasted a little time for nothing..
It is actually a good thing to have these discussions. At first, your terminology was a bit loose an could have been misunderstood."How much stuff is unknown and how much space depends on how fast something is going. Really fast and space is small, really slow and space is huge."Now I knew what you meant, and you knew what you meant, but you were answering a question someone else asked and the question should now become "did they understand what you meant?"You know that motion is relative, so who is to say who is going fast and who isn't? Surely if you are going fast relative to someone else, then they are going fast relative to you also... do you see what I mean? If motion is relative, then when you are going fast you might also consider yourself to not be moving at all.Length contraction only occurs along the axis of motion, so going "fast" or "slow" in space changes nothing about its width or height. So is "small" the best way to describe what you meant? It might imply, incorrectly, that the whole of space gets smaller, might it not, when in truth length only contracts along one dimension. So are "fast", "slow" or "small" the best way to describe these things?
Good point, and no, not the best terms. In my attempt to be extremely simplistic I left to much up to the imagination to interpret or derive. I apologize for that and I appreciate you pointing this out to me. I will work on not doing this in the future.. Thank You.

47. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by gonzales56
Never claimed the ship experiences time different in thier frame, the just experience a lot less of it..
this makes no sense ?
The longer the path through space, between two distinct events in spacetime, the shorter the amount of proper time along that path. Any better?Space and time are one entity that can be divided apart in different ways, depending on the relative motions of the observers involved. If two observers meet each other (a distinct event in space and time) and then later on meet each other again (another distinct event in space and time), the observer who took the longer path through space between these events will measure a shorter amount of proper time to have elapsed along their path.
My sentence is the same, just shorter but, I should not assume 1. People know what you wrote or 2. People understand that thats exactly what I am trying to communicate, in a simple way, to them.

48. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by gonzales56
Never claimed the ship experiences time different in thier frame, the just experience a lot less of it..
this makes no sense ?
The longer the path through space, between two distinct events in spacetime, the shorter the amount of proper time along that path. Any better?Space and time are one entity that can be divided apart in different ways, depending on the relative motions of the observers involved. If two observers meet each other (a distinct event in space and time) and then later on meet each other again (another distinct event in space and time), the observer who took the longer path through space between these events will measure a shorter amount of proper time to have elapsed along their path.
My sentence is the same, just shorter but, I should not assume 1. People know what you wrote or 2. People understand that thats exactly what I am trying to communicate, in a simple way, to them.
i am sorry for not reading well enough. it is a skill that i need to work on. please carry on.

49. I dont know who is Thanos.

if the matter in the universe can cause curvature of space, would the absence of matter alter the curvature of space an make it larger/more open?

And if all you have is vacuum, you dont have anything, but isnt that something, that vacuum exists? Is complete nonexistence (of anything and everything, not even vacuum) even possible?

50. Originally Posted by icewendigo
I dont know who is Thanos.

if the matter in the universe can cause curvature of space, would the absence of matter alter the curvature of space an make it larger/more open?

And if all you have is vacuum, you dont have anything, but isnt that something, that vacuum exists? Is complete nonexistence (of anything and everything, not even vacuum) even possible?
Ice, you could also ask the question, can anything exist on its own, can vacuum exist on its own, is there another force creating the vacuum. if we take only the measurable parts and create a universe around it, how would we know what drives the measurable parts? Personally I think these questions will only give rise to new question. We have yet to really understand matter. Don't say I said so.

51. Originally Posted by Stargate
Ice, you could also ask the question, can anything exist on its own, can vacuum exist on its own, is there another force creating the vacuum. if we take only the measurable parts and create a universe around it, how would we know what drives the measurable parts? Personally I think these questions will only give rise to new question. We have yet to really understand matter. Don't say I said so.
Please stop posting in the hard science sections.

52. Originally Posted by icewendigo
I dont know who is Thanos.

An extraterrestrial supervillain in the Marvel Universe, who wishes to impress Death(*), by all means.
(cf. Thanos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

(*) Although Death is mostly represented in the comics as a Grim Reaper-like creature, it is also often depicted as an adult woman.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement