It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Space equal Time, as Matter equals Energy?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Why...why...WHY...am I still pondering this?! Perhaps because Space, Time, Matter and Energy are constantly slung around as a package deal in all the Science forums or something. (Not that THAT means anything.)

Okay, just maybe it DOES mean something! Can Space and Time switch places like Matter and Energy...and is there a FORMULA forwarded by a reputable source to prove it? Help me out here, folks.




posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
OMG wait a minute...


Energy = Matter * c^2


replace with

Time = Space * c^2 or Space = Time * c^2

...I am thinking...How to define 'c' as a what?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
OMG wait a minute...


Energy = Matter * c^2


replace with

Time = Space * c^2 or Space = Time * c^2

...I think they aren't fit with c^2 and I don't know how to define time and space..

Waiting for expert



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Let's disregard time for the moment and pretend that instead of asking whether space and time could swap places, you asked whether length and width could swap places. You should realise that you cannot solely use width to express a certain length, and vice versa. If you think of the universe as having three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension (time), you can see that we can apply the same logic with space and time as I did with width and length.

Also, matter and energy don't exactly switch places. Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa, you see the former everytime you light a match and how it gives off heat and light.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Can Space and Time switch places like Matter and Energy...and is there a FORMULA forwarded by a reputable source to prove it?


Err... not sure what you're getting at here, but time isn't a factor in "space." You can have time independant of any spatial quantity and you can have spatial quantities without time. If time slows down, you don't suddenly get lots and lots of "space."

It takes you longer to get across the space, but the space hasn't expanded.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Toelint
Can Space and Time switch places like Matter and Energy...and is there a FORMULA forwarded by a reputable source to prove it?


Err... not sure what you're getting at here, but time isn't a factor in "space." You can have time independant of any spatial quantity and you can have spatial quantities without time. If time slows down, you don't suddenly get lots and lots of "space."

It takes you longer to get across the space, but the space hasn't expanded.


This is not so true without space ... Time would be irrelevant.

But I do like what you are getting at ... You can make the space you have seem endless ... if traveled at the Right speed. Making time longer. ...

[edit on 11-7-2006 by Deus_Brandon]


apc

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I propose time is a consequence of moving from one unit of space to the next. The speed of movement determines the perception of time. If you were to stop moving completely, relative to space itself, the passage of time would approach infinity and to everyone else in the universe you would instantly disintegrate, long since dead from old age and rotted away.

So time is just a measurment of a certain distance travelled at a certain speed. I dont see how the two variables can be equated, but my education lacks so this is all speculation on my part.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Space and Time can not be separated since Einstein came out with General and Special Relativity.

The same equation works for both, except that the sign is different. With Space it is positive and with Time it is negative.

For review, you can check out the book "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe, a Physical Guide to Time Travel" or something very similiar to that without looking up the book's title somewhere around here. It was written by J. Richard Goth, I think at Princeton University. mmmm.........I can't find it right now, oh well.

In other words, if you move in Space you also move through Time.
SpaceTime = 0. I think, or I am guessing. Well, that is what the book stated.

I also state that to me "Time" is the only dimension. Or what came first -- Space or Time. If there was no "Time" I don't think there would be Space. Space is to me caused by "Time". If you have the "Time", I think you could create the "Space". But, don't ask for a formula, no one has come up with any as of yet.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
as an object travels close(r) to the speed of light, its spatial and temporal characteristics are affected-- the object is squashed laterally in the direction of its movement, and time begins to pass more slowly for the object. both these facts are empirically demonstrable.

so (to answer some of the more skeptical voices above) a case could certainly be made for a mathematical relation between time and space. in fact, it's just a matter of time until we figure out the numbers underlying these processes... now, as always, i'd recommend against crying BS anywhere too soon in the game, given the pathetically limited nature of the minds and science of humankind.



now, as to whether converting space to time or vice versa would be possible, as with matter and energy, i'm not too sure. high-energy physics can manipulate one or the other dimension, but as for exchanging them... well, i don't even want to think what would happen to reality if that happened... so step away from the particle accelerator, all right?



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
space = ct

(space = speed of light * time)

by dimensional analysis



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
As earlier stated, space and time are two aspects of the same thing according to general relativity(I'm pretty sure that it is different in special relativity). Thus, one cannot seperate the two, combined the two, or turn one into the other, as they are the same thing(spacetime). Problems however do arise when trying to combine this with quantum mechanics, in an attempt to make a theory of everything.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
space = ct

(space = speed of light * time)

by dimensional analysis


I see what you are getting at here and essentially you are right but in very basic and hazy terms. Well I say you are right but who knows how our theories will change in the future...



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
I propose time is a consequence of moving from one unit of space to the next. The speed of movement determines the perception of time. If you were to stop moving completely, relative to space itself, the passage of time would approach infinity and to everyone else in the universe you would instantly disintegrate, long since dead from old age and rotted away.

So time is just a measurment of a certain distance travelled at a certain speed. I dont see how the two variables can be equated, but my education lacks so this is all speculation on my part.


I think this makes more sense if you carry it down to the sub-atomic level. If you remove all matter from a certain amount of space, so as to be left with only waves...and they TOO stop moving...then yes, time will in essence, stop.

Makes sense, no?


Okay, this might sound a little elementary...ahh, what the heck...here' goes!

Assuming we can still use Light as our constant (I don't remember Einstein ever addressing the prospect of "zero matter" or zero energy". Let's assume there's no such thing as "zero space" and "zero time"...just for a moment) and assuming we use this stated formula...
(space = speed of light * time)

I'm figuring that as the Universe expands out one meter, it takes light 0.00000000000000000000000000027 seconds longer for Light to travel 300,000,000 Meters.

Huh?

(Hmm...I better get back to ya'll on that!


[edit on 28-7-2006 by Toelint]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Space, time, & light are all the same thing.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Why...why...WHY...am I still pondering this?! Perhaps because Space, Time, Matter and Energy are constantly slung around as a package deal in all the Science forums or something. (Not that THAT means anything.)

Okay, just maybe it DOES mean something! Can Space and Time switch places like Matter and Energy...and is there a FORMULA forwarded by a reputable source to prove it? Help me out here, folks.


I have actually thought of this myself. I am just a normal doof, but what I come up with is this...

light = 186,000 miles per second, that would mean a sphere with a radius of 186,000 miles would = 1 second of space

Figure how much energy it would take to make light to fill a sphere that big, and you could control the universe =]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Better yet, what do:

E'=2mc
E''=2m
and
Int. E=(mc^3)/3 + C

mean?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nogirt
Better yet, what do:

E'=2mc
E''=2m
and
Int. E=(mc^3)/3 + C

mean?


E'=2mc
E''=2m
and
Int. E=(mc^3)/3 + C...

Is Einsteins theory on fudge and nut brownies and their corolation with the density of vanilla ice cream... hmmm, i like this equasion =]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
The speed of light is a constant, so you can't take the derivative of it like that.

Just because you have a constant squared, doesn't mean anything except the value is c * c... either way, it is still a constant... or treated as such, none-the-less.

Thus, there is no derivative via the speed of light (c).

Keep in mind that the first derivate is velocity/speed (where velocity has direction and speed doesn't) and the second derivate is acceleration.

Here are some partial derivatives:

From:
E = m*c^2 = m*c*c

Partial derivate of Energy with respect to the speed of light (c):
dE/dc (E) = d/dc (m*c*c)
dE/dc (E) = m d/c (c*c)
dE/dc (E) = m * 0
dE/dc (E) = 0

Therefore, the constant (c) has no instantaneous rate of change (it is a constant -- and constants don't CHANGE at all or they wouldn't be CONSTANT now would they?).

An important side note: (c) -- the speed of light -- is a speed already. Thus, the change in speed is its acceleration. Since our equation is zero, there is no change in that speed (it doesn't slow down or speed up more). Again, it is constant.

Partial derivate of Energy with respect mass (m):
dE/dm (E) = d/dm (m*c*c)
dE/dm (E) = (c*c) d/dm (m)
dE/dm (E) = (c*c) * 1
dE/dm (E) = c^2

Therefore, the mass (m) has an instantaneous rate of change of the speed of light squared (c^2 or c*c). i.e. the velocity/speed of mass (m) is c^2.

Another important point is to do the second partial derivative (of Energy with respect to mass (again)):

d^2E/dm^2 (E) = d/dm^2 (m*c*c) = d/dm (d/dm (m*c*c)) = d/dm (c^2)
d^2E/dm^2 (E) = d/dm (c^2)
d^2E/dm^2 (E) = (c^2) d/dm (1) ... a constant again
d^2E/dm^2 (E) = (c^2) * 0
d^2E/dm^2 (E) = 0

So the rate of acceleration of the mass component of Energy is zero. It does not accelerate, it is already going the speed of light. Basically, the speed of light is a property of Energy. Or so the equations say it is.

I'm not certain my notation is perfect, since it has been a while since I messed with partial derivatives, but you should get the point if you know derivatives.

See the constant multiple rule about 2/3 of the way down the page

Partial Derivatives

Edited for better clarification

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Protector]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Toelint
Can Space and Time switch places like Matter and Energy...and is there a FORMULA forwarded by a reputable source to prove it?


Err... not sure what you're getting at here, but time isn't a factor in "space." You can have time independant of any spatial quantity and you can have spatial quantities without time. If time slows down, you don't suddenly get lots and lots of "space."

It takes you longer to get across the space, but the space hasn't expanded.


prove it. if you can give me a single shred of documented evidence wherein either space or time exist independently of one another, i will TOTALLY give you a cookie.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Why...why...WHY...am I still pondering this?! Perhaps because Space, Time, Matter and Energy are constantly slung around as a package deal in all the Science forums or something. (Not that THAT means anything.)

Okay, just maybe it DOES mean something! Can Space and Time switch places like Matter and Energy...and is there a FORMULA forwarded by a reputable source to prove it? Help me out here, folks.


The answer is NO.

Space is a name used for a 3-dimensional SPACE. Time is a quality of the 4th dimension. The 4th dimension is the next mathematical integration of 3-d space. What does that mean? The 4th dimension dictates how 3-d objects move and change.

Think of a picture/photograph. It is a moment of time frozen. Now think of a statue, a 3-d object that appears to be frozen. Well, without time you would be frozen just like a statue. Time allows you to move. Your brain gives you the choice of WHERE to move.

However, you don't have any control over time or the 4th dimension so it is hard to understand. The 4th dimension would give you the ability to turn yourself inside-out (for instance). However, besides the fact that doing such a thing would kill you, you don't have the ABILITY to do that because you have no control over the 4th dimension. You are merely FORCED to move forward in/by TIME.

So, you are a 3-d object with the ABILITY to move. You are controlled by time and the limits of our 3-dimensions of motion. However, this tends to be more than most people can handle as it is. I still run into walls far too often.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Protector]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join