Space and Time

[UnderstandForgive]

Suppose you have a cubic nanometer of space. How many ways can this space be configured, how many possible combinations of matter and space can it have? Are there some configurations of matter that are impossible? Then add time on top of that, say 1 nanosecond. How many possible configurations and movements can there be within this small space?

how many different properties can that matter have? for instance pressure it can experience? If you look closely enough Are there increments of space? How about temperature and pressure? Are there discrete units of energy as well?

How would a person find that out?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Space is a bit difficult. How it behaves in those particular ways are not well understood.

 

[Michael]

Suppose you have a cubic nanometer of space. How many ways can this space be configured, how many possible combinations of matter and space can it have? Are there some configurations of matter that are impossible? Then add time on top of that, say 1 nanosecond. How many possible configurations and movements can there be within this small space?

how many different properties can that matter have? for instance pressure it can experience? If you look closely enough Are there increments of space? How about temperature and pressure? Are there discrete units of energy as well?

How would a person find that out?

GR theory describes 'spacetime' as one combined unit that depends on mass/energy configurations. In your case, the possible configurations of neutrinos coming from various directions, at various speeds, alone or in combination could be almost infinite, not to mention various possible EM field effects, photons, etc. I'd say the combinations and permutations would approach infinity.

 

[Ken-1122]

Space is a bit difficult. How it behaves in those particular ways are not well understood.

How does space behave? I was under the impression "space" was a place where nothing exist! You can only get behavior out of something; not nothing. If I am wrong, please explain what "space" consists of.

Ken

 

[PsychoSarah]

How does space behave? I was under the impression "space" was a place where nothing exist! You can only get behavior out of something; not nothing. If I am wrong, please explain what "space" consists of.

Ken

That view point is a bit old, many theorize that yes "empty" space has properties in and of itself, nothing isn't really nothing.

 

[Mr Clean]

GR theory describes 'spacetime' as one combined unit that depends on mass/energy configurations. In your case, the possible configurations of neutrinos coming from various directions, at various speeds, alone or in combination could be almost infinite, not to mention various possible EM field effects, photons, etc. I'd say the combinations and permutations would approach infinity.

I was going to say it that eloquently too, but Michael beat me to it

 

[Michael]

I felt the same way when I read Embedded's response to the AC electron questions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Suppose you have a cubic nanometer of space. How many ways can this space be configured, how many possible combinations of matter and space can it have?

The answer is virtually infinite.

Are there some configurations of matter that are impossible?

Some configurations would be impossible due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which would exclude two fermions (e.g. two electrons) from having exactly the same quantum state.

If you look closely enough Are there increments of space?

This is an important, but unanswered question. Certainly, we don't detect any, but many think that at the nanonanonano scale, some sort of structure may be there.

How about temperature and pressure? Are there discrete units of energy as well?

At low energies, quantum systems tend to have discrete energy levels. Once the system has enough energy, then the system can have a continuous energy spectrum. An electron that's part of an atom can only take on certain energy levels, and it can make 'quantum jumps' between them. If the electron is given enough energy that it escapes the nucleus of the atom, then it can have any energy value.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

The answer is virtually infinite.



Some configurations would be impossible due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which would exclude two fermions (e.g. two electrons) from having exactly the same quantum state.





This is an important, but unanswered question. Certainly, we don't detect any, but many think that at the nanonanonano scale, some sort of structure may be there.



At low energies, quantum systems tend to have discrete energy levels. Once the system has enough energy, then the system can have a continuous energy spectrum. An electron that's part of an atom can only take on certain energy levels, and it can make 'quantum jumps' between them. If the electron is given enough energy that it escapes the nucleus of the atom, then it can have any energy value.

Are there discrete pixels of spacetime? Can one or two particles superimpose one another, if this is the case, is there a limit to super-imposition? Is there a unit of energy where there can not be anything called energy below it. For instance is there a lowest energy photon?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Are there discrete pixels of spacetime?

This is the same (to my mind) as your previous question: "If you look closely enough Are there increments of space?"

So my answer is the same: This is an important, but unanswered question. Certainly, we don't detect any, but many think that at the nanonanonano scale, some sort of structure may be there.

Can one or two particles superimpose one another, if this is the case, is there a limit to super-imposition?

Superimpose is a bit vague, but although the Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents fermions (e.g. electrons) from being in the same quantum state, this is not true of bosons (e.g. photons). As many photons can be in the same quantum state as you like.

Is there a unit of energy where there can not be anything called energy below it. For instance is there a lowest energy photon?

I think there is no lowest energy photon. The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. As far as I know, nothing prevents you from having a frequency as close to 0 as you like, so nothing prevents the energy of the photon from being as close to 0 as you like.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

This is the same (to my mind) as your previous question: "If you look closely enough Are there increments of space?"

So my answer is the same: This is an important, but unanswered question. Certainly, we don't detect any, but many think that at the nanonanonano scale, some sort of structure may be there.



Superimpose is a bit vague, but although the Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents fermions (e.g. electrons) from being in the same quantum state, this is not true of bosons (e.g. photons). As many photons can be in the same quantum state as you like.



I think there is no lowest energy photon. The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. As far as I know, nothing prevents you from having a frequency as close to 0 as you like, so nothing prevents the energy of the photon from being as close to 0 as you like.

So the answer has to be infinite. If you can have if the energy of photons is continuous then there has to be infinitely many configurations of matter and energy.

Is there a maximum amount of data that can travel through say a wire with an area of say 1 square nanometer? I suppose that depends upon the maximum amount of particles of light you can have before a black hole is created. How would you quantize that information in terms of bits of a computer per second? It must be enormous.

 

[Strathos]

Bekenstein bound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Suppose you have a cubic nanometer of space. How many ways can this space be configured, how many possible combinations of matter and space can it have? Are there some configurations of matter that are impossible? Then add time on top of that, say 1 nanosecond. How many possible configurations and movements can there be within this small space?

how many different properties can that matter have? for instance pressure it can experience? If you look closely enough Are there increments of space? How about temperature and pressure? Are there discrete units of energy as well?

How would a person find that out?

Since space without matter is empty, 0.

Since time is the movement of matter, 0.


Matter will by itself do nothing. It takes a minimum of two particles to interact. They will interact in only one possible way depending on their velocities, angles between them, and their charge.

The conception that space+time is something is a fallacy. The conception that time is a dimension is a fallacy. Time is movement. Before clocks it was the distance a point on the earth revolved around itself that constituted a day. The distance the earth revolved around the sun that constituted a year. After clocks were invented it was the swing of a pendulum. Now it is the amount a cesium atom vibrates or oscillates.

Without matter or energy, space IS empty. If one follows the Big Bang space and time did not exist until a singularity went boom. Another fallacy. It existed somewhere (in space) and without time it would have no reason to do anything. Without time (movement or energy change) it would always have remained the same, i.e. timeless, unchanging.


But back to the real world instead of fantasy, two particles will interact in one, and only one possible way. An infinite amount of particles will interact in one, and only one possible way. The problem is we can never account for all the variables and so call it an uncertainty principle.

But if you know the speed, angle of approach and charge of two particles, you could predict with certainty exactly how they would interact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since space without matter is empty, 0.

You cannot have space without matter: Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since time is the movement of matter, 0.

I doubt if a physicist would define time in that manner.

Matter will by itself do nothing. It takes a minimum of two particles to interact. They will interact in only one possible way depending on their velocities, angles between them, and their charge.

Yet you cannot have space with only two particles in it. You are inventing a "fairy dust" universe that does not match reality.

The conception that space+time is something is a fallacy. The conception that time is a dimension is a fallacy. Time is movement. Before clocks it was the distance a point on the earth revolved around itself that constituted a day. The distance the earth revolved around the sun that constituted a year. After clocks were invented it was the swing of a pendulum. Now it is the amount a cesium atom vibrates or oscillates.

And yet you cannot support that claim while physicists who understand relativity could show you to be wrong.

Without matter or energy, space IS empty. If one follows the Big Bang space and time did not exist until a singularity went boom. Another fallacy. It existed somewhere (in space) and without time it would have no reason to do anything. Without time (movement or energy change) it would always have remained the same, i.e. timeless, unchanging.

Perhaps in your imaginary universe. In the one we live in "nothing" cannot be achieved. Again, the simple Casimir effect shows you to be wrong.

But back to the real world instead of fantasy, two particles will interact in one, and only one possible way. An infinite amount of particles will interact in one, and only one possible way. The problem is we can never account for all the variables and so call it an uncertainty principle.

But if you know the speed, angle of approach and charge of two particles, you could predict with certainty exactly how they would interact.

But we cannot know the speed, angle of approach, etc. of two particles. The "real world" does not support your claims. Upon extremely close inspection particles do not exist as points but as packets of probability. That means exactly how they will interact cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy no matter how hard you try.

Now you can get very accurate predictions for a population of particles. But single individual particles as indivisible particles do not seem to exist. By the time you get down to the quark level it is all probabilities.

It is nice to see that Justa does not accept the two most basic ideas of modern physics.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is there a maximum amount of data that can travel through say a wire with an area of say 1 square nanometer?

I'm sure there's both a theoretical limit and a practical limit, but I couldn't tell you what they are.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

What is time? To me I rely on a clock on my wall downstairs, which derives its time from an oscillating quartz crystal. Then there are clocks like the rotation of the earth relative to the sun and stars, or it could mean the decay of a cesium atom. Or the distance light travels.

What is meant by 'time' is the fact that all these motions are relatable to one another, we can predict events in the future, meaning we know when say the earth's tilt in the northern hemisphere, relative to the sun, roughly a hundred and sixty rotations of the earth from now, the air will probably feel hotter for northerners than it feels now.

Suppose that time did not behave in this way, there were no clocks and there was no way to determine the passage of time, motion would behave totally erratically, there would be no way to gauge when something was occurring. Maybe this is meant by before 'time'. Things can still occur but there is no way of relating that motion to the motion of the earth around the sun or the oscillation of a quartz fiber. We would not be able to make sense of that motion in terms of motion we are familiar with.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

Since space without matter is empty, 0.

Since time is the movement of matter, 0.


Matter will by itself do nothing. It takes a minimum of two particles to interact. They will interact in only one possible way depending on their velocities, angles between them, and their charge.

The conception that space+time is something is a fallacy. The conception that time is a dimension is a fallacy. Time is movement. Before clocks it was the distance a point on the earth revolved around itself that constituted a day. The distance the earth revolved around the sun that constituted a year. After clocks were invented it was the swing of a pendulum. Now it is the amount a cesium atom vibrates or oscillates.

Without matter or energy, space IS empty. If one follows the Big Bang space and time did not exist until a singularity went boom. Another fallacy. It existed somewhere (in space) and without time it would have no reason to do anything. Without time (movement or energy change) it would always have remained the same, i.e. timeless, unchanging.


But back to the real world instead of fantasy, two particles will interact in one, and only one possible way. An infinite amount of particles will interact in one, and only one possible way. The problem is we can never account for all the variables and so call it an uncertainty principle.

But if you know the speed, angle of approach and charge of two particles, you could predict with certainty exactly how they would interact.

What I mean by space, is not 'empty space' I do mean space-time a volumetric unit, like how we define a meter, and then cube that. A cubic meter can contain matter, what I am trying to say, is if you have a given space, of space-time how many ways can you possibly fill it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You cannot have space without matter: Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" In fact "Casimir's original goal was to compute the van der Waals force between polarizable molecules" of the metallic plates. Thus it can be interpreted without any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) or virtual particles of quantum fields."

Well there goes your theory up in smoke by your own claimed reference.

I doubt if a physicist would define time in that manner.

And you wonder why every discovery since the space age has come as a surprise to them. I doubt if they thought SUSY would be falsified either.

BBC News - Popular physics theory running out of hiding places

Being popular, does not make right. Just ask those that believed the Milky-Way was once the only galaxy in existence.

Yet you cannot have space with only two particles in it. You are inventing a "fairy dust" universe that does not match reality.

Are you implying that if I study a small enough section of space, I can not find a place with only two particles in it? Is there not still space existing? Space is emptiness, not some Fairie Dust thing you interpret it as, shown by your own claim of the Casimir Effect which can be interpreted without any reference to zero-point energy or virtual particles of quantum fields. Are you implying relativity is wrong and that it must manifest itself in even the smallest portions?

And yet you cannot support that claim while physicists who understand relativity could show you to be wrong.

I'm afraid they can't. Time does NOT change, merely the rate at which a cesium atom vibrates being near or far from an energy source. It is not a property of space, but the rate change of the oscillation of an atom due to energy input. Nothing more, nothing less. Velocity itself does not matter, only acceleration, i.e. the adding of energy. But once acceleration stops, the clocks velocity through this supposed supposed substance of spacetime matters not at all. Velocity iteself through spacetime changes not one iota of the particle, contrary to ideas that spacetime is a physical thing that affects clocks.

Perhaps in your imaginary universe. In the one we live in "nothing" cannot be achieved. Again, the simple Casimir effect shows you to be wrong.

Again we already showed your reliance on falsities about the Casimir effect. Your interpretation of spacetime is not needed at all to explain the effect at all.

But we cannot know the speed, angle of approach, etc. of two particles. The "real world" does not support your claims. Upon extremely close inspection particles do not exist as points but as packets of probability. That means exactly how they will interact cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy no matter how hard you try.

Now you can get very accurate predictions for a population of particles. But single individual particles as indivisible particles do not seem to exist. By the time you get down to the quark level it is all probabilities.

It is nice to see that Justa does not accept the two most basic ideas of modern physics.

You mean we cannot know the speed, angle of approach and energy of two particles because we lack the technology to accurately measure all the variables, not because it can't be known. Does science not claim to know the energy and mass of electrons and protons? Are you claiming they are full of it? I would not argue with you there.

Are you claiming that if we launch a billiard ball at another one on a set course and velocity, the outcome can not be predicted? That might be news to professional pool players, even when the velocity and course has randomness involved because a human is incapable of initiating the same force, angle etc every time.


Because we lack the technology to know all the variables, does not equate with randomness, it equates with lack of knowledge.

 

[Michael]

What is time?

You might think of time as 'objects in motion, staying in motion'. The time element allows for the process of "movement/time". We observe and measure that movement/time.

To me I rely on a clock on my wall downstairs, which derives its time from an oscillating quartz crystal. Then there are clocks like the rotation of the earth relative to the sun and stars, or it could mean the decay of a cesium atom. Or the distance light travels.

What is meant by 'time' is the fact that all these motions are relatable to one another, we can predict events in the future, meaning we know when say the earth's tilt in the northern hemisphere, relative to the sun, roughly a hundred and sixty rotations of the earth from now, the air will probably feel hotter for northerners than it feels now.

Suppose that time did not behave in this way, there were no clocks and there was no way to determine the passage of time, motion would behave totally erratically, there would be no way to gauge when something was occurring. Maybe this is meant by before 'time'. Things can still occur but there is no way of relating that motion to the motion of the earth around the sun or the oscillation of a quartz fiber. We would not be able to make sense of that motion in terms of motion we are familiar with.

If you haven't explored fantasy books and literature, you might try it sometime. I enjoyed it in my youth. You seem to have a natural curiosity, and a healthy imagination. Some of the "what if" questions tend to get explored in fantasy realms. It's quite good entertainment for the mind.

I would say that it is that motion, and specifically the rotation and motion of the Earth around the sun that pretty much defined our early concept of time. Many life forms seem to develop very observable pattens of behavior that are related to the Earth's rotation cycle for instance.

If we couldn't depend on objects in motion to continue to "stay in motion" in any predictable way, it would indeed be chaos, and it's unlikely that a stable lifeform could exist in such an environment. Certainly not for very long.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

You might think of time as 'objects in motion, staying in motion'. The time element allows for the process of "movement/time". We observe and measure that movement/time.

If you haven't explored fantasy books and literature, you might try it sometime. I enjoyed it in my youth. You seem to have a natural curiosity, and a healthy imagination. Some of the "what if" questions tend to get explored in fantasy realms. It's quite good entertainment for the mind.

I would say that it is that motion, and specifically the rotation and motion of the Earth around the sun that pretty much defined our early concept of time. Many life forms seem to develop very observable pattens of behavior that are related to the Earth's rotation cycle for instance.

If we couldn't depend on objects in motion to continue to "stay in motion" in any predictable way, it would indeed be chaos, and it's unlikely that a stable lifeform could exist in such an environment. Certainly not for very long.

True, its hard for me to imagine how a life form would come about in such an environment, but what I am saying, is that maybe you could arrive at that through extrapolation of the universe and the laws of physics, assuming our understanding is good enough. That you may be able to extrapolate so far back the concept of 'further back' in time becomes meaningless. That does not mean its unchanging.

All I am saying is time does not equal change, you can have change without time.