petrushka.googol

My personal opinion is that is very difficult to hypothesize where exactly space "ends". If you look at it differently it is very difficult to hypothesize where exactly space "begins". You are considering a frame of reference familiar to yourself (from a vantage point) which is not absolute. Is there mass at the extremities of the universe? We consider yes. Time is a vital component of the space time continuum and there is no evidence to suggest that the "ticking" of time did not start before the "big bang". if that is the case, the time component of space time projected itself beyond the corresponding limits of physical dimensions. Where then does space-time "end"? This is matter of debate.

Time can elapse independent of length (the same object may have constant length from t0 to t1) but length cannot elapse independent of time. (for change from L0 to L1) time must elapse to instantiate this change.

Time is defined in dimensional analysis as L0M0T1. Time is measured in seconds and smaller and higher magnitudes. However as we all know time is not absolute. It merely exists in relation to a frame of reference. Also it "moves" along its axis as an object is translated through space. We then say that time has elapsed. How then is time a scalar? It behaves like a vector and as we all know is irreversible. Why then do we not interpret time as a vector in classical physics in the light of this knowledge? Also if time were absolute and scalar throughout the universe then the twins paradox would have been impossible. Different rates of motion elapse the same time at different intervals and this produces an effect like that to a vector in geometry. Please advise. Thanks in advance.

We all know that E=mc2. Hence c = (+/-) sq.root (E/m) What is the significance of the negative root of this equation? And how does it reconcile with our understanding of c?

Can matter in plasma state (like fire for example) obey the law of fluid mechanics or are there other laws that govern the movement of plasma that differ from these?

Quasars are said to define the limits of the observable Universe. Such an aggregation of mass (quasars are super-massive black holes) at the periphery of the observable Universe may curve space time back upon itself and actually define not only the limits of the observable Universe but of the Universe itself. How far is this true? Please elicit your opinion. Thanks in advance.

Does nature really abhor a vacuum as the popular saying goes? I mean is there really something called a "true vacuum?" Now with the concept of dark matter and our knowledge of Cosmic Background radiation (which translates into mass if we read einsteins equation backward) there is nothing where matter (or energy) is truly absent? How do we explain this?

The earth has an abundance of radioactive elements whose decay contributes to the molten state of the earths core (or so i am told). How then does this influence the dynamic of seismic activity at hot spots on the earth like the Pacific Ring of Fire? Are there convectional currents of molten magma in the earths core and if there are then how does this all add up to a seismic event on the earths crust?

Our solar system consists of one star and 8 planets (primarily) in equilibrium. Is there an upper limit to the number of planets and planetoids that can be sustained by a star like our Sun? For example if our solar system had say 15 planets of different masses could that have also constituted a stable configuration? Can all such configurations be practically conjectured? (Are there equations to define these relations?)

With the discovery of the Higgs boson scientists have found the particle responsible for defining mass. The movement of this particle through the primordial soup aggregated mass unto itself and the product was a curved space time that we now experience. But was there a flat space time in existence prior to this explosion of gravitational potential energy? Or was there nothing at all? Please elicit your viewpoint.

We all know that dopamine and base instinct are linked as it provides a reward mechanism and is a feel good chemical. Is the use of prurient literature linked to need to balance dopamine levels in the brain? (or serotonin)? May be it could provide new ways to treat this obsession?

Does the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics presage the existence of anti universes where for every matter particle there is a anti particle? Also do these projected universes support inversion of symmetry. eg) My anti self in my anti universe would raise his left hand when i raised my right hand. (Quirky... ) Please provide some insight into this issue.

With respect to quasars - do they define the limits of the universe that we know? are they made up of dark matter? in an accelerating universe do they approach the speed of iight and acquire the status of supermassiv e black holes? Please shed some light on this issue. thanks in advance.

In one of my earlier posts i had asked why is it that photons are affected by gravity inspite of having zero rest mass and was informed that this happens because of general relativity. if force particles are affected by mass then do stars warp the energy fields of force carrying particles. This could have implications on the direction and intensity of force carrying particles in systems like binary star systems. Please provide some insight.

Adrenaline is known to make a person more mentally sharp. or cognizant of his environment. Also adrenaline is known to define Type A personalities. Then is adrenaline a vector of personality who are typically go-getters and constantly seeking achievement. Please comment.

A smaller mass is attracted to a larger mass by the distortion in space time created by the larger mass. As a smaller mass comes in the field of a larger mass its path in space is modified by this field. Even the smallest mass feels the effect of the larger mass but if the object is massless (zero rest mass) then ideally it should not be effected by this field. A beam of photons has zero rest mass but if we consider the effect of gravitational lensing paths of photons from a distant star are signficantly bent indicating that photons do indeed have some rest mass. Is this true? After all gravitational force is a function of the masses of the interacting objects and in the absence of mass gravitational field does not influence vacuum? Or does it? Please provide some insight.

I'm a novice in interstellar physics but from my elementary knowledge of this phenomenon refer to the phenomenon of gravitational lensing. A massive object such as a star distorts its local space time proportionate to its mass and this is visible as the apparent displacement of a background star from its normal position. Mass is itself a curvature in space time defined by its presence. Without space-time there is nothing such as mass (and hence energy). Hope that gives some ideas. I myself garnered some information from google.... Pardon my indiscretions.

According to string theory there is no time before Planck time and no length (dimension) smaller than Planck Length. According to Hawking space time evolved from a singularity. If we truly try to apply theory of conservation of energy it points to a violation. After all if nothing is smaller than Planck Length then some finite mass must have been present at Planck time. Which implies some finite energy must have converted into mass at this point. But can we create energy out of nothing. Here we have a situation where there is finite mass in finite time with energy of unknown origin. Where did this energy come from? Any pointers? Thanks in advance.

Is space really continuous? After all matter is a local distortion of space time which itself is encapsulated energy. Then what is dark matter / dark energy?

As the more massive planets and stars move around their chosen orbits they disturb the space time matrix significantly producing waves or disturbances. How is it that the gravitational attractive force between planets always prevents these waves or disturbances from throwing an orbiting object out of its chosen trajectory (it seems obvious that the larger the masses in question the more likely it is that they produce some effect (albeit transient) in the space time fabric.) Further applying chaos theory it may even be theoretically possible that due to superluminal communication these ripples are felt at the very edges of the universe. (i guess you could superimpose two theories - namely that one butterfly fluttering its wings in zimbabwe could cause tsunamis in tahiti which means there is a subtle event chain linking all matter in the universe and thereby all energy and quantum entanglement which carries forward this effect across all distances limited only by the imagination.) Could anyone provide some enlightenment on this issue. Thanks in advance.

Do the planets lose energy of motion (there is no friction in space) and will they continue in space as long as their parent star(s) exist ?