# Space interacts with Mass/energy?

## Recommended Posts

Can it be said that space interacts with Mass/energy?

Edited by Phi for All
changed title from "Space"
##### Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Can it be said that space interacts with Mass/energy?

For sure. Everywhere Energy and Mass are present, will be Space and Time present.

Thinking about the interaction, the question arises:  Can the expansion of (energy and matter free) Space-Time be responsible for the presence of energy and mass?

The enormous but perfectly fine balance.

Edited by FreeWill
##### Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, FreeWill said:

For sure. Everywhere Energy and Mass are present, will be Space and Time present.

Thinking about the interaction, the question arises:  Can the expansion of spacetime be responsible for the presence of energy and mass?

The enormous but exactly fine balance.

This is what I thought of after reading what you wrote

Okay, so as space expands it loses density causing present Mass to increase in energy because compared to the now less dense space it now has a greater density and greater density means more energy, and as long as space continues to expand the energy density of present Mass/energy will increase by the same increment?

Hmm? Does this violate energy conservation?

Kinda not why I asked the original question, but that's okay because I haven't figured out exactly what sparked the original question. I was thinking math and accountability and what part space plays in Newton's laws if any.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Okay, so as space expands it loses density causing present Mass to increase in energy because compared to the now less dense space it now has a greater density and greater density means more energy, and as long as space continues to expand the energy density of present Mass/energy will increase by the same increment?

Hmm? Does this violate energy conservation?﻿

Yes...

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I﻿ was thinking math and accountability and what part space plays in Newton's laws if any.﻿

In Newtonian physics spaces (ie distances) and time are fixed and not affected by mass.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Can it be said that space interacts with Mass/energy?

Yes, why wouldn't it?

But it would also depend on your understanding of the term 'interact'

##### Share on other sites

Depends on the model you use...

In GR, space, or rather space-time, is affected by mass-energy; And mass-energy is, in turn, affected by space-time ( or, rather, its geometry ).

In Newtonian or Quantum Mechanical models, space ( and time ) are absolutes, and simply the 'background' on which events play out.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Strange said:

In Newtonian physics spaces (ie distances) and time are fixed and not affected by mass.

When the radius is squared between two masses effecting the force over time?

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes, why wouldn't it?

But it would also depend on your understanding of the term 'interact'

I suppose generally the understanding might be an exchange of some sort that effects both to some degree

3 hours ago, MigL said:

In﻿ GR, space, or rather space-time, is affected by mass-energy; And mass-energy is, in turn, affected by﻿ space-time ﻿( or, rather, its﻿ geometry ).﻿

Maybe I am misreading it? Yes I wasn't paying complete attention

3 hours ago, MigL said:

In﻿ Newtonian or Quantum Mechanical models, space ( and time ) are absolutes, and simply﻿ the 'background﻿' on which events ﻿play out.﻿

These two sentences seemed to be contradicting until I read them again, but I'd already quoted them. Is it the math that makes them different? And note my reply to Strange. There seems to be some accounting in the math, but maybe I'm just looking at it wrong?

Edited by jajrussel
##### Share on other sites

They are differing, and somewhat incompatible models of 'reality'.
All physics theories are mathematical models, and have specific areas where they are applicable.

A Quantum Gravity model will hopefully integrate the different paradigms.
LQG uses the GR paradigm, that there is no background stage  on which events happen.
SString theory is more aligned with QM in that it considers the space-time 'stage' as absolute.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jajrussel said:
6 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes, why wouldn't it?

But it would also depend on your understanding of the term 'interact'

I suppose generally the understanding might be an exchange of some sort that effects both to some degree

Here's an example of what I mean.

Take a pair of conductive plates with some space between them.

Now move the plate further apart.

Are the changes to the physical properties of the system an interaction between the energy and the change in space, since nothing else has changed?

##### Share on other sites

On 5/2/2019 at 7:10 PM, studiot said:

Here's an example of what I mean.

Take a pair of conductive plates with some space between them.

Now move the plate further apart.

Are the changes to the physical properties of the system an interaction between the energy and the change in space, since nothing else has changed?

I'm not sure why you ask but I would initially say yes, but I assume you suggest plates because plates present a greater surface area set at a specific distance apart. Move the plates apart and that surface area changes. Your question confuses me. It seems to have a purpose. Not mine... Your system seems dependent on the surface area of both plates to complete a specific task. My question only required one object moving through space. The object has Mass, spacetime is curved. Just wondering does space have anything to do with why it keeps moving in a straight line unchanged absent an applied force. Is the object in a sense falling, but because space is massless there is no acceleration? Assuming space is massless, but then here, surface area might apply. The amount of space in contact with the object is negligible. Certainly not enough to accelerate should it one day be determined that space as a whole presents Mass So in a sense is the object simply following the geodesic created by its (the objects) Mass as it interacts with space. Like I said I was just thinking. I figure that if there is a law that explains what happens there should be a reason why it happens, the law doesn't make it happen.

So clearly we were thinking differently about interaction. I was wondering where you were going. There should  be plenty of things one can possibly do with conductive plates and energy. Increasing the distance between plates should effect the energy moving between the plates. I would imagine to what end would depend on why you design the system. If the transfer is dependent on the surface area of the plate and it's original location in conjunction with the other plate, moving the plate will effect the transfer but I would think the change won't be due to space so much as it has to do with position.( I am interested in knowing if my thinking is correct. With regard to the plates.)

I'm fairly certain that my imagining the gravitation effect between an object and space being the geodesic reason why an object continues to move at speed in a straight line unchanged unless acted upon by a force, is probably just imagination gone terribly wrong, but it has been fun thinking about it. And I figure that if people expect me to accept geodesics then I might as well put them to good use.

The saying is, no pain no gain. My problem is that thinking doesn't hurt.

Edited by jajrussel
##### Share on other sites

On 5/2/2019 at 12:06 PM, studiot said:

Yes, why wouldn't it?

But it would also depend on your understanding of the term 'interact'

That would be my caveat as well.

Mass curves space, i.e. it dictates the geometry. But space isn't a substance, particle, or field, and that's the context I am used to for using "interact"

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That would be my caveat as well.

Mass curves space, i.e. it dictates the geometry. But space isn't a substance, particle, or field, and that's the context I am used to for using "interact"

Curved space dictates the effect on assumed particles or fields that occupy space? Is it  simply easier to say that Mass curves space rather than say that the present fields are curved and that observed effects are the result of interactions with those fields and present particles?

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Curved space dictates the effect on assumed particles or fields that occupy space? Is it  simply easier to say that Mass curves space rather than say that the present fields are curved and that observed effects are the result of interactions with those fields and present particles?

The gravitational field is the curved space, so I wouldn't describe it as a curved field. You can say that things interact gravitationally, or you can say they behave as the curved space dictates, but it makes no sense to me to combine the two statements. One or the other.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That would be my caveat as well.

Mass curves space, i.e. it dictates the geometry. But space isn't a substance, particle, or field, and that's the context I am used to for using "interact"

?

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

The gravitational field is the curved space, so I wouldn't describe it as a curved field. You can say that things interact gravitationally, or you can say they behave as the curved space dictates, but it makes no sense to me to combine the two statements. One or the other.

Space seems lacking so why would anyone attribute curvature to space? What changes about gravity if you attribute the curvatures to interacting fields? Actually I have no problem with calling it curved space so long as I know that space has nothing to do with the effect other than to provide room to maneuver, and possibly the degree to which the effect attains. Otherwise it becomes a little confusing and that is only a problem to me.

I read that there is a field for every particle. I think I read it on SFN I can't remember. Collectively that would be a lot of Mass/energy contributing to space. And would seem to say that if something moving through space gains energy the energy gained is not necessarily just kinetic, assuming that other fields are present  energy seemingly sucked right out of space/nothing, unless fields contribute. Here I'm assuming that kinetic energy isn't just a result of acceleration.

##### Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

?

Space seems lacking so why would anyone attribute curvature to space?

The curvature is a reference to the geometry.

If you follow the path of a photon from a vantage point in flat space, and it goes through curved space, you will see a curved path. Even though locally at any point along that path, the photon will be seen as traveling a straight line.

15 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

What changes about gravity if you attribute the curvatures to interacting fields?

You don't attribute curvature to interacting fields.

15 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Actually I have no problem with calling it curved space so long as I know that space has nothing to do with the effect other than to provide room to maneuver, and possibly the degree to which the effect attains. Otherwise it becomes a little confusing and that is only a problem to me.

15 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

I read that there is a field for every particle. I think I read it on SFN I can't remember. Collectively that would be a lot of Mass/energy contributing to space. And would seem to say that if something moving through space gains energy the energy gained is not necessarily just kinetic, assuming that other fields are present  energy seemingly sucked right out of space/nothing, unless fields contribute.

There is a field associated with each interaction. You will have a magnetic field and electric field for an electron or proton, for example.

15 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Here I'm assuming that kinetic energy isn't just a result of acceleration.

How else does one acquire KE?

##### Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

The curvature is a reference to the geometry.

If you follow the path of a photon from a vantage point in flat space, and it goes through curved space, you will see a curved path. Even though locally at any point along that path, the photon will be seen as traveling a straight line.

You don't attribute curvature to interacting fields.

There is a field associated with each interaction. You will have a magnetic field and electric field for an electron or proton, for example.

How else does one acquire KE?

Thank you now I need to think...

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The gravitational field is the curved space

Curved spacetime to be strictly accurate

##### Share on other sites

Let me try to put it another (hopefully simpler) way.

Does A interact with B ?

Well if I change A does that make any difference to B ?

Yes:  then there is an interaction.

No: then B is independent of A or there is no interaction.

OK so since you prefer to talk about mass let A be the space available to a system and B be the mass of the system.
Further let B be divided into two parts separated within the system.

There is a measurable and observable interaction between the two parts of B.
We call this gravity. The model is irrelevent.

If I change A so that the two parts of B are moved further apart, there is a measurable change in this interaction.

Note the interaction between the two parts of is not the proposed interaction between mass and space,
It is a way of measuring that interaction though.

Similarly we can observe the light paths through the space.
If we now change the distribution of mass the light paths can be observed to change.

Again the additional interaction is not the proposed interaction between mass and space,
it is just the means of observing it.

So both ways we can confidently say that when we change either the mass, B, (or its disposition) or the space, A, something different can be observed in the other.

So yes there is an interaction.

##### Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

Let me try to put it another (hopefully simpler) way.

Does A interact with B ?

Well if I change A does that make any difference to B ?

Yes:  then there is an interaction.

True.

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

No: then B is independent of A or there is no interaction.

There is more than one possible interaction, though.

If A and B interact electromagnetically and you change the mass of one, there is no change to the electromagnetic interaction. If you change only the charge there is no effect on the gravitational interaction. You can only conclude independence for interactions that depend on the parameter you changed.

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

OK so since you prefer to talk about mass let A be the space available to a system and B be the mass of the system.
Further let B be divided into two parts separated within the system.

There is a measurable and observable interaction between the two parts of B.
We call this gravity. The model is irrelevent.

If I change A so that the two parts of B are moved further apart, there is a measurable change in this interaction.

But the distance between the masses doesn't have to depend on the volume.  You are changing the amount of space and also changing the distance. That's two changes, which may or may not be dependent on each other.

##### Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

change the mass of one, there is no change to the electromagnetic interaction

Space has no mass.

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

But the distance between the masses doesn't have to depend on the volume.  You are changing the amount of space and also changing the distance. That's two changes, which may or may not be dependent on each other.

I am using 'space' as a general term to mean distance, volume, area hyperarea and so on.

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is more than one possible interaction, though.

Yes, which is why it can be difficult to impossible to show 'no interaction' when the possibilities are legion.

Doesn't this also have implications for the "hidden variables" conjecture?

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Space has no mass.

You just said A and B. I wasn't using space as my example.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I am using 'space' as a general term to mean distance, volume, area hyperarea and so on.

Doesn't matter. Having more space does not necessarily mean that the distance between two objects has changed.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You just said A and B. I wasn't using space as my example. ﻿

Doesn't matter. Having more space does not necessarily mean that the distance between two objects has changed.

So what do you think this meant?

Quote

let A be the space available to a system .....

If I change A so that the two parts of B are moved further apart,

Edited by studiot
spelling
##### Share on other sites

16 hours ago, studiot said:

So what do you think this meant?

I think it meant what you said. I also think it came after the part I was responding to, so for my response, A and B were not yet defined in any particular way.

##### Share on other sites

I think perhaps we have a wood and trees scenario here.

The principle points I wished to raise are.

1) The A and B are different. Space is not mass and mass is not space.

2) Any interaction introduces a third activity/agent such as my light paths.

## Create an account

Register a new account

×

• #### Activity

×
• Create New...