matter made of space not energy?

[humility]

The standard interpretation of particle physics and relativity equations like E=MC2 is that matter and energy are forms of the same thing.Therefore you can change matter into energy in a nuclear reaction. But I believe that matter isn't a form of energy but a form of space.I believe that energy doesn't exist in the spacial dimension it meerly interacts with the spacial dimension. Energy is by its very nature atemporal and non spatial. the lorentz transformation equation says this. Taking the model of the space/time continuum when something travels at the speed of light i.e, electromagnetic radiation, space contracts to zero and time expands to infinity. Therefore energy is non spatial and atemporal. Not very good carachteristics for matter. energy isn't travelling through our spatial dimension it is interacting with space. I don't know what space is obviously and most scientific explanations have concentrated on the energy side of things or at least what we thought was energy. So if we think of non-local energy interacting differently with these different forms of space and thats why we observe different forms of energy. And when we have a sudden spacial rearrangment such as a nuclear rearrangement we have vast amounts of energy released.We aren't turning matter into energy.We are changing the spacial arrangement so energy interacts with it in a very different way. e.g what was so uranium has become a massive explosion.

[Thelonious]

Originally Posted by humility

The standard interpretation of particle physics and relativity equations like E=MC2 is that matter and energy are forms of the same thing.Therefore you can change matter into energy in a nuclear reaction.

Matter is not made into energy in a nuclear reaction. Rather, the energy in the strong force bonds between the subatomic particles is released.

Originally Posted by humility

theory

Sorry, but I do not quite understand how matter can be made of "space" when "space" is nothing.

[humility]

why does space have to be nothing? Why can't space have mass.In fact space has mass.It is that Energy does not have mass. This is reply to Thelonius. I Know my theory sounds strange and I might not have represented it in the best possible terms but you have to start somewhere . I have some better analogies of what I was trying to say but I didn't want my post to be to long. I wanted to see what sort of response I got first to see where I have to clarify my views. Which I will do in the near future if people show a interest in the topic.I'm glad of your response .

[pgrmdave]

It is an interesting idea, but is there any evidence, other than it doesn't seem to violate any science? Is this an example of where Ockham's Razor would be employed?

[Thelonious]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

It is an interesting idea, but is there any evidence, other than it doesn't seem to violate any science? Is this an example of where Ockham's Razor would be employed?

Well, first he would have to build a mathematical model to test and see if the same results were the same as the current model. Then you could think of applying Occam's Razor, but still, you would need definitive proof either way as Occam's Razor would do nothing to validate the theory.

[TeleMad]

humility: The standard interpretation of particle physics and relativity equations like E=MC2 is that matter and energy are forms of the same thing.Therefore you can change matter into energy in a nuclear reaction.

Originally Posted by Thelonious

Matter is not made into energy in a nuclear reaction. Rather, the energy in the strong force bonds between the subatomic particles is released.

Mass is converted into energy in a nuclear reaction.

[Thelonious]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

Mass is converted into energy in a nuclear reaction.

No, no, no! The mass is conserved. Whether you are fusing or splitting the nuclei, the strong force bonds between the protons and neutrons is breaking and releasing the incredible amount of energy.

For an example of the mass being conserved in nuclear fusion, two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium, are combined to form helium isotope and a free neutron.

Deutrium (D) has one proton and one neutron with an atomic mass of about 2.014 amu. So, D (2.014) + D (2.014) → ³He (3.02) + n (1.008)

In nuclear fission, the massive nuclei that is being split forms two smaller nuclei, most commonly each is about half as massive as the original nuclei, plus a few free neutrons.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by humility

why does space have to be nothing? Why can't space have mass.

If you consider Vacumn Fluctuations (using Heisenberg Uncertaincy Principle near a
Temperature of Absolute 0) you can derive energy from nothing (borrow for a short
time). Energy is still conserved overall. This is a quick way to get something from
nothing. Then energy can be converted to mass. Thus you could construe that nothing
has mass. This was the Lambda the Einstein said was his greatest mistake. All models
now need to take into account of Lambda (Vacuum Energy Density of the universe)
whether it be Inflation by Guth or VSL by their group.

So you can get something for nothing... You just can't use it long.

Maddog

[humility]

If you look at my original post I agree with Thelonius I say that mass can't be converted to energy.But Thelonius is also wrong when he states that the mass is conversed in the orthodox interpretation of the equation.He says that it is the energy contained in the strong nuclear force that is released.This may be the mechanism of energy release in the standard interpretation but overall the equation reads that a very small amount of mass in the interacting nuclei is converted into mass. You stated yourself Thelonius that two hydrogen atoms fusing in a nuclear reaction have almost the same mass after the reaction( almost being the operative word). The overall standard idea being that mass and energy are equivical in the long run. And that some mass can be converted into energy in a nuclear reaction.
Lets step back from nuclear theory for a moment and look at relativity which might help make my point in a simple way.
If you look at the lorentz transformations equations they say the dimensions of space decrease as you approach the speed of light and time intervals increase. You can't travel at the speed of light because there is no dimension of space to travel through. That is why the speed of light is a velocity barrier.Its more the limit of spacial dimension and hence velocity than the speed of light.Light therefore sits exactly where space ceases to exist and time becomes infinite. Therefore light/energy doesn't exist in space.Therefor what we perceive as light is the interaction threshold of spacial dimensions and energy/time. Now lets go backwards. We've traveled up to the point where space diminishes to nothing. Lets go the otherway to the point where space is infinite and time intervals reduce down to zero.Slightly below this intersice of extremity, movement would be on a very large scale and extremely fast ( because of the relatively small amount of time in which things would have to occur.)
Could gravity be a phenomena of this end of the space/time spectrum.It operates at a very large distance and speed.Which seems to break the speed of light but doesn't when you consider gravity to be a spatial phenomena. Light on the other hand is a temporal phenomena of the space/time spectrum. What I was saying about mass is that is more towards the spactial end of the space/time spectrum than the temporal end. Energy is closer to the temporal end of the space/time spectrum than the spatial end . Therefore I was saying that mass isn't close to energy it is relativily closer to space in this spectrum.

[WebFeet]

Originally Posted by humility

But I believe that matter isn't a form of energy but a form of space.I believe that energy doesn't exist in the spacial dimension it meerly interacts with the spacial dimension. Energy is by its very nature atemporal and non spatial.

Energy has no Mass, and because of this it does not have spatial dimensions, but this does not exclude Energy from having spatial coordinates.

The combination of 2 or more of these spatial coordinates would result in a spatial dimension and the subsequent system would have Mass.