Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #655533
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Energy? |
| Date | 2024-08-05 09:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lhbbmkFlirrU4@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <66AD00A3.3BC9@ix.netcom.com> <66ae09cc$0$3667$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <U6CcnSDN2JMgSjP7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <lh8vilFamjuU2@mid.individual.net> <VDGdnTrz8--ABTL7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 17:03 schrieb Ross Finlayson: > On 08/04/2024 02:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 03:22 schrieb Ross Finlayson: >>> On 08/03/2024 03:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>> There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the >>>>>>>>> word...Energy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stefan Ram wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a >>>>>>>>>> system with mass m = 0: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no >>>>>>>>>> particle >>>>>>>>>> at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore >>>>>>>>>> p^'3-vector' <> 0.". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle >>>>>>>>>> without mass >>>>>>>>>> must have momentum. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no >>>>>>>>>> particle."? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that >>>>>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>>>> no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with >>>>>>>>>> no mass. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or >>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>> there be a particle with "E = 0"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the Unicode: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ · pâ∞˜ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, >>>>>>>>>> or we >>>>>>>>>> |have a particle, E â≈ 0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈ 0. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other, >>>>>>>> "Aristotle's and Leibniz'". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae, >>>>>>>> content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis, >>>>>>>> which are the same word, one for power the other potential. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is Einstein's definition of...Energy? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's capacity to do work. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence >>>>>> and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is >>>>>> that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state >>>>>> and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon >>>>>> velocity, and neutron lifetime. >>>>>> >>>>>> I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem >>>>>> and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws, >>>>>> and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants, >>>>>> and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action. >>>>>> >>>>>> These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which >>>>>> is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging >>>>>> of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a >>>>>> super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of >>>>>> theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards >>>>>> to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's >>>>>> the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply >>>>>> action on information, with, "levers" everywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moment and Motion, .... >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter >>>>>> is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Okay, let me put it this way...it seems you are trying to make an >>>>> 'attempt' to >>>>> define the word "energy". >>>>> >>>>> You got 5 or 6 paragraphs that seems you are scrounging the >>>>> Internet in >>>>> seach for meanings. >>>>> >>>>> It sounds like 6 different people wrote it! >>>> >>>> Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want. >>>> But back to basics: something that you call 'energy' >>>> isn't really an energy in a physical sense >>>> unless you can show how it can be converted >>>> (partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2. >>>> >>>> With conservation of energy of course, >>>> >>>> Jan >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Einstein of course got e = mc^2 as the first term of >>> the Taylor expansion of classical mechanics K.E., >>> it doesn't just "appear", and it's only the first >>> terms of an infinite series "kinetic energy". >>> >>> So, you SR-ians say "we define this" yet it's derived >>> and you don't know the rest of it. >>> >>> >>> Another great thing to think about is that the Heisenberg >>> uncertainty, about momentum and position and half-Plancks, >>> it's just a thing about triangle inequality and Born rule >>> and the baggage of the Eulerian-Gaussian root-mean complex, >>> in the non-linear and highly non-linear similarly, it's not >>> so difficult to contrive classical actions that keep the >>> continuum of the continuous manifold in the quantized. >>> >>> Of course lots of people know that every five years the >>> Particle Data Group produces the latest fundamental physical >>> constants of which the small get smaller and large get larger, >>> as with regards to the "running constants" and "Planckian regime" >>> as with regards to "superstring theory". >> >> Stringtheory is imho nonsense. >> >> my own theory is this >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings. >> >> The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual. >> >> Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is >> smooth, but has internal structures. >> >> The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a >> certain phenomenon called 'handedness'. >> >> Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon. >> >> This has two sides, but only one surface. >> >> If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features) >> and let them influence the neighborhood, then structures could appear, >> which we can call 'matter'. >> >> This moebius strip is now 'bumping' up and down along the timeline, >> hence stablizes kind of involution of expansion and contraction. >> >> This is such a structur, if timelike stable and could be regarded as >> material object. >> >> But these objects are not real things, hence can be created out of >> nothing. >> >> Such structures do not need particles or strings, but only spacetime and >> a certain kind of connection between the elements. >> >> This is a mutliplicative connection and acts, as if the elements would >> rotate each other and the elements themselves were biquaternions. >> >> >> TH > > > It's a continuum mechanics, yes? That's all superstrings are, > "atoms again" as much smaller than atoms as atoms are us. > > It is in fact based on a continuum, but with internal structure. The 'mechanism' which creates this structure is assumed to be the kind of interaction. This is similar to quaternion multiplication 'sideways'. This is anti-symmetric and can create kind of 'moebius-strip-behaviour'. With this concept I have tried to establish a connection between GR and QM. This is realtively simple and goes like this: assume, that spacetime of GR is a real physical system, which is composed of pointlike elements. These elements can have features and behave like if they were a certain type of quaternions called 'bi-quaternions' which interact with their direct neighbours in a certain way. This is similar to a mathematical concept called 'geometric algebra' with complex four-vectors and Pauli algebra. Now I assume, that the universe behaves like this and therefore tried to build particles out of spacetime. Out came 'structured spacetime'. And as far as I can tell, the concept works quite well. TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-29 17:14 -0700
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-29 20:43 -0700
Re: Energy? Eddy Vadász <azsd@ddd.hu> - 2024-07-30 16:46 +0000
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-07-30 22:29 -0700
Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-31 10:02 +0200
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 10:30 +0200
Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-07-31 15:30 +0000
Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-07-31 21:02 +0200
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 22:37 +0200
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 22:43 +0200
Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-01 03:12 +0000
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-01 07:15 +0200
Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-02 10:05 +0200
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-02 11:05 +0200
Re: Energy? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-02 13:32 +0200
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-02 15:22 +0200
Re: Energy? Bobauk Guang Chou <gbnbu@agag.cn> - 2024-08-02 09:48 +0000
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-07-31 13:46 +0200
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-07-31 12:43 -0700
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-01 10:45 -0700
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 12:32 -0700
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-01 17:03 -0700
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-02 08:52 -0700
Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-03 12:43 +0200
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-03 16:30 +0200
Re: Energy? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-08-03 16:38 +0200
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-03 17:37 +0200
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-03 18:22 -0700
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-03 19:46 -0700
Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-04 11:22 +0200
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 08:03 -0700
Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-05 09:01 +0200
Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-04 18:03 +0000
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 11:33 -0700
Re: Energy? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2024-08-04 19:38 +0000
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-04 13:16 -0700
Re: Energy? Verdell Muklevich Fung <vvll@lhvvec.ru> - 2024-08-04 23:42 +0000
Re: Energy? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-08-04 22:13 +0200
Re: Energy? Rictor Tatár <trttr@cirrtrra.hu> - 2024-08-05 11:08 +0000
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-05 08:45 -0700
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-06 10:15 -0700
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-07 11:13 -0700
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-09 09:38 -0700
Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-10 10:37 +0200
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-10 09:59 -0700
Re: Energy? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-08-16 11:05 +0200
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 07:33 -0700
Re: Energy? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-08-16 11:22 -0700
Re: Energy? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-08-16 12:09 -0700
Re: Energy? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-08-17 08:33 +0200
Re: Energy? Dmitry Kalmár <ilrbl@pknd.hu> - 2024-08-17 11:28 +0000
csiph-web