Energy = Matter = Fields

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Crisp, Apr 29, 2000.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Hi all,

    Just an idea that crossed my mind the other day:

    • We know at the moment that everything in the universe consists of either matter (electrons, planets, anti-matter) and fields (electromagnetic/gravitational/...).
    • Einstein noticed in his theory of Special Relativity that matter is equivalent to energy.
    • All fields are "distributions" of energy (the only interaction between a field and matter is energy exchange).

    So there clearly is a relationship between energy, matter and fields (nothing new so far

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). So this basically leaves us with three options:

    • Either we describe everything in the universe as matter (particles). Energy -> matter and fields -> energy -> matter. This is obiously what Newton tried to do (eg. by describing light as particles in his book "Optics"), but today it is know that this leads to trouble.
    • Or we describe everything as fields (as done in quantummechanics, seems/was rather successful).
    • Finally we can describe everything as a representation of energy.

    Now there might be some theory that I don't know of at the moment, but AFAIK no theory describes everything as a representation of energy. Anybody knows if any efforts have been made to do this (and if it failed, why) ? Or do the strings in the string theory represent energy and should I urgently have a look at that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ?

    Bye!

    Crisp




    ------------------
    "The best thing you can become in life is yourself" -- M. Eyskens.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    366
    Hi Crisp,

    very good observation indeed !
    I'm not very sure however if there has been a theory that only describes nature as energy although quantum theory come pretty near it.
    As you may not know the basic equation of quantum mechanics is the energy equation of Schrödinger. It is a generalisation of Hamilton theory in which you replace impuls and position with operators and you find the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian which gives you the energy spectrum of the wave functions which are actually the eigenfunctions of this Hamiltonian. In classical physics the hamiltonian is actually the more generalised why of representing total energy of a system. I don't know if you had any Lagrange or Hamilton theory until know but those are actually generalisations or rather reformulations of Newtonian Mechanics. In stead of the equations of motions their basic equation is the energy equation. It turned out to be a far more general description of reality showing the way to something like the principle of least action. This was a guiding light for Einstein when he develloped his general relativity : a ray of light always travels along geodesics of its space (geodesics are lines that connect two points in generalised spaces along the smallest distance)

    ------------------
    "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
    Isaac Newton
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Hi Plato,

    Well, you're exactly formulating the point. We know for sure that the major theories we use at the moment (eg. SR, GR and even QM) fail at a certain point. They all describe reality up to a very high degree of accuracy, but once things start getting complicated, every theory of the above fails (either by an inaccurate assumption about the nature of particles/light/...) or because of mathematical complications.

    But the only common factor in every theory I've encountered so far is "energy" (and all the different definitions of energy in all those theories relate to eachother in a pretty good way). It would make sense to go for the easy way and say "the fundamentel building block of the universe is energy, but we see it as ...". Perhaps this is something we might elaborate a bit further when it is discovered string theory fails aswel

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    It's funny you mention the Hamiltonian here. I know it represents the energy of the system, and that it gives a far more accurate description than classical Newtonian mechanics, but the only reason this description "fails" is because they are still put in a classical context... Hrm... Do I hear a quantum-relativistic-string-Hamiltonian equation coming up somewhere ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    366
    Actually this is exactly what happened when quantummechanics and relativity were formulated at the beginning of this century.
    You see Hamilton developed his theory in the middle of the previous century, it was immediately recognised how powerful it’s description was. Thus it followed that every new theory that was conceived was formulated in the Hamiltonian formalism.
    The combination between relativity and quantummechanics is also something that was done almost immediately after Schrödinger and Heisenberg published their equations by Klein and Gordon and Dirac.
    The two first ones made an equation that described bosons (these are particles with a whole numbered spin ), the last one described fermions (these are half numbered spin particles)
    String theory is the latest one of the bunch and actually tries to incorporate every aspect that is known about elementary particles except, and here I would like to refer to the other thread that I started up in the General Sci/Tech about determinism and indeterminism. Something that every equation about fundamental laws has had in common from Newton all the way up to String theory that is the equations are time symmetric ! This time symmetry is not what we see in the macroscopic world so how can time symmetric fundamental laws give rise to non-symmetric behaviour ? This is a discrepancy that can only be solved by going to a probabilistic description of nature. This is why string theory is already incomplete to start with and we aren’t, as Stephen Hawking put it, at the end of physics but rather at a new beginning : the physics of non equilibrium is largely an unexplored territory. So next year, when you will search a subject for your thesis I would encourage you to take a look at subjects around chaos and non equilibrium.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    ------------------
    "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
    Isaac Newton
     
  8. paul defourneaux Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    37
    Dear Crisp,
    Your getting crispier.If you have a cd rom version of the urantia book,do a query on the word energy or matter.The resulting informatin should enlighten you.If you do not have this book on cd rom let me know by e-mail and I will tell you how to down load it for free.Machiaventa@aol.com
    Paul/Machiaventa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Oxygen One Hissy Kitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,478
    paul-I've checked out this urantia thing. It's just another translation of that historically and morally flawed document called the bible. This one, however, is twisted around to generate income for the Urantia Foundation.

    If there is a passage in this book that answers the question(s) above, please quote it so that we may better analyze it.

    ------------------
    I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.
     
  10. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to AIP's, re: this thread.

    It is "possible" that energy may exist of itself as a potential "constant". (this would apply to what is usually considered "radiant" energy, i.e., photons and electrons)

    This concept would explain the "no limit" factor of energy manifestation, such as Stars.

    The energy cannot be "used up" or destroyed...it is either "there as an actuality" or as a potential of actuality.

    In this instance, the only real limit to energy is the amount of matter involved...E=mc2.

    ......


    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Gerry, this thread is from 14 years ago!
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,870
    Electrons are not considered radiant energy. A photon is a massless particle that has no charge and can only move at the speed of light. An electron is a particle that has mass (\(9.109585\times 10^{-31}\) kg), a negative charge (\(1.60218\times 10^{-19}\)C) and can only move at less than the speed of light.
     
  13. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Doesn't matter. I don't care what Crisp is doing now, or even on what plane of existence he might reside these days. He has a responsibility to get his ass back here and attend to the thread he started.
     
  14. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to origin, re: your #9.

    I beg to differ with regard to "electrons"..."something" is supposedly moving with regard to electricity thru a wire.

    I am stating that a "potential" exists at ANY frame-of-reference, and this applies to the wire as well...the "charged particles" are being excited "in-place" (within the wire)


    The amplitude of "excitement" is in direct proportion to stimulus from a source. (this complies with Relativity, as well as Lorentz "expansion" factors)


    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,870
    Yes, that something is electrons they are not radiant energy though. Each individual electron is only moving at a slow speed on the order of millimeters/sec or around a cm/min. The speed varies depending on the conductor. The electromagnetic wave that causes the movement of the electrons propagates down the conductor are a sizable percentage of the speed of light.

    Uh, OK. An electrical potential that causes a charge to move. The negatively charged electrons will move to the positive side of of the electric field.

    Amplitdue generally refers to the maximum change in a periodic wave. So amplitude would be applied to AC current and not to DC current. The electric field in AC changes from positiive to negative causing the electons to move in the + direction and then in the - directon so there is essentially no movement as averaged over time. With DC current the electric field is constant and there is a single direction of the electrons over time.

    Please explain how current flow complies with relativity and Lorentz "expansion" factors.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Lets start with fields , all matter , no matter , how large or small have fields

    Now the question is , have fields a physical connection with space ?
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    We all have a connection with space.
    Without space, we have no time, without space and time, we have no spacetime, without spacetime, we have no matter-energy or gravity.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The question is Originally Posted by river

    Now the question is , have fields a physical connection with space ?

    Your answer to this question , pad
     
  19. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to origin, re: your #12 post.

    "Lorentz" applies with regard to the actual physical increase in "volume" of a "charged" electrical wire (a very small amount, true...but still a greater ^ in volume)

    "Relativity" applies to the manifestation of electrical energy. ( a quantum effect)



    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Umm, already given, in no uncertain terms. :shrug:

    But anyway, playing your usual game, here it is again rivs.....





     
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,870
    So you are saying the volume of wire with current is larger than the wire with no current flow? Could you show the math that supports that. If not, could you supply supporting evidence in the form of a link. How does the apply to "Lorentz"?

    In what way do you see relativity being applied? That is the question.

    Which quantum effect?
     
  22. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to origin, re: your #18 post.

    I did answer you! How much of "more" do you expect me to write?

    "In what way do I see "Relativity" applied to an electrically-charged wire?" My answer? In every way! The PRINCIPLES of Relativity apply to all sets and frames of condition, or they apply

    to none at all! (no...I am not going quote "chapter and verse" on every principle ever written)

    .....

    In regard to a "charged wire"...YES, there is a tiny fraction of "increase in volume" vs. an "uncharged" state.

    "Show math that supports this"...okay. "EMc2". <is this enough?

    .....


    The concept of "heat/expansion" involves Lorentz factors. A "charged" copper-wire occupies a volume of space than it did "uncharged"...the molecular and atom structures of the wire

    will "react" to the input of energy. The greater the input of energy, the greater the reaction.

    (are you just toying with me? This is not a "pro forma" class-room environment, origin! You don't get to drill me with "do you know this" and "do you know that"...no rhetorical B.S. questions)

    .....

    "So, you're saying the wire expands"...is total B.S. The wire is reacting to a "new" factor...it WILL react whether I think so or not! Or whether you think so or not!

    The charged wire e x p a n d s. (is this all but immeasurable? Yes. But it is "there")





    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,870
    It would be nice to do more than to just make an unsupported pronouncement.

    You are again simply making an unsupported pronouncement.

    Wait, so all you are saying is that a wire with current flow will heat up and this will result in expansion? Yes, most material expand when heated, but that has nothing to do with relativity or your Lorentz factors" that I can see.

    You claim have an alternative theory, so I am asking for a deeper explanation of that alternative theory. Is that a problem?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page