What is Energy?
- Thread starter Willem
- Start date
I have nothing to do with googleusercontent - it went there automatically.
At least it is not elegant.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Yes, obviously. That's what Google's webcache does.
Edit: Wait, wait, wait. I'm an idiot. This is Willem admitting he's talanum46 over there.
Last edited:
Quantum entanglement
Spontaneous parametric down-conversionprocess can split photons into type II photon pairs with mutually perpendicular polarization.
Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance.
Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization, performed on entangled particles are found to be correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise, as is to be expected due to their entanglement. However, this behavior gives rise to seemingly paradoxical effects: any measurement of a property of a particle performs an irreversible collapse on that particle and will change the original quantum state. In the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole.
Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,[1] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[2][3]describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the local realism view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky action at a distance")[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete.
Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified experimentally[5] in tests where the polarization or spin of entangled particles were measured at separate locations, statistically violating Bell's inequality. In earlier tests it couldn't be absolutely ruled out that the test result at one point could have been subtly transmitted to the remote point, affecting the outcome at the second location.[6] However so-called "loophole-free" Bell tests have been performed in which the locations were separated such that communications at the speed of light would have taken longer—in one case 10,000 times longer—than the interval between the measurements.[7][8]
According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the effect of one measurement occurs instantly. Other interpretations which don't recognize wavefunction collapse dispute that there is any "effect" at all. However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible.[9][10]
Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally with photons,[11][12][13][14] neutrinos,[15] electrons,[16][17] moleculesas large as buckyballs,[18][19] and even small diamonds.[20][21] The utilization of entanglement in communication and computationis a very active area of research.
Clearly there is a form of energy , in wave form . That connects quantumly , the two particles , in such a way that it keeps a balance between the two . Up and down .
We can not detect this energy form ; currently
Further what would happen if these two particles orientation were rotated at extremely low and fast speeds ?
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Unfortunately, Bells' Theorem showed that, if there were some unknown form of communication between the particles, it could not be Lorentz invariant - it would have to violate relativity.
Yet clearly there is an energy between Quantum particles .
It seems to that Bells' Theorem , and Relativity over rule what is actually happening between quantum particles .
No disrespect to either ; but surely we can understand the inadequacy of either explaining this communication .
Since they can't .
The communication between quantum particles , there is an energy , never the less does exist .
A New theory is needed , obviously .
Last edited:
Postulate: Energy = property of particles x property of space.
Look: Potemtial Energy is mgh: mh is a property of particles and g is a property of space. E = pc: p is a property of particles and c is a property of space. Now why doesnt Kinetic Energy = (1/2)mv^2 and E = mc^2 fit herewith?
For E = mc^2 we may say this is really: E = mkc, and mk is a property of particles and c is a property of space. Where k happens to be numerically equal to c. Would this fit with the theoretic derivation of E = mc^2?
For kinetic energy we can try to do symmilarly: E = (1/2)mwv, and then mv/2 is a property of particles and w is a property of particles - so this doesn't work out nicely, except if we prove w is really a property of space. Where v happens to be numerically equal to w.
Elastic Potential Energy = 1/2k(Delta x)^2 = kDelta xDelta x. Here x is a property of particles then k delta x must be a property of the medium: the rubber band (standing in for: property of space).
For E = kT we have: T is a property of particles and k is a property of space.
Is there an equation for Energy that I haven't considered?
Look: Potemtial Energy is mgh: mh is a property of particles and g is a property of space. E = pc: p is a property of particles and c is a property of space. Now why doesnt Kinetic Energy = (1/2)mv^2 and E = mc^2 fit herewith?
For E = mc^2 we may say this is really: E = mkc, and mk is a property of particles and c is a property of space. Where k happens to be numerically equal to c. Would this fit with the theoretic derivation of E = mc^2?
For kinetic energy we can try to do symmilarly: E = (1/2)mwv, and then mv/2 is a property of particles and w is a property of particles - so this doesn't work out nicely, except if we prove w is really a property of space. Where v happens to be numerically equal to w.
Elastic Potential Energy = 1/2k(Delta x)^2 = kDelta xDelta x. Here x is a property of particles then k delta x must be a property of the medium: the rubber band (standing in for: property of space).
For E = kT we have: T is a property of particles and k is a property of space.
Is there an equation for Energy that I haven't considered?
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
W=Fd. E=iVt = i²Rt = V²t/R.
Perhaps the idea you are groping ,dimly, towards is that the dimensions of energy are ML²/T². One could describe mass as a property of particles, whereas L and T are dimensions of space and time.
Mass is a property of all physical particles . More importantly ; the many properties of the mass , are actually the Qualities of the Mass .
Magnetic Field , spin , vibration , frequency etc .
Last edited: