legitimate questions about what energy is are not allowed...
Energy - What is it?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
I don't know how some of you guys can get out of bed in the morning knowing that a simple question about energy can't be resolved rationally.
A question to demonstrate my point is:
"How much energy is propagating universally at any given moment?"
"Why is this not accounted for in any physical theorizing?
The question is not requiring an exact answer [for even a quick mental calculation "blows" the issue.] but more an effort to understand the implications of a flawed understanding of what exactly energy is and how that in turn distorts and inhibits scientific progress into the future.
I tend to feel that for example using the Eqiv. equation; E=mc^2 that what is happening in our thinking is that we treat this equation as if Energy is being compared to Mass, as if they are separate entities when in fact there is only one entity, that being Mass.
An easy enough to understand confusion IMO which is why we are left with unanswerable questions such as the one posed above.
IMO The equal sign (=) in the equation does not imply that energy is somehow separate to mass yet physics tends to work on the notion that it somehow is separate
View attachment 6342
A question to demonstrate my point is:
"How much energy is propagating universally at any given moment?"
"Why is this not accounted for in any physical theorizing?
The question is not requiring an exact answer [for even a quick mental calculation "blows" the issue.] but more an effort to understand the implications of a flawed understanding of what exactly energy is and how that in turn distorts and inhibits scientific progress into the future.
I tend to feel that for example using the Eqiv. equation; E=mc^2 that what is happening in our thinking is that we treat this equation as if Energy is being compared to Mass, as if they are separate entities when in fact there is only one entity, that being Mass.
An easy enough to understand confusion IMO which is why we are left with unanswerable questions such as the one posed above.
IMO The equal sign (=) in the equation does not imply that energy is somehow separate to mass yet physics tends to work on the notion that it somehow is separate
View attachment 6342
Last edited:
yes that is the conventional view... but what is a field? Is a field Mass? (nope) Do you see the confusion?
edit: see my edit above
IMO ... E (=) mc^2 should read E (is) mc^2
No, I don't see any confusion.
The equal sign implied that they are equivalent, not that they are the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
The equal sign implied that they are equivalent, not that they are the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
from your link:
ok ...then answering the question about the amount of energy propagating the universe at any given moment should cause no concern and be well published.
Do you have a link that can provide an answer to this question?
Even an approximation would suffice.
I do realize you are talking form a mainstream perspective when you write:
either way E= "only a property"
so accordingly
Energy is a property of Matter, that can be valued by solving (mc^2)
but as you have clearly stated "energy is a property of Matter and a "thing" called "fields"
either way E= "only a property"
so accordingly
Energy is a property of Matter, that can be valued by solving (mc^2)
But one would have to rationally suggest that the amount of energy proposed to be in transit [ propagating ] would have to be a hugely significant value and one that appears to be ignored by mainstream science.
At present science appears to be suggesting that "Energy is a property of energy" And that it can exist independently of matter in the form of fields.
so one could reasonably conclude that mc^2 only = Energy when relating to matter but not "fields"...
is that a fair enough assessment?
So what do we do with all this theoretically derived "massive" amount of energy propagating through out the universe?
Do we just put it in the too hard basket when calculating the universes total mass [with it's related missing mass and energy] ?
Is it possible that the 95.1% missing mass may be because this massive amount of propagating energy is not included in the calculations?
First of all, the entire form of the equation is E[sup]2[/sup] = m[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]4[/sup] + p[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]2[/sup]. The second term on the right side applies to massless particles, i.e. photons, where p is momentum.
Second, that equation only considers the energy equivalent of the matter and photons. It doesn't consider the energy of fields, nor kinetic energy. So it's not inclusive of the stress-energy tensor.
But you can certainly solve the equation for any given amount of matter, and get the energy equivalent. It's just not all the energy.
Second, that equation only considers the energy equivalent of the matter and photons. It doesn't consider the energy of fields, nor kinetic energy. So it's not inclusive of the stress-energy tensor.
But you can certainly solve the equation for any given amount of matter, and get the energy equivalent. It's just not all the energy.
Simply because there is absolutely no reference to this massive amount of propagating energy [as an estimated total ] on the net that I can find, nor any one else can find.
It appears to be non-existent.... yet it must exist according to science....re: photons, EMR etc etc
If there was an acknowledged total it would be very well published and a significant part of any equations involving universal mass,energy [ totals ]
Last edited:
Is it possible that the 95.1% missing mass may be because this massive amount of propagating energy is not included in the calculations?
Mainstream physics certainly doesn't ignore it, it's just unknown.
but do you agree that it would have to add up to a massive value? [ unknown perhaps but massive for sure ]
Proposition:
:shrug:
and I might add a "politically correct" one... [ chuckle]
How about zero?