Thanks forrest noble, I see the whole 373 page book on your site. That should pretty well explain Pan Theory. I'll enjoy perusing it.
Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Just to be clear can I take it that you believe energy can exist independent of matter?
How do you feel this is possible?
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Why not by E=mc^2? Both sides of the equation 'exist'; in fact, depend on each other. Want to rephrase that? Energy IS matter, and vice versa.
The Higgs boson briefly has a mass of 125 GeV before it decays. It gives itself inertial mass in the same way it imparts inertial mass to electrons, quarks, their antiparticles, W and Z bosons.
In the vacuum, the Higgs energy is a field; and the boson is the force carrier it uses in order to interact with matter (the way photons are the force carrier for EM). The VeV is about twice the Higgs mass, 245 GeV. That's a lot of energy in the vacuum not necessarily connected to matter other than by the Higgs mechanism. This is a thin thread that tethers energy to matter.
Only if an energy-matter conversion is taking place, otherwise there is no dependency. For example, consider E=hν which has no dependence on mass at all.
Except for the fact that c is not unitless, you might be onto something. But because the dimensions aren't the same, it's called an equivalence rather than an equality or an identity.
Do you also believe energy can exist independent of matter?
If so by what mechanism does this occur?
What evidence is there of this independence except for the effect energy has on or with in matter?
(I have been searching for the answer for over 7 years now so I guess it wont happen any time soon!
)If there is no answer then why is it so often quoted as scientific fact when it isn't?
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
Based upon the definition of energy I provided before, along with the energy that matter may have, there accordingly is also the energy of EM radiation, which is the energy of physical waves of an aether in my model. Yes these waves are created by matter in the first place
Based upon the definition of energy I provided before, along with the energy that matter may have, there accordingly is also the energy of EM radiation, which is the energy of physical waves of an aether in my model. Yes these waves are created by matter in the first place
Is there any hard empirical evidence to support that definition that allows energy to be considered independent of matter?
...and no I am not trying to be silly or stubborn.
This "energy independent of mass" problem IMO is the greatest obstacle facing theoretical science today...
Last edited:
No, matter and energy seem to be dependent on each other. In my model, there is the premise that matter and energy have always existed, and share a fixed ratio on a grand scale, solving the "problem". I invoke the action processes (quantum action and arena action) to describe the matter-to energy-to matter mechanics that defeats entropy.
I remember you asking that in your "Intriguing Question ..." thread. This was the post from your thread where I responded:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...T-in-general&p=3216335&viewfull=1#post3216335
You kindly provided a direct link:
The CMB dipole, aka wide angle anisotropy, is characterized by a distinct pattern in the tiny temperature fluctuations we observe, and the pattern shows up most distinctly at wide angles; the widest angle of 180˚ shows the greatest temperature difference.What an amazing exhibition!
for those who want a direct link:
[video=youtube;WCHi4hioFEI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCHi4hioFEI[/video]
The implication is that in the earliest period of our developing Big Bang arena, there were preconditions that caused "granular" energy perturbations in our arena that contributed to the inhomogeneous galactic structure that we observe, including the the great attractor of galaxies, and the CMB dipole as well.
That is consistent with two parent big bang arenas, each with their own unique galactic structure and different maturities, expanding into each other, and overlapping. Gravity would naturally cause a swirling rendezvous of the converging galactic material to form a big crunch at the center of gravity of the "overlap", and when the big crunch collapses and bangs as it does in my model, the new arena (our Big Bang arena) expands into the same space that was formerly occupied by the parent arenas. The dipole in the CMB would logically be the result of two slightly different CMB temperatures of the parent arenas, logically due to their different maturities.
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March05/Scott/Scott2.html
Last edited:
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
Energy, as to its definition, includes EM radiation as one of its forms. There are a couple of other forms of field energy also, De Broglie waves and gravity waves if they are real. All three require mass in the first place for their creation. But once created they can exist independent of matter.
Forrest, I have begun to peruse your book, and I see it comes with specifics, definitions, and some history of how it all came together. I'm not yet at all well versed on any of that, except that that I see it as comprehensive, planned out, bottom up approach, and an evolved work over quite a few years. You have kept your unique ideas and terminology, and you address the topics that a complete cosmology should address.
It is unique in many ways, and because I generally look for departure points form known observations and physical mechanics in someone's model, I am seeing that you are starting very much from scratch. Is that a fair observation to start with?
I think that the goal is to present much more that what I am doing with my hobby-model, which is just a personal model of cosmology where self imposed rules apply. Though I believe you apply the same basic rules as I do, i.e. that the model answers all of the as yet unanswered cosmological questions to your satisfaction using known physics, cosmology, new ideas, speculations, and hypotheses. For me, every speculation and hypothesis should be internally consistent with all others, and there should be no cases where the model is inconsistent with scientific observations and data, given that the physical mechanics of said science is understood. I suspect that all sounds familiar to you based on your own approach.
For the benefit of discussion, would you be interested in picking some points and posting some comparisons between what I call my hobby-model (posts 414 to 433) and your cosmology?
It is unique in many ways, and because I generally look for departure points form known observations and physical mechanics in someone's model, I am seeing that you are starting very much from scratch. Is that a fair observation to start with?
I think that the goal is to present much more that what I am doing with my hobby-model, which is just a personal model of cosmology where self imposed rules apply. Though I believe you apply the same basic rules as I do, i.e. that the model answers all of the as yet unanswered cosmological questions to your satisfaction using known physics, cosmology, new ideas, speculations, and hypotheses. For me, every speculation and hypothesis should be internally consistent with all others, and there should be no cases where the model is inconsistent with scientific observations and data, given that the physical mechanics of said science is understood. I suspect that all sounds familiar to you based on your own approach.
For the benefit of discussion, would you be interested in picking some points and posting some comparisons between what I call my hobby-model (posts 414 to 433) and your cosmology?
Last edited:
Does energy have substance?
If so what substance?
If not substance then what is it?
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
There is an expression of the uncertainty principle relation in quantum mechanics that regulates how much energy can be "borrowed" from the vacuum and for how long. Larger energies may be borrowed for a shorter length of time than smaller amounts. It's used as sort of an averaging mechanism for situations in which energy is not conserved for particle interactions in the short term.
We now understand that this can't possibly be the whole story. Matter borrows energy (a lot of it) from the Higgs field, and either keeps it indefinitely, or else it must be borrowing the energy it a little at a time in an interaction that lasts indefinitely, or for as long as atomic structure does. How exactly could this happen and how to reconcile it with the uncertainty principle, no one has yet explained.
Oh yes, energy has "substance", after a fashion.
Ideas?
We now understand that this can't possibly be the whole story. Matter borrows energy (a lot of it) from the Higgs field, and either keeps it indefinitely, or else it must be borrowing the energy it a little at a time in an interaction that lasts indefinitely, or for as long as atomic structure does. How exactly could this happen and how to reconcile it with the uncertainty principle, no one has yet explained.
Oh yes, energy has "substance", after a fashion.
Ideas?
I think R Feynman said it really well when attempting to define energy... I'll see if I can find the quote from one of his famous lectures (unless you already have it at hand?)
~ R Feynman. volume I; lecture 4, "Conservation of Energy"; section 4-1, "What is energy?"; p. 4-2
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
According to a physics dictionary: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy by definition exists in several forms such as kinetic or mechanical energy, potential energy, heat, electrical, EM radiation, and other forms.
Other forms of energy can be De Broglie waves and gravity waves (if they exist), etc.
------------------------------------
Source: Richard Feynman's related quote, Lectures on Physics:
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."
------------------------------------
As to known "field" energies there are EM radiation, De Broglie waves, Zero-Point energy. In the standard model these are kinds of field energies, whatever that means.
On the other hand, in my model these entities can be simply, physically described. EM radiation would accordingly be pressure waves in an aether, with a vertical and horizontal component. De Broglie waves are mostly low energy, high frequency horizontal pressure waves. Zero Point Energy is the normal interactive energy of a particulate Zero Point Field as an aether. No particulates of EM radiation travel at the speed of light, only the energy waves themselves travel at that speed. They can be described as energy waves of aether particles. The aether would be similar to a type of super-fluid.
According to my model energy does not come in discrete packets, but atomic electrons do absorb and radiate energy in discrete amounts based on the orbital change in energy levels they are making. Photons accordingly are imaginary but convenient entities which enable functional predictive calculations.
Below are some similar related theories:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_3.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superfluid-spacetime-relativity-quantum-physics/
Last edited:
Its not unusual for me to see things as being consistent with the general scenario in my hobby-model. Recently there has been some good discussion on this "Issues" thread, and I like that to occur. But when there is a lull, like now. I like to explore ideas that I am trying to bring into my model. One such idea is what I am talking about throughout this thread; the force of energy density equalization.
It follows that when I talk about a universe composed of nothing but gravitational wave energy traversing the medium of space, in my model all energy is derived from the wave energy traversing the medium of space.
But there is also a logical reason to differentiate between the two main ways that wave energy becomes a force acting on matter. One way, gravity, causes matter to clump/accumulate around a central point. When gravity has played out in the overlap of two separate big bang arenas, the result is the ultimate "clump", lol, a big crunch in my model. Then comes the collapse/bang of the crunch (big bang).
Another way for energy traversing the medium of space to become a force occurs in the moments of the initial rapid expansion after a big bang. The expansion that occurs following a big bang is the result of high energy density filling the medium of space inside the event horizon, equalizing with the low energy density filling the medium of space surrounding the unfolding big bang event. The force of energy density equalization has become operative.
Coincident to the introduction of that force, particles are forming in the new arena. Those particles form in a rapidly expanding energy density environment, and therefore they have separation momentum imparted to them. The particles that form are initially all moving away from each other. The clumping force of gravity goes to work in close quarters, but the clumping power of gravity is defeated within the event horizon's internal space by the opposing force of energy density equalization.
Expansion momentum of the particles remains stronger, though they manage to clump and eventually form the separating galactic structure that we observe; the galactic structure within an expanding arena will keep showing a widening of the separation.
The common big bang arena would expand forever if it didn't eventually intersect and overlap with other similar expanding arenas. It isn't until then that gravity again takes the upper hand and causes the galactic structure of the parent arenas to swirl and collapse into a new big crunch.
It then follows that if all energy is derived from the wave energy traversing the medium of space, and there are two opposing forces acting on matter, then particles that make up matter are themselves composed of wave energy traversing the medium of space. They are stable standing wave patterns of inflowing and out flowing wave energy, and they therefore "contain" energy.
Though in my model the universe is infinite in space, wave energy, and time, big bangs occur before all of the matter and energy of the universe can all fall into some final Big Crunch. A big crunch in my model collapses and bangs when a finite limit of matter and energy is accumulated; the critical capacity. The matter formation period then goes back in the arena history to the high energy density ball of wave energy "squeezed" out of the particles at the instant of the collapse/bang of a big crunch. It is a hot dense ball of wave energy poised to be taken over by the force of energy density equalization.
When the crunch collapses and bangs, it is said that the crunch "fails". However, that failure, orchestrated by the extremes of gravity, leads to the success of a new big bang arena that immediately comes under the influence of the force of energy density equalization.
The failure of the big crunch is characterized by the cessation of particles to function, i.e. their ability to exist individually as complex standing wave patterns of wave energy. Since gravity is only associated with the presence of functioning particles, when particles fail, the crunch loses it gravitational presence, and energy density equalization between the wave energy emerging from the collapse/bang sends the hot dense ball of wave energy into expansion unopposed. The hot dense ball of high wave energy density that emerges from the collapse/bang immediately begins to equalize with the low energy density of the surrounding space; expansion of the volume of space occupied by the emerging wave energy ball is the result.
Though the two opposing forces are universal and are in play at all times and all places in relative amounts, one of the playing fields where all of that is best exemplified centers around each of the big bang events. Each bang is characterized by its immediate preconditions of two (or more) mature parent arenas converging, the formation of a big crunch at the center gravity of the overlap where the arenas converge in space, the failure of the big crunch, the relative interplay between the two opposing forces, and the action processes that describe the mechanics of the two opposing forces, i.e. quantum action and arena action.
Such a discussion (or soliloquy perhaps right now) can be kicked off by saying that the relative strength of the two opposing forces is governed by the relative proximity of matter. In close quarters gravity is stronger than equalization (the inverse square law), and in the absence of matter, energy density equalization is unopposed.
Speculations on particle formation and ratios within a new arena:
Big Bang Theory Nucleosynthesis
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
The above link contains the current Wiki BBN model. It doesn't exactly explain how protons and neutrons form, but does cover the formation of heavier nuclei and atoms heavier than hydrogen. With the exception of the dearth of Lithium 7 ions, BBN quite accurately predicts the levels of light gases.
In my model, the energy density environment has some characteristics that BBN does not. My model features preconditions like preexisting space and gravitational wave energy, and a preexisting universal ratio of matter and energy, but there is another differentiating characteristic. The age of the cosmic background surrounding our emerging big bang arena.
In Big Bang theory there isn't any surrounding CMB, and in my model there is. The age difference equates to a current environment 13.7 billion years old vs. a potentially past eternal universe into which our arena has been expanding. As our arena expands it is incorporating that aged background that existed in each of our parent arenas, and that was also passed down to them many billions of years before that.
The processes of nature that affect the decline of 7Li seem to be age related, and the older the universe, the less 7Li there would be found. That dearth of 7Li is consistent with my model to the degree that my model would expect age related ratios of gas ions in the background to have a much more lengthly cosmic history. Of course this is just layman speculations for discussion, and I'm sure that other age related ratios might falsify such an hypothesis.
Scientists are still working on an explanation,
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-ideas-mystery-lithium-universe.html#nRlv,
and I wonder if they were to consider preexisting conditions to BBN, if they would see the Lithium right, lol.
But regardless of the possible "aged universe" explanation for the observed ratio of Lithium 7 ions, the scenario of the ISU-model has other interesting aspects that tend to satisfy my personal sensibilities.
Energy density equalization, coupled with separation momentum of particles as they form, results in an arena where galaxies and galactic structure are separating. That environment encompasses a causally connected environment in an increasing volume of space. That space hosts the energy that emerged from the crunch/bang, and the matter and energy in the space surrounding the crunch/bang event, as well as the undetectable medium of space itself.
There are a lot of considerations for discussion, or at least for contemplations as I am inclined to have, concerning that expanding arena environment. There is the issue of what the content is of the emerging ball of dense state energy, how a certain "critical capacity" might apply to all crunch/bangs making them finite and quite standard, what the content is of the surrounding space from which the material and energy of the big crunch were accumulated after the parent arenas intersected and overlapped, how particles imparted with separation momentum will clump in close quarters and yet the clumps will conserve the separation momentum and keep moving away from each other, the explanation for how everything is generally observed to be moving away for every point in the arena, and there is the question of how time and expansion momentum affect the rate of energy density equalization at the event horizon and at the accelerating matter separation horizon, and more.
My model addresses each of those considerations in a fashion that is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, and I generally try to describe them for discussion in my current thread because I keep contemplating the model and incorporating new ideas to make it more satisfying to me.
Energy density equalization, coupled with separation momentum of particles as they form, results in an arena where galaxies and galactic structure are separating. That environment encompasses a causally connected environment in an increasing volume of space. That space hosts the energy that emerged from the crunch/bang, and the matter and energy in the space surrounding the crunch/bang event, as well as the undetectable medium of space itself.
There are a lot of considerations for discussion, or at least for contemplations as I am inclined to have, concerning that expanding arena environment. There is the issue of what the content is of the emerging ball of dense state energy, how a certain "critical capacity" might apply to all crunch/bangs making them finite and quite standard, what the content is of the surrounding space from which the material and energy of the big crunch were accumulated after the parent arenas intersected and overlapped, how particles imparted with separation momentum will clump in close quarters and yet the clumps will conserve the separation momentum and keep moving away from each other, the explanation for how everything is generally observed to be moving away for every point in the arena, and there is the question of how time and expansion momentum affect the rate of energy density equalization at the event horizon and at the accelerating matter separation horizon, and more.
My model addresses each of those considerations in a fashion that is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data, and I generally try to describe them for discussion in my current thread because I keep contemplating the model and incorporating new ideas to make it more satisfying to me.