Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a question though. Doesn't the following quote from the link provide at least some justification for Mystic's proposition?
I have asked MysticPhD before if he misspoke. I asked him if, instead of "all that exists is pure energy", he meant something else like "Energy is not all that exists." Perhaps he meant to say energy is not a substance, but rather a property of fields. He categorically denied misspeaking. Hence, I must continue to reiterate that he is confusing an equivalence between mass and energy with an equivalence between fields and energy, or matter and energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Here is a further entry, which seem pretty on point. It also seems to me to largely vindicate your claimn that "matter is really energy," and that is a reasonable theory. People can say it is not right, but they can not say it is unreasonable.
"Zahar holds that the fundamental stuff of physics is a sort of "I- know-not-what" that we can call either "mass" or "energy." Unfortunately, Zahar's interpretation suffers from a rather imprecise use of the terms "mass," "matter," and "energy." For example, Zahar uses both "mass" and "matter" to designate a substance, when he clearly seems to intend only for the latter to designate a substance and for the former to designate a property. This equivocation can be easily corrected. His use of the term "energy," however, is more difficult to repair unless we introduce the notion of a field. So, for example, when Zahar talks about energy occupying a different "ontological level" from matter, what he should be saying is that fields occupied such a different level."
I.e. We cannot say matter is made of a "substance" called energy. Quantum field theory does indeed treat matter as field quantizations. But it is the fields, not energy, that is the fundamental physical substance. Such fields have energy as a property. This is the salient point. It is categorically false to say energy is anything other than a property of a deeper physical thing. Even string theory, with its conjecture that all matter emerges from the same source, says the source is strings which have energy as a property, and not "pure energy".
This is why, in my previous posts, I specifically mention fields. There is no equivalence principle between energy and fields.
I have asked MysticPhD before if he misspoke. I asked him if, instead of "all that exists is pure energy", he meant something else like "Energy is not all that exists." Perhaps he meant to say energy is not a substance, but rather a property of fields. He categorically denied misspeaking. Hence, I must continue to reiterate that he is confusing an equivalence between mass and energy with an equivalence between fields and energy, or matter and energy.
.
Do you believe Russel's claim that "mass is only a form of energy" is reasonable?
Or Wolfgang Pauli statement: "Taking the existence of all these transmutations into account, what remains of the old idea of matter and of substance? The answer is energy. This is the true substance, that which is conserved; only the form in which it appears is changing" ?
Is the only contention here that Mystic should have said "Matter is a quantizations of a field?"
Or even more importantly, if we can all agree that the following statement is a valid point-of-view of legitimate science, we can move on.
Quote:
Zahar argues that mass-energy equivalence entails that the fundamental stuff of physics is a sort of “I-know-not-what” that can manifest itself as either matter or field. Einstein and Infeld, on the other hand, in places seem to argue that we can infer that the fundamental stuff of physics is fields.
Morbert would say no such thing. Mass is energy bound. Matter is not. Matter, like an electron, is not made of energy. It instead possesses energy. Even if we describe an electron as a quantised excitation of the electron field, it is still not energy. As I have said numerous times now, you are confusing the equivalence of mass and energy (properties of the field) with the an equivalence of matter/fields and energy.
I am confusing nothing but you clearly are confused. I have repeatedly said MULTIPLE times that everything exists within the universal field. For all intents and purposes the field property (or fundamental "stuff") of our reality is measured as energy aggregations or disaggregations. That is all that actually exists . . . no substance, no matter, no mass (just measured energy in different forms or states).
Quote:
A photon is not "purely" an occurrence of kinetic energy. It is a quantized excitation of the electromagnetic field, satisfying the wave equation. This, as I have to say over and over and over, is where you keep making the mistake.
I made no mistakes. (Using the term "quantized" instead measured doesn't aid your case or your attempt to backtrack.) The photon as a "particle" is a naive and outdated idea. It is an occurrence of kinetic energy measured as a discrete entity with one time measure (frequency), momentum and is distributed throughout space as a wave (vibratory form).
Quote:
The electromagnetic field has energy as a property. It is not made of energy.
What kind of quibbling double talk is that!
Quote:
Hence, your assertion that only energy exists is false. Instead, we have fundamental physical systems that possess energy as a property.
This pointless double talk and retention of "physical" stuff is just an attempt to admit that it was your mistakes in misstating, misrepresenting, and misunderstanding my views that were the gross mistakes in representing physics that you accused me of making.
I have asked MysticPhD before if he misspoke. I asked him if, instead of "all that exists is pure energy", he meant something else like "Energy is not all that exists." Perhaps he meant to say energy is not a substance, but rather a property of fields. He categorically denied misspeaking. Hence, I must continue to reiterate that he is confusing an equivalence between mass and energy with an equivalence between fields and energy, or matter and energy.
The universal field is the heart of my synthesis (if you had bothered to read it or any of my other presentations) instead of blindly firing off dismissive and derogatory missives attacking me, my beliefs and my credibility. The existence of a field is the only presumed ground for any of the measures we employ. I was always referring to energy as the only reasonable property of that reality (not mass) that exists. The purpose of my efforts was to explain to a wider audience than physicists why their physical (in the common parlance) understanding of our reality was flawed. That was also the reason for my liberal use of analogies to convey certain principles that are otherwise not intuitively obvious to the masses.
Quote:
"Zahar holds that the fundamental stuff of physics is a sort of "I- know-not-what" that we can call either "mass" or "energy." Unfortunately, Zahar's interpretation suffers from a rather imprecise use of the terms "mass," "matter," and "energy." For example, Zahar uses both "mass" and "matter" to designate a substance, when he clearly seems to intend only for the latter to designate a substance and for the former to designate a property. This equivocation can be easily corrected. His use of the term "energy," however, is more difficult to repair unless we introduce the notion of a field. So, for example, when Zahar talks about energy occupying a different "ontological level" from matter, what he should be saying is that fields occupied such a different level."
I.e. We cannot say matter is made of a "substance" called energy. Quantum field theory does indeed treat matter as field quantizations. But it is the fields, not energy, that is the fundamental physical substance. Such fields have energy as a property. This is the salient point. It is categorically false to say energy is anything other than a property of a deeper physical thing. Even string theory, with its conjecture that all matter emerges from the same source, says the source is strings which have energy as a property, and not "pure energy".
Precise schmecise . . . we are conversing on a public discussion forum with a general audience . . . not a physics conference. If you had genuine intent to understand my views instead of just denigrate and disprove them . . . you would have recognized the different communication style appropriate for this venue and actually read my presentations to understand my actual communication objective. I was certainly not teaching a physics course.
Quote:
This is why, in my previous posts, I specifically mention fields. There is no equivalence principle between energy and fields.
Such a principle was never part of my view. The distinction was mass-energy for very pragmatic reasons. This audience is unlikely to comprehend any of the field representations. Most of them poo, poohed my even mentioning a universal field as the basis of our reality or the existence of a consciousness field. I know you do not want to credit the latter . . . but it is plausible and supportable.
The distinction was mass-energy for very pragmatic reasons. This audience is unlikely to comprehend any of the field representations. Most of them poo, poohed my even mentioning a universal field as the basis of our reality or the existence of a consciousness field. I know you do not want to credit the latter . . . but it is plausible and supportable.
I think there is some merit in this. I understood what Mystic meant by energy, even if I initially disagreed with his proposition.
When I hear the terms "kinetic energy" or "electromagnetic energy", etc., I assume energy is a synonym for "force." Even if that's not technically true, that's the common usage of the word.
So had I assumed that Mystic was saying the substance of the universe only appears to be different than the forces of the universe, but the reality is that they are different manifestations of the same phenomena.
Turns out, that is what he was saying, and it turns out to be a legitimate scientific point of view.
Or even more importantly, if we can all agree that the following statement is a valid point-of-view of legitimate science, we can move on.
"Zahar argues that mass-energy equivalence entails that the fundamental stuff of physics is a sort of “I-know-not-what” that can manifest itself as either matter or field. Einstein and Infeld, on the other hand, in places seem to argue that we can infer that the fundamental stuff of physics is fields."
That is not a valid point of view, as the article says, and as I highlighted in my previous post.
"Unfortunately, Zahar's interpretation suffers from a rather imprecise use of the terms "mass," "matter," and "energy." For example, Zahar uses both "mass" and "matter" to designate a substance, when he clearly seems to intend only for the latter to designate a substance and for the former to designate a property. This equivocation can be easily corrected. His use of the term "energy," however, is more difficult to repair unless we introduce the notion of a field. So, for example, when Zahar talks about energy occupying a different "ontological level" from matter, what he should be saying is that fields occupied such a different level."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The universal field is the heart of my synthesis (if you had bothered to read it or any of my other presentations) instead of blindly firing off dismissive and derogatory missives attacking me, my beliefs and my credibility. The existence of a field is the only presumed ground for any of the measures we employ. I was always referring to energy as the only reasonable property of that reality (not mass) that exists. The purpose of my efforts was to explain to a wider audience than physicists why their physical (in the common parlance) understanding of our reality was flawed. That was also the reason for my liberal use of analogies to convey certain principles that are otherwise not intuitively obvious to the masses.
Precise schmecise . . . we are conversing on a public discussion forum with a general audience . . . not a physics conference. If you had genuine intent to understand my views instead of just denigrate and disprove them . . . you would have recognized the different communication style appropriate for this venue and actually read my presentations to understand my actual communication objective. I was certainly not teaching a physics course.
Such a principle was never part of my view. The distinction was mass-energy for very pragmatic reasons. This audience is unlikely to comprehend any of the field representations. Most of them poo, poohed my even mentioning a universal field as the basis of our reality or the existence of a consciousness field. I know you do not want to credit the latter . . . but it is plausible and supportable.
Again, you are attempting to pass off wrong statements as meaning something else. This is clearly not the case, as evidenced by your more traditional use of energy in other parts of the same posts.
"Consciousness is the result of the mental "burning" of energy in the brain cells, and as with any burning, the result is never the same as what originally was burned"
"Today it is recognized that the process is not the disappearance of one thing and the appearance of another, but merely the transformation of energy from one form to another."
Both these statements precede "Actually, the only thing that exists in our universe is energy.". Are you telling me you have switched definitions "for the benefit of your audience"? Then, confusingly, you make the following statement.
"Energy is the term we use to describe substance in the speed range that we can no longer sense as a whole in this time-space."
which is wrong all by itself. So your explanation does not hold water.
Again, I do not see why it is so hard to say "Ooops, I was wrong about the nature of energy." It would allow us to move along, and I could address the other problems with your posts. Perhaps it is because you think I am attacking your belief in God. This doesn't interest me. What interests me is whether or not you are presenting correct physics.
I am certainly in the position where it looks a plausible and even convincing theory that all matter, energy, properties and effects are all "made" (if I can use that term) of the same stuff and it is rather more power, or perhaps 'effect' would be more accurate, than matter or mass which is rather an illusion, or perhaps 'effect' would be a better term.
So I could imagine that Zahar's terminology seems to be imprecise because the distinctions are imprecise in themselves, matter, energy, field, mass, speed, time, particle or indeed, Life, the Universe and everything is all made of the same stuff.
If it is made of two different kinds of stuff, say matter and anti -matter, or even three, Matter, anti - matter and Dark matter or even more, I would be looking for any reasons to suppose that they are NOT made of the same basic effect, power or property from which the universe is made.
I need this stuff simplified....
E=mc2 - The energy stored in a piece of matter at rest equals its mass times the speed of light squared. There are two main forms of energy: potential and kinetic. Potential energy is energy that is stored, while kinetic energy is energy in use.
Matter can be defined as anything that has mass and takes up space (volume). There are 4 fundamental states of matter: solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Just as matter can be converted into energy, so too can energy become matter. A Jefferson Lab experiment used the Lab's electron beam and a liquid hydrogen target to bring to life an unusual particle known as a kaon.
I need this stuff simplified....
E=mc2 - The energy stored in a piece of matter at rest equals its mass times the speed of light squared. There are two main forms of energy: potential and kinetic. Potential energy is energy that is stored, while kinetic energy is energy in use.
Matter can be defined as anything that has mass and takes up space (volume). There are 4 fundamental states of matter: solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Just as matter can be converted into energy, so too can energy become matter. A Jefferson Lab experiment used the Lab's electron beam and a liquid hydrogen target to bring to life an unusual particle known as a kaon.
Here is the simplified version, which I may completely butcher.
While on the surface, the matter and forces of the universe look like two distinct phenomena, in reality matter and force are the same thing expressed in different transient states - just as steam, water, and ice are the same thing expressed differently. In other words, matter is a type of force.
While the direct meaning of E=MC2 is that mass and energy are equivalent units of measurements, because of special relativity, it has a deeper implication. It can be extrapolated from that theory that not only is mass equivalent to energy, but also that matter is equivalent to force. And this theory has been at-least somewhat confirmed by testing.
(Bear in mind, when I use the word force, it should more precisely be called "fields", such as the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, etc.)
All of the above can be deduced from the Stanford Encyclopedia article I quoted on the previous page.
Matter is force, concentrated in small areas. Perhaps because it vibrates slower, perhaps because particles are spinning differently, perhaps just because. I don't think the "why" matters that much for Mystic's purposes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
