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.
Fascinating. We needed some savant of physics to evaluate Mystic' claims or arguments.
while straightening my pointed cap with 'D' on in this erudite area, could I pick up on this dispute about matter/energy/'stuff'?
I believe that Mystic and I went over this before.
The difference between matter and energy is hard to define. What matter is apart from energy having a particular effect is hard to say. I strongly suspect that in fact matter is nothing 'solid' but is what we would call nothing, but having power, or effect or the ability to effect spacial relations or indeed energy.
If so, then the making of distinctions is about how particles of matter (e.g protons) behave and how particles of energy (e.g electrons) behave. What actually comprises them can indeed be called 'stuff'. Because arguing about the difference in what they are made of seems going off on a false path.
P.s as i see it Morbert is pointing out that rest -mass energy (of a photon) is not the same thing as potential energy, though I can see how one might think it would be.
Now, these are specific attributes within physics - even quantum physics - and to use them as a metaphor for something sounds to me dubious. If they explain anything in a practical believable way, they should be used in their physics terms and should be used correctly.
To talk of metaphorical illustrations of how the postulated 'universal field' works, has left the field of physics and in in the field of ....nothing that sounds like science.
I'll see If I can help. I certainly don't possess anything like the knowledge Morbert has but I'll give it a go. (Thanks also to Hiker, I am extremely flattered ).
Take matter, mass and energy and try to define them individually:
Matter
Matter is simply the 'stuff' things are made from. Matter is any substance which has mass (see below) and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
By extension, matter exists in the various physical forms we are familiar with ie solid, liquid and gas.
Mass
Mass is a property of matter:
It is a property of a physical body which determines the body's resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its gravitational attraction with other bodies.
To look at that in slightly more detail, mass can be defined or viewed (and is often referred to) in two ways - by inertial mass or by gravitational mass:
Inertial mass: where the mass is determined by the acceleration of a body when it is subjected to a force that is not due to gravity.
(Remember F = ma, which states that when a force F is applied to an object, it will accelerate proportionally, and that constant of proportion is the mass of that object)
Gravitational mass: the mass of a body as measured by its gravitational attraction for other bodies.
However, there is no physical difference between the two definitions. The only difference between inertial and gravitational mass is in the method of measuring - the value of an object's mass is unique, independent of its method of measurement. The measurement of mass will be the same and so in general terms there is no need to distinguish between the two definitions.
However you need to be aware of the two definitions, depending on in which context in which you are discussing mass.
Energy
The definition of energy can be confusing. It is usually defined as is the capacity of a system to perform work or produce change.
But note that energy is not an object. An atom is an object; energy is not. Energy is something which objects have.
Although all objects with mass have energy, that does not mean that energy has mass.
Also an important note about light energy: Light has no mass, but it does have momentum. Light in essence IS energy or it can be viewed as nature’s way of transferring energy through space.
Matter, mass and energy are different things. Matter certainly should not be confused with energy. Energy is not 'stuff' it is something that 'stuff has'. Does that make sense?
I'll make a few comments about the subject of the thread as a whole.
One thing that has to be made clear in the context of all this talk of quantum physics is we do not have a quantum theory of the beginning of the universe. Standard cosmology provides a good description of the time-evolution of the universe, but it breaks down approximately 13+ billion years in the past, and there is nothing in it that insists the universe "began" at that time.
There are speculative models that postulate a boundary-less beginning of space and time at the big bang. There are also models which speculate that the current epoch is embedded in some larger, more exotic history of the universe.
Ultimately, a fundamental answer to Heidegger's question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not something we are entitled to. In fact, I highly suspect the question itself says more about our prejudices, metaphysical commitments, and general way of thinking than it does about any objective mystery of the universe. This is elegantly explained by Richard Feynman, one of the founders of modern quantum physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwCma2_X3_I
Take matter, mass and energy and try to define them individually:
Matter
Matter is simply the 'stuff' things are made from. Matter is any substance which has mass (see below) and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
By extension, matter exists in the various physical forms we are familiar with ie solid, liquid and gas. Mass
Mass is a property of matter:
It is a property of a physical body which determines the body's resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its gravitational attraction with other bodies.
To look at that in slightly more detail, mass can be defined or viewed (and is often referred to) in two ways - by inertial mass or by gravitational mass: Inertial mass: where the mass is determined by the acceleration of a body when it is subjected to a force that is not due to gravity.
(Remember F = ma, which states that when a force F is applied to an object, it will accelerate proportionally, and that constant of proportion is the mass of that object) Gravitational mass: the mass of a body as measured by its gravitational attraction for other bodies. However, there is no physical difference between the two definitions. The only difference between inertial and gravitational mass is in the method of measuring - the value of an object's mass is unique, independent of its method of measurement. The measurement of mass will be the same and so in general terms there is no need to distinguish between the two definitions.
However you need to be aware of the two definitions, depending on in which context in which you are discussing mass. Energy
The definition of energy can be confusing. It is usually defined as is the capacity of a system to perform work or produce change.
But note that energy is not an object. An atom is an object; energy is not. Energy is something which objects have.
Although all objects with mass have energy, that does not mean that energy has mass. Also an important note about light energy: Light has no mass, but it does have momentum. Light in essence IS energy or it can be viewed as nature’s way of transferring energy through space.
Matter, mass and energy are different things. Matter certainly should not be confused with energy. Energy is not 'stuff' it is something that 'stuff has'. Does that make sense?
::Sigh:: Morbert . . . are you going to let these kinds of classical and erroneous perspectives be presented without correction? You know field is the actual "stuff" manifesting as mass or energy . . . which are equivalent as the "same property" . . . and dependent upon what and how we MEASURE. You are not reticent to do so with my generalizations . . . which you clearly do not like. You prefer matter to field . . . but you have to know that is a preference only given Einstein et al. I would do it but your misrepresentations and accusations about my understanding have undermined any likelihood that it would have any impact on Cruithne or any of the others mired in the classical nonsense. Failure to do so will reveal your true purpose here, IMO.
I'll see If I can help. I certainly don't possess anything like the knowledge Morbert has but I'll give it a go. (Thanks also to Hiker, I am extremely flattered ).
Take matter, mass and energy and try to define them individually:
Matter
Matter is simply the 'stuff' things are made from. Matter is any substance which has mass (see below) and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
By extension, matter exists in the various physical forms we are familiar with ie solid, liquid and gas.
Mass
Mass is a property of matter:
It is a property of a physical body which determines the body's resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its gravitational attraction with other bodies.
To look at that in slightly more detail, mass can be defined or viewed (and is often referred to) in two ways - by inertial mass or by gravitational mass:
Inertial mass: where the mass is determined by the acceleration of a body when it is subjected to a force that is not due to gravity.
(Remember F = ma, which states that when a force F is applied to an object, it will accelerate proportionally, and that constant of proportion is the mass of that object)
Gravitational mass: the mass of a body as measured by its gravitational attraction for other bodies.
However, there is no physical difference between the two definitions. The only difference between inertial and gravitational mass is in the method of measuring - the value of an object's mass is unique, independent of its method of measurement. The measurement of mass will be the same and so in general terms there is no need to distinguish between the two definitions.
However you need to be aware of the two definitions, depending on in which context in which you are discussing mass.
Energy
The definition of energy can be confusing. It is usually defined as is the capacity of a system to perform work or produce change.
But note that energy is not an object. An atom is an object; energy is not. Energy is something which objects have.
Although all objects with mass have energy, that does not mean that energy has mass.
Also an important note about light energy: Light has no mass, but it does have momentum. Light in essence IS energy or it can be viewed as nature’s way of transferring energy through space.
Matter, mass and energy are different things. Matter certainly should not be confused with energy. Energy is not 'stuff' it is something that 'stuff has'. Does that make sense?
Yes. But what has bothered me is what 'stuff' is actually made of. I have this nagging idea that what it is going to made of (and this it utterly theoretical) is not anything solid, but is in fact 'energy' of a sort. When it starts forming individual packets of energy that can hold position relative to others and react with them, we have what appears to be a solid object. Then the difference between what its inertial mass is (what we would think of as) the weight of the 'stuff' - and like anything else is measured by the force it exerts against anything) and the gravitational mass (I believe called valency?)
In that case the energy is seen (as I say, my idea that stuff is energy at base is theoretical) as something different from mass - the value of the 'work' it does.
However, that doesn't seem to be the nub or Mystic's disagreement with Morbert was about potential energy and inertial mass? ..I'll look it up...."Energy (both potential and kinetic) and momentum are different properties of a system. Energy is not a substance that is "all that exists". "... And Mystic arguing that matter was energy, and Morbert was arguing that the ways of measuring them were different.
Which seems valid. If I may use an analogy, animals and plants are all made of molecules, but to argue that they can be assessed in the same way is dubious - especially if it is part of some personal theory that plants have the same kind of consciousness as animals.
Mystics point about how we measure is true, but irrelevant, because different actions and effect are involved, different measurement (or assessment) is required and correctly so.
Morbet's comments of cosmic origins are useful in remarking that Heidegger's question is one that 'we are not entitled to' as he nicely put it. It is effectively a question that human prejudice asks.
In any case cosmic origins seems a red herring here. This is about the nature of cosmos we have and its workings.
I have to say that Mystics response to Cruithne did not impress with the patronizing sneering at 'classical' perspectives. And I also prefer 'matter' to 'field' for rather particular reasons - to focus on a cosmic 'field' is to ignore the matter or to ignore the difference between 'stuff' and energy, which is real and not just the way we measure it.
Even if I am not wildly off by seeing matter as not solid but packets of 'energy' at base. As in my analogy, when they look and behave differently, as a Proton and a photon do, the photon having no mass, they are different and to pretend they are not is beyond even an unacceptably broad generalization.
So, I have to say that I am tending to see Morbert and Cruithne's explanations as having more coherence than Mystics.
back to you, savants.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-24-2014 at 06:29 PM..
Yes. But what has bothered me is what 'stuff' is actually made of. I have this nagging idea that what it is going to made of (and this it utterly theoretical) is not anything solid, but is in fact 'energy' of a sort. When it starts forming individual packets of energy that can hold position relative to others and react with them, we have what appears to be a solid object. Then the difference between what its inertial mass is (what we would think of as) the weight of the 'stuff' - and like anything else is measured by the force it exerts against anything) and the gravitational mass (I believe called valency?)
In that case the energy is seen (as I say, my idea that stuff is energy at base is theoretical) as something different from mass - the value of the 'work' it does.
However, that doesn't seem to be the nub or Mystic's disagreement with Morbert was about potential energy and inertial mass? ..I'll look it up...."Energy (both potential and kinetic) and momentum are different properties of a system. Energy is not a substance that is "all that exists". "... And Mystic arguing that matter was energy, and Morbert was arguing that the ways of measuring them were different.
Which seems valid. If I may use an analogy, animals and plants are all made of molecules, but to argue that they can be assessed in the same way is dubious - especially if it is part of some personal theory that plants have the same kind of consciousness as animals.
Mystics point about how we measure is true, but irrelevant, because different actions and effect are involved, different measurement (or assessment) is required and correctly so.
Morbet's comments of cosmic origins are useful in remarking that Heidegger's question is one that 'we are not entitled to' as he nicely put it. It is effectively a question that human prejudice asks.
In any case cosmic origins seems a red herring here. This is about the nature of cosmos we have and its workings.
I have to say that Mystics response to Cruithne did not impress with the patronizing sneering at 'classical' perspectives. And I also prefer 'matter' to 'field' for rather particular reasons - to focus on a cosmic 'field' is to ignore the matter or to ignore the difference between 'stuff' and energy, which is real and not just the way we measure it.
Even if I am not wildly off by seeing matter as not solid but packets of 'energy' at base. As in my analogy, when they look and behave differently, as a Proton and a photon do, the photon having no mass, they are different and to pretend they are not is beyond even an unacceptably broad generalization.
So, I have to say that I am tending to see Morbert and Cruithne's explanations as having more coherence than Mystics.
back to you, savants.
I think what you are thinking about is the fact that atoms are mostly empty space, visualised nicely by comparing the nucleus in atom as being like a fly in a Cathedral (I think it was Ernest Rutherford who said it). But as to the energy bit... here's an article that can explain it a million times better than myself:
A bit out of date now - written in 2012 before the confirmation of the Higgs bosun, but the explanations are pretty good I think.
I don't know if it helps at all.
That was certainly a factor, but mainly wondering what sub atomic particles with mass were actually made of. However, that doesn't seem to really be related to the discussion, so I'll leave it to you experts.
Thanks for the links and You -tube, I'll have a break and browse.
::Sigh:: Morbert . . . are you going to let these kinds of classical and erroneous perspectives be presented without correction? You know field is the actual "stuff" manifesting as mass or energy . . . which are equivalent as the "same property" . . . and dependent upon what and how we MEASURE. You are not reticent to do so with my generalizations . . . which you clearly do not like. You prefer matter to field . . . but you have to know that is a preference only given Einstein et al. I would do it but your misrepresentations and accusations about my understanding have undermined any likelihood that it would have any impact on Cruithne or any of the others mired in the classical nonsense. Failure to do so will reveal your true purpose here, IMO.
Yeah, the only possible reason someone knowledgeable in the field might not waste their time with your fringe interpretation is that they're part of some giant conspiracy to discredit you. There's no other possible explanation.
Yeah, the only possible reason someone knowledgeable in the field might not waste their time with your fringe interpretation is that they're part of some giant conspiracy to discredit you. There's no other possible explanation.
No, that is not true.
You probably saw the thread I started: Question for MysticPhD. I wanted to understand some of his ideas but I could not comprehend his long posts, so I asked him a few very simple questions and got some straightforward answers. I also made a few comments about his ideas. That is all I wanted to do.
Why would anyone want to discredit his ideas? My idea of hell is a place where everyone agrees with me.
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.
