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.
The responses from you and Matadora are especially frustrating because I respect you both and I really thought I explained the matter/field mass/energy implications clearly. My conclusion is valid but apparently seems counterintuitive to those steeped in the physics of our material world. Contrary to what intuition might tell us, the "forces" of the universe and the "stuff" of the universe are simply different manifestations of the unified field.
Mystic thank you and please know that I mean no harm and am only trying to make clear the ambiguous claims as well as claims that are not quite accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The relationship between mass/energy equivalence and hypotheses concerning the nature of reality rest on assumptions concerning the nature of matter. The actual relation derived from special relativity is:
E = (m − q)c^2 + K,
Where are you getting this equation because it is not representative of Einsteins' Equation of Special Relativity.
Equation for Relativistic Kinetic Energy.
K = mc2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - mc2 this is derived using work energy theorem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
K just fixes the zero-point of energy and is conventionally set to zero. However, unlike the convention to set K to zero, setting q = 0 involves a hypothesis concerning the nature of matter because q = 0 rules out the possibility that there exists matter that has some mass which can NOT be “converted” into energy (q NOT = 0).
The above statements are not precise or accurate.
If we are dealing with the "Relativistic Mass" interpretation (the interpretation NOT used by particle physicist today due to the imprecision of using this interpretation).
K (kinetic energy) does not just fix the zero-point of energy. There is no convention to simply just set K (kinetic energy) to zero. You have to set it to zero if the particle is not in motion.
* If a particle has a velocity (v) then it will have a certain kinetic energy (K). This kinetic energy is added to the rest mass energy and this sum will give us E (the total energy) given by: E = mc^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
*If a particle is not moving (meaning it has zero velocity) then K will of course be zero, since there is no Kinetic energy when a particle is not in motion.
With no velocity we must set v = 0, then E = mc2 as expected. This equation gives us the Energy of a particle with mass m, that is at rest, not moving through space...no velocity = (rest energy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
(This is what you seem to have missed about drawing any inferences about the actual composition of our reality. If there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero, the "same properties" aspect of mass/energy would NOT be true. The view that mass and energy ARE the same property of physical systems requires that q = 0.)
Please define how you are using q?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Mass and energy cannot be the same property if there exists matter that has ANY mass that cannot be “converted” into energy. This relates directly to the issue of conversion/transformation and physicists have no evidence whatsoever that there exists ANY matter for which q is NOT equal to zero. Bottom line: Rainville, et al. have empirically demonstrated the mass-energy equivalence directly as recently as 2005 with an accuracy for Einstein's equation of 0.00004%. Hence, q = 0 FAPP and mass IS bound energy (or Arach's bundled energy)."
Sorry mate but this study is only describing "Relativistic Mass" which is simply Energy in disguise.
Again today's particles physicists don't use this interpretation because it's not precise.
The reason they don't use the "Relativistic Mass" interpretation is due to the following imprecisions one would have to accept which are indeed ridiculous:
no photons will have zero mass (because all photons have energy)
every hydrogen atom has a different mass, depending on how fast it is moving; and
any particular electron may have a smaller or larger mass than any given hydrogen atom, depending on how fast each of them is moving. [For instance, an electron emitted by a decaying Higgs particle has a larger mass than the hydrogen atoms in your body (at least from your point of view).]
Using the "Relativistic Mass" interpretation, you can’t even say which types of particles have larger masses than other types, and it is impossible for any type of particle to be mass-less. This is very inconvenient — one might even say, ridiculous — for doing particle physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If you want an authoritative source to confirm these assertions, I recommend a general reference, like the Stanford Encyclopedia.
I posted this link yesterday in my response to you.
Mystic when you use the interpretation of mass that ALL particle physicists use today which demonstrates that not all things are energy, and that mass and energy are different properties of an object you see that matter does exist. I know you want to believe you are nothing but energy...but you are in fact matter.
You, and the various articles, have convinced me to lean heavily toward the two-properties view. I will need to re-visit the arguments for the one-property view before I jump in with both feet.
Not sure how I convinced you of this.
Especially with our understanding that mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass...this clearly means they are not one in the same.
Just like in the decay of nuclear reactions where mass is lost in the decay and converted to both energy and matter that has mass.
EX: Uranium decaying to Thorium + Helium. Both Thorium and Helium have mass. We can calculate the energy E from this decay as well as the mass of Thorium and Helium.
In quantum field theory, mass (which is the fundamental frequency of a ripple in a quantum field, i.e. of a quantum, or “particle”) is an effect that you would ascribe to potential energy. All energy in quantum field theory is either kinetic or potential, and mass certainly isn’t in the kinetic energy parts of the equations, so that leaves potential. But from what I've been researching, it’s sufficiently different from the types of potential energy that I encountered in undergraduate college texts.
Mystic when you use the interpretation of mass that ALL particle physicists use today which demonstrates that not all things are energy, and that mass and energy are different properties of an object you see that matter does exist. I know you want to believe you are nothing but energy...but you are in fact matter.
in finding common ground among participants in this thread, many people are in agreement that everything in the universe is made of the same "basic stuff." This "same basic stuff" phases in and out of various forms such as solid, liquid, gas, thought, ultrasound wave.
in finding common ground among participants in this thread, many people are in agreement that everything in the universe is made of the same "basic stuff." Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree because we don't know what makes up Dark Matter which accounts for ~ 80% of the matter of the Universe.
Matter is made up of what atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything made of positively charged protons, neutral neutrons, and negatively charged electrons. Therefore matter is made up of "atomic stuff"; BUT which "atomic stuff" depends on context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
This "same basic stuff" phases in and out of various forms such as solid, liquid, gas, thought, ultrasound wave.
I disagree because we don't know what makes up Dark Matter which accounts for ~ 80% of the matter of the Universe.
Matter is made up of what atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything made of positively charged protons, neutral neutrons, and negatively charged electrons. Therefore matter is made up of "atomic stuff"; BUT which "atomic stuff" depends on context.
There are states of matter
and how does this relate to your spiritual and religious beliefs, the soul, reincarnation, and your relationship with the Divine?
and how does this relate to your spiritual and religious beliefs, the soul, reincarnation, and your relationship with the Divine?
You're the one who asked the question so perhaps you can explain how your question relates to your spiritual and religious beliefs, the soul, reincarnation, and your relationship with the "Divine"?
Care to define this thing you call the "Divine"? What are it's defining characteristics/properties?
I personally think our physics discussion is much more interesting and awe inspiring...at least it's something we know exits.
Mystic thank you and please know that I mean no harm and am only trying to make clear the ambiguous claims as well as claims that are not quite accurate.
Where are you getting this equation because it is not representative of Einsteins' Equation of Special Relativity.
Equation for Relativistic Kinetic Energy.
K = mc2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - mc2 this is derived using work energy theorem.
The above statements are not precise or accurate.
If we are dealing with the "Relativistic Mass" interpretation (the interpretation NOT used by particle physicist today due to the imprecision of using this interpretation).
K (kinetic energy) does not just fix the zero-point of energy. There is no convention to simply just set K (kinetic energy) to zero. You have to set it to zero if the particle is not in motion.
* If a particle has a velocity (v) then it will have a certain kinetic energy (K). This kinetic energy is added to the rest mass energy and this sum will give us E (the total energy) given by: E = mc^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
*If a particle is not moving (meaning it has zero velocity) then K will of course be zero, since there is no Kinetic energy when a particle is not in motion.
With no velocity we must set v = 0, then E = mc2 as expected. This equation gives us the Energy of a particle with mass m, that is at rest, not moving through space...no velocity = (rest energy).
Please define how you are using q?
Sorry mate but this study is only describing "Relativistic Mass" which is simply Energy in disguise.
Again today's particles physicists don't use this interpretation because it's not precise.
The reason they don't use the "Relativistic Mass" interpretation is due to the following imprecisions one would have to accept which are indeed ridiculous:
no photons will have zero mass (because all photons have energy)
every hydrogen atom has a different mass, depending on how fast it is moving; and
any particular electron may have a smaller or larger mass than any given hydrogen atom, depending on how fast each of them is moving. [For instance, an electron emitted by a decaying Higgs particle has a larger mass than the hydrogen atoms in your body (at least from your point of view).]
Using the "Relativistic Mass" interpretation, you can’t even say which types of particles have larger masses than other types, and it is impossible for any type of particle to be mass-less. This is very inconvenient — one might even say, ridiculous — for doing particle physics.
I posted this link yesterday in my response to you.
I can see that my use of relativistic mass (to differentiate it from the classical mass that Einstein's theory radically altered) simply misdirected you to what I had determined was your preferred view of energy as that required to do work. I used the rest mass equation BECAUSE of the confusion that inevitably arises from the kinetic view. I am interested in the ontological implications NOT the USE or WORK implications.
Only the ontological implications reveal clues to the composition of reality. Your preference for "matter" over "field" is derivative of your conditioning to a physical materialist existence. You ignore your real existence (as a thinking experiencing consciousness) because you are dragged by your body into believing you only exist at the material level of existence. Your body is NOT the locus of your thinking experiencing essence but you are trapped into believing it by your lifetime of conditioning as a physical being.
I can see that my use of relativistic mass (to differentiate it from the classical mass that Einstein's theory radically altered) simply misdirected you to what I had determined was your preferred view of energy as that required to do work. I used the rest mass equation BECAUSE of the confusion that inevitably arises from the kinetic view. I am interested in the ontological implications NOT the USE or WORK implications.
I'm not talking about the USE or WORK implications. Kinetic energy is related to work. Quantum Theory is not focused on the kinetic energy. In fact from what I've been reading is that in quantum field theory, mass (which is the fundamental frequency of a ripple in a quantum field, i.e. of a quantum, or “particle”) is an effect that you would ascribe to potential energy. All energy in quantum field theory is either kinetic or potential, and mass certainly isn’t in the kinetic energy parts of the equations, so that leaves potential. But from what I've been researching, it’s sufficiently different from the types of potential energy that I encountered in undergraduate college texts.
I think you are still confusing the two terms.
Let's review:
**Particle Physicists only use the first interpretation**
Interpretation 1. E = mc² is true only for an object that isn’t moving. For an object that is moving, E is greater than mc². Energy and mass are not at all the same thing; an object’s energy can change when its motion changes, but its mass never changes. This notion of mass is sometimes called “rest mass” (since it’s related to the energy stored in the object when it is “at rest”) or “invariant mass” (since it doesn’t change when it is moving.)
This is the mass you were discussing.
Interpretation 2. E = mc² is always true, for both stationary and moving objects. This can be viewed as saying energy and mass are essentially the same thing. [Recall that in interpretation 1, they are not at all the same thing.] Since the energy of a moving object is larger than when it is stationary, that means, similarly, that its mass is larger when it is moving than when it is stationary. This notion of mass is sometimes called “relativistic mass”, in honor of Einstein’s revolutionary notions of relativity. "Relativistic mass" is simply energy in disguise. E/c2. "Relativistic mass" depends upon how fast an object is moving; however invariant mass/rest mass is the same whether an object is moving or not. Invariant mass does not change with the speed of an object and it's what particle physicists call mass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Only the ontological implications reveal clues to the composition of reality.
Your preference for "matter" over "field" is derivative of your conditioning to a physical materialist existence.
First I have no preference over anything you just stated. In fact I prefer objective truths over making up Magical Alternatives based on outdated science.
Quote:
Not Everything is Matter or Energy, By a Long Shot
Why do people sometimes talk about “matter and energy” as though everything is either matter or energy? I don’t know the context in which this expression was invented. Maybe one of my readers knows? Language reflects history, and often reacts slowly to new information. Part of the problem is that enormous changes in physicists’ conception of the world and its ingredients occurred between 1900 and 1980. This has mostly stopped for now; it’s been remarkably stable throughout my career.
[String theorists might argue with what I’ve just said, pointing out that their great breakthroughs occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. That’s true, but since string theory hasn’t yet established itself as reality through experimental verification, one cannot say that it has yet been incorporated into our conception of the world.]
Our current conception of the physical world is shaped by a wide variety of experiments and discoveries that occurred during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. But previous ways of thinking and talking about particle physics partially stuck around even as late as the 1980s and 1990s, while I was being trained as a young scientist. This isn’t surprising; it takes a while for people who grew up with an older vision to come around to a new prevailing point of view, and some never do. And it also takes a while for a newer version to come into sharp focus, and for little niggling problems with it to be resolved.
Today, if one wants to talk about the world in the context of our modern viewpoint, one can speak first and foremost of the “fields and their particles.” It is the fields that are the basic ingredients of the world, in today’s widely dominant paradigm. We view fields as more fundamental than particles because you can’t have an elementary particle without a field, but you can have a field without any particles. [I still owe you a proper article about fields and particles; it’s high on the list of needed contributions to this website.] However, it happens that every known field has a known particle, except possibly the Higgs field (whose particle is not yet certain to exist, though [as of the time of writing, spring 2012] there are significant experimental hints.)
What do “fields and particles” have to do with “matter and energy”? Not much. Some fields and particles are what you would call “matter”, but which ones are matter, and which ones aren’t, depends on which definition of “matter” you are using. Meanwhile, all fields and particles can have energy; but none of them are energy.
Matt Strassler - Particle Physicist
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You ignore your real existence (as a thinking experiencing consciousness) because you are dragged by your body into believing you only exist at the material level of existence.
I don't think this in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your body is NOT the locus of your thinking experiencing essence but you are trapped into believing it by your lifetime of conditioning as a physical being.
I have never been conditioned by anything that states this.
Especially with our understanding that mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass...this clearly means they are not one in the same.
Yes. Exactly. I took you to be supporting the view that mass and energy are "not one in the same" property. Now I am agreeing with you about this. Mass and energy are fundamentally different properties.
But, on a different note, I am, however, still sticking with the ontological claim of "same basic stuff" - which I suspect is the "stuff" - whatever it is - that presumably counts as the underlying unity of all 4 of the known fundamental forces (plus any other forces, if there are any that we have not yet discovered). The basic idea is that one "thing" or "kind of thing" can have many properties.
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.
