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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
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."
Right . . . Stanford Encyclopedia just got it wrong. It is a conspiracy to show you were wrong about me and my views.
Quote:
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.
All the statements are completely consistent with my communication objective which has never changed. Your apparent reading objective (actually your refusal to read objective) would seem to be to denigrate me, my knowledge of science, my beliefs and . . . NOT to understand my purpose here or my views.
Quote:
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.
Again I don't see why it is so hard to say "Ooops, I was wrong about what you were trying to communicate here." It would allow us to move along and stop this pretense that you are editing a submission to the Journal of Physics. If you cannot relate to the mindset of the mass audience I am addressing and the things they comprehend, i suggest you stop here.
I must insist you abandon this ignorant campaign . . . characterized by your lack of knowledge about my presentations caused by your outright refusal even to read and try to comprehend their actual context and intent. If you continue to denigrate me, my knowledge and my beliefs derived from that knowledge by taking them out of their original context and literally interpreting the analogies and simplified presentations and phrasing . . . I will be forced to report you as harassing. Present your OWN views and support them in rebuttal without attacking me . . . or your motives and credibility will be transparent.
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.
Morbert et al. are likely to crucify your "incorrect" use of "force" . . . but I see it as a useful way of conveying the important feature of fields as they impact our reality, Box. None of this is simple nor can it be communicated easily to a mass audience.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 05-05-2012 at 10:44 AM..
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.
The best characterization is "vibratory energy event" (energy system) or occurrence which retains its apparent continuity in the spherical standing waveform that results from its aggregate composition (frequency "traffic jam"). Our requirement to measure (energy event) discretizes and delimits what is neither discrete nor limited, Arequipa.
Right . . . Stanford Encyclopedia just got it wrong. It is a conspiracy to show you were wrong about me and my views.
What I quoted was directly from Stanford Encyclopedia: "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."
That paragraph is from section 2.5. Plain as day.
Quote:
All the statements are completely consistent with my communication objective which has never changed. Your apparent reading objective (actually your refusal to read objective) would seem to be to denigrate me, my knowledge of science, my beliefs and . . . NOT to understand my purpose here or my views.
Again I don't see why it is so hard to say "Ooops, I was wrong about what you were trying to communicate here." It would allow us to move along and stop this pretense that you are editing a submission to the Journal of Physics. If you cannot relate to the mindset of the mass audience I am addressing and the things they comprehend, i suggest you stop here.
I must insist you abandon this ignorant campaign . . . characterized by your lack of knowledge about my presentations caused by your outright refusal even to read and try to comprehend their actual context and intent. If you continue to denigrate me, my knowledge and my beliefs derived from that knowledge by taking them out of their original context and literally interpreting the analogies and simplified presentations and phrasing . . . I will be forced to report you as harassing. Present your OWN views and support them in rebuttal without attacking me . . . or your motives and credibility will be transparent.
I am not "attacking you". I am saying you are presenting bad physics. Nor am I nit-picking a technical detail. I am highlighting a fundamental mistake in your understanding of physics.
Nevertherless, I do feel it is a good idea to "express my OWN views", i.e. explain what exactly it is that quantum physics says.
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.
A good place to start is modern classical physics. Specifically, we will start with "action". Action is a physical quantity associated with how a system changes with time. If we ask "How will a system evolve over time?", the answer is it will evolve in a way that minimises (technically "extremises") the action of the system. This incredibly simple principle is at the heart of classical physics. It is called the "principle of least action". E.g. When you throw a ball, the reason it takes a predictable arched trajectory through the air is because that is the path which, unlike a path that, say, takes a detour via Pluto and Saturn, minimises the action. The next question you might have is how the "action" is calculated. To calculate the action of a path is a little technical, so I will leave it out for now. All I will say is that it involves a function called the Lagrangian, which codifies all the data about a physical system.
Quantum physics is slightly different. Instead of saying the system evolves in a way that minimises the action, we consider the system as if it evolved in all possible ways, and add up all the contributions of each possibility to predict what will be observed. So when you throw the "quantum ball", we write down the path around Pluto and Saturn, the path around the entire universe, even paths where the ball travels back in time (In quantum physics, a particle that is travelling back in time is equivalent to an "anti-particle").
There are other ways to formulate quantum physics, just as there are other ways to formulate classical physics (Classical physics was traditionally formulated in terms of "forces" and Newtonian mechanics). The modern formalism I described above is the "Lagrangian" formalism. There is also the "Hamiltonian" formalism. But for the purposes of this thread, I would say the above formalisms are the most conceptually simple to understand.
So, now that we understand how physicists calculate how things change and move, we can look at what it is that is doing the changing and moving. Early quantum physics was primarily concerned with the mechanical properties of particles (hence the name "Quantum Mechanics"). An elementary particle was a localised object which possessed momentum and energy. Later, physicists extended quantum physics to look at fields, objects which were global. A particle exists at a single point in space and time, but a field is defined across all points in space and time. Fields, like particles, possess energy and momentum, and as mentioned above, we can look at how they change over time by calculating their "action".
So, to recap, we have "particles" and "fields", which possess "energy" and "momentum" as properties, and look at how they change over time by calculating the "action" of the different ways they can change. Now we can start talking about the relations between them, which seems to be at the core of this thread.
First, the relation between energy and momentum of a system is given by Einstein's "energy-momentum relation", E^2 = p^2 + m^2. Where E is energy, m is mass, and p is momentum. The "c" you sometimes see in such relations is due to bad unit choices, and can be removed if we use natural units, which I have done. If an object is at rest (0 momentum), you can see that the relation reduces to E = m. Similarly, if an object is massless, like a photon, it reduces to E = p.
Next, particles and fields: The relationship between particles and fields is a strange one. Even with traditional quantum mechanics, there was a strange duality in how particles behaved. A system had discrete, dynamical variables like position and momentum that could be calculated (i.e. particle behaviour), but also had components which evolved independently from each other, like a wave. Basically, when a field is "excited" in quantum physics, it can be expressed as a particle that obeys the energy-momentum relation. The electron field excitations produce electrons, for example, and the electromagnetic field excitations produce photons. Strangely enough, this kind of thing can happen with sound as well. The vibration through a material can produce a "particle" of sound called the "phonon". This shows you how strange quantum mechanics can be.
The last thing that should be mentioned is interactions between the fields. Why do electrons, or magnets repel each other, for example? Particles like electrons interact with each other because they are "coupled" to other fields. When an electron travels through spacetime, it causes transient excitations in the electromagnetic field. These excitations don't satisfy the energy-momentum relation, and are hence called "virtual particles". As two electrons travel through spacetime, they interact via these transient ripples, exchanging momentum with each other. This gives rise to our intuitive notion of "electric force". When you hold two magnets together, for example, they produce ripples in the electromagnetic field, "virtual photons", which repel or attract the magnets. All forces are described in terms of virtual particles of fields, the strangest being the gavitational field, which comes from the field of space and time itself.
It should be mentioned that electrons can also produce ripples that are more than transient excitations. They can produce actual photons, which is how the light in your room is being generated as you read this.
So we have "fields" with quantized excitations called "particles" and "virtual particles", we have properties of fields (and hence particles) called "energy" and "momentum", and we have interactions between fields, manifesting as what we think of as "forces",and from these properties and actions, we calculate all the behaviour of a system.
Now for the homework :P
Here is the Lagrangian density for all of particle physics. Here is Einstein's gravitational field equation. If you can merge these two into a single framework, you will have produced a theory of everything. It is getting these to merge that is at the heart of more conjectural, exotic physics like string theory.
I too would like to thank you for this change of focus, Morbert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
A good place to start is modern classical physics. Specifically, we will start with "action". Action is a physical quantity associated with how a system changes with time. If we ask "How will a system evolve over time?", the answer is it will evolve in a way that minimises (technically "extremises") the action of the system. This incredibly simple principle is at the heart of classical physics. It is called the "principle of least action". E.g. When you throw a ball, the reason it takes a predictable arched trajectory through the air is because that is the path which, unlike a path that, say, takes a detour via Pluto and Saturn, minimises the action. The next question you might have is how the "action" is calculated. To calculate the action of a path is a little technical, so I will leave it out for now. All I will say is that it involves a function called the Lagrangian, which codifies all the data about a physical system.
It is the Lagrangian term that drops out when the system and the reference frame are at rest.
Quote:
Quantum physics is slightly different. Instead of saying the system evolves in a way that minimises the action, we consider the system as if it evolved in all possible ways, and add up all the contributions of each possibility to predict what will be observed. So when you throw the "quantum ball", we write down the path around Pluto and Saturn, the path around the entire universe, even paths where the ball travels back in time (In quantum physics, a particle that is travelling back in time is equivalent to an "anti-particle").
Note: There is no such thing as traveling back in time . . . and the transactional interpretation that posits a forward and backward communication on the time dimension is nonsense as well. They both stretch credulity beyond anything I have presented.
Quote:
There are other ways to formulate quantum physics, just as there are other ways to formulate classical physics (Classical physics was traditionally formulated in terms of "forces" and Newtonian mechanics). The modern formalism I described above is the "Lagrangian" formalism. There is also the "Hamiltonian" formalism. But for the purposes of this thread, I would say the above formalisms are the most conceptually simple to understand.
So, now that we understand how physicists calculate how things change and move, we can look at what it is that is doing the changing and moving. Early quantum physics was primarily concerned with the mechanical properties of particles (hence the name "Quantum Mechanics"). An elementary particle was a localised object which possessed momentum and energy. Later, physicists extended quantum physics to look at fields, objects which were global. A particle exists at a single point in space and time, but a field is defined across all points in space and time. Fields, like particles, possess energy and momentum, and as mentioned above, we can look at how they change over time by calculating their "action".
So, to recap, we have "particles" and "fields", which possess "energy" and "momentum" as properties, and look at how they change over time by calculating the "action" of the different ways they can change. Now we can start talking about the relations between them, which seems to be at the core of this thread.
Actually what is at the core of this thread is WHAT is doing the changing and moving. You maintain the "particle" fiction and the "massless photon" euphemism . . . but there is only field expressed (measured) as energy (potential or kinetic).
Quote:
First, the relation between energy and momentum of a system is given by Einstein's "energy-momentum relation", E^2 = p^2 + m^2. Where E is energy, m is mass, and p is momentum. The "c" you sometimes see in such relations is due to bad unit choices, and can be removed if we use natural units, which I have done. If an object is at rest (0 momentum), you can see that the relation reduces to E = m. Similarly, if an object is massless, like a photon, it reduces to E = p.
I covered this in what you refused to read. I can see why you did not understand it. You think mass is different from energy . . . completely missing the whole point. The difference between potential energy (rest mass) and kinetic energy (momentum) is only in how energy is measured. The photon is the "pure energy" I refer to (your euphemistic "massless" definition). The wave-particle duality is at the heart of this euphemistic confusion.
Quote:
Next, particles and fields: The relationship between particles and fields is a strange one. Even with traditional quantum mechanics, there was a strange duality in how particles behaved. A system had discrete, dynamical variables like position and momentum that could be calculated (i.e. particle behaviour), but also had components which evolved independently from each other, like a wave. Basically, when a field is "excited" in quantum physics, it can be expressed as a particle that obeys the energy-momentum relation. The electron field excitations produce electrons, for example, and the electromagnetic field excitations produce photons. Strangely enough, this kind of thing can happen with sound as well. The vibration through a material can produce a "particle" of sound called the "phonon". This shows you how strange quantum mechanics can be.
Strange exists because of the necessity to retain discrete measurement designations for the different "energy events" measured. It is this measurement problem that is at the heart of the indeterminacy muddle. Once the event nature of what is going on is recognized the implications for the structure and composition of our reality become clearer. Let's investigate this wave-particle idea a bit further.
The photon as pure energy is definitely a wave phenomenon . . . pure vibratory energy. It does not act like a particle when it meets another photon. There is no bouncing off one another as particles would . . . just interference or reinforcement that I have referred to as dissonance and resonance effects in my synthesis. But when it encounters energy systems that have mass it acts like we would expect a particle to act though its path is unpredictable. This is the photo-electric effect I referred to in my synthesis. Since a quantized (discrete measure) photon has momentum and is created from a source at a distance . . . the analogy to a particle (bullet) traveling through space to strike a specific point is used. But during the trip the particle displays wave behavior . . . not the predictable trajectory a particle with rest mass would take.
These peculiar characteristics are a function of our discrete measurement schema (quantization). If we consider the source of a photon as it is transformed . . . we can begin to see the interpretation problems in describing the forms of energy involved in the transition. Mass-energy equivalence says that the rest mass of an atom is potential energy. When it is excited (more energy added) the additional potential energy is what will become the photon. As the atom goes to ground state . . . it releases this potential energy as (transforms it into) kinetic energy (photon) that is quantized (discrete measure at a specific point in timespace). At the end of its journey (impact) . . . if symmetry holds a reverse process occurs.
The reverse process is not that intuitive unless you understand an important feature of what I am calling pure energy (what Morbert calls a "massless photon"). It is kinetic energy that "holds" a relativistic "mass" . . . but it is only potentially mass . . .(ie,, it can be transformed into mass during an impact event). It is a pure occurrence phenomenon. It does not exist or persist like its opposite . . . eg. a spring that "holds" potential energy in its mass. The physical level of existence as mass is distinct from the occurrence level as energy . . . but they are equivalent properties of the universal field. This is why the mass-energy equivalence is so important to understanding the actual structure and composition of our reality. Physicists cannot be faulted for preferring to retain their physical/particle/mass understanding of their "measured" components for very practical reasons. They have achieved wondrous things with their current models.
If you can merge these two into a single framework, you will have produced a theory of everything. It is getting these to merge that is at the heart of more conjectural, exotic physics like string theory.
I just canna do it captain....The math is way beyond my capabilities, but I sent the links and message to my brainiac son....
I just canna do it captain....The math is way beyond my capabilities, but I sent the links and message to my brainiac son....
Tell him to think out of the box about the math, Sans. We need young brainiacs working on "creating" a completely new paradigm on the order of the calculus to handle the merger of the quantum world with the world of relativity in a unified field. Unfortunately it is no small problem representing the interference and reinforcement effects while avoiding an expanding beat in the wave equations and overcoming the discrete nature of our measures of what are clearly only vibratory "energy events" or occurrences "measured" discretely. Tell him to read up on the Maldacena conjecture. Some interesting progress could be made just by proving the mathematical soundness of it.
Tell him to think out of the box about the math, Sans. We need young brainiacs working on "creating" a completely new paradigm on the order of the calculus to handle the merger of the quantum world with the world of relativity in a unified field. Unfortunately it is no small problem representing the interference and reinforcement effects while avoiding an expanding beat in the wave equations and overcoming the discrete nature of our measures of what are clearly only vibratory "energy events" or occurrences "measured" discretely. Tell him to read up on the Maldacena conjecture. Some interesting progress could be made just by proving the mathematical soundness of it.
Oh, believe me that young man does think out of the box...He has a great interest in quantum mechanics, string theory, among many other disciplines...By the way, a while ago I sent him your complete thesis, and he is more on your side than mine.. He has left me far behind in the above subjects...
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.
He has left me far behind in the above subjects...