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 too would like to thank you for this change of focus, Morbert.
It is the Lagrangian term that drops out when the system and the reference frame are at rest.
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.
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).
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.
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.
To save time. Red indicates an incorrect statement about physics. Blue indicates a misunderstanding of what I have said (which is perhaps my fault). Orange indicates a vague statement that I could interpret a few ways.
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...
Tell him to think out of the box about the math, Sans. .
As an aside, I always find this phrase ironic, because there is no more conventional way to tell someone to think unconventionally than to say, "think outside the box."
As an aside, I always find this phrase ironic, because there is no more conventional way to tell someone to think unconventionally than to say, "think outside the box."
Why not "think outside the bucket," for example.
A bucket has an open end, allowing for whatever is in it to flow out, as well as allowing for more to be added to it's contents ... a free and uninhibited exchange.
To save time. Red indicates an incorrect statement about physics. Blue indicates a misunderstanding of what I have said (which is perhaps my fault). Orange indicates a vague statement that I could interpret a few ways.
Don't fret over saving time, Morbert . . . defend your assertions . . . no one here is going to take them as true, prima facie, especially since I presented my philosophical rationale for them and you have NOT. My rationale for the use of energy as the "same property" and NOT mass . . . is confirmed in the Stanford article. Rest mass IS energy ("held" as potential energy) . . . just as kinetic energy of a photon is relativistic "mass" ("held" as potential mass).
A bucket has an open end, allowing for whatever is in it to flow out, as well as allowing for more to be added to it's contents ... a free and uninhibited exchange.
A box is closed: think coffin.
I'm not sure if that supports the bucket analogy or refutes it.
In either case, one is thinking outside of it, so the point is arguably moot.
But maybe "thinking outside the basketball", would be a better parallel.
No one who truly believes that saying, would use that saying.
Now you are just being insulting, Box. I understand your point . . . but no need to belabor it or denigrate the user. It was the most understandable way to express the objective . . . that's why things become trite and cliched, Box . . . they communicate concisely.
Something is physical if it does not change (is "invariant") when you change your frame of reference. This is general covariance. For example, relativity has shown us that space is relative, and time is relative, but that "spacetime" has a physical structure that is invariant. It is a 4D structure (3 space + 1 time dimensions) with quantities often written as (t,x,y,z) where x,y,z are space and t is time.
The unification of space and time also lead to the unification of energy and momentum. The energy of something changes, depending on the frame of reference. If I am sitting on a train, it has 0 kinetic energy and 0 momentum. But if I am sitting on the tracks, the same train will have lots of (lethal) energy and momentum. So if energy and momentum both depend on the frame of reference we use, we have to look for the deeper property. That deeper property is "4-momentum". I.e. when we generalize momentum to the 4 dimensions of spacetime, we see that the three spatial dimensions correspond to momentum, and the temporal dimension corresponds to energy. I.e. (E, p_x,p_y,p_z). Unlike energy or momentum, 4-momentum does not change with different reference frames. The train has the same 4-momentum when I am on it, as it does when I am on the track. Mass emerges from the length of the 4-momentum vector, and also does not change.
So energy and momentum share the same relations as space and time. Even as properties, neither energy nor momentum are fundamental, and instead facets of a deeper property.
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...
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I understand your point . . . but no need to belabor it or denigrate the user.
It was the most understandable way to express the objective . . . that's why things become trite and cliched, Box . . . they communicate concisely.