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.
Good grief. I must have it really wrong. I could have sworn that it was the other way around.
The difference between matter and energy is that energy is produced from matter yet has no mass and is the capacity to do work while matter is the physical "stuff" in the universe. ... Matter can obtain energy in two different ways through either potential energy or kinetic energy. (again off the net) but explain that one has mass but not work and the other work but not mass.
In fact I am sure that, when you dig down, they are the same stuff doing different things. Matter can not only produce energy but can become energy and can indeed turn from energy back into matter. Rather as gas can turn into ice and back into gas.
Same stuff.
You are not wrong, Arq, except it is NOT "stuff" it is field and the manifestations of the field vary based on the measurement event that produces them. Matadora has just enough knowledge about it to be dangerous and completely miss the underlying truth.
Rest mass is "storing" relativistic potential energy in inertia. The mass-energy equivalence enables the realization that the kinetic energy in a photon is pure energy that is "storing" relativistic potential "mass" in its momentum that manifests upon impact. At the most fundamental level there is only field manifesting as mass or energy (or their derivatives) depending on how and why we measure them.
This excerpt is from the Stanford Encyclopedia:
According to Einstein and Infeld, in pre-relativistic physics one can distinguish matter from fields by their properties. Specifically, matter has energy and mass, whereas fields only have energy. Since mass and energy are distinct in pre-relativistic physics, there are physical criteria that allow us to distinguish matter from fields qualitatively. So it is reasonable to adopt an ontology that contains both matter and fields. However, in relativistic physics, the qualitative distinction between matter and fields is lost because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Consequently, Einstein and Infeld argue, the distinction between matter and fields is no longer a qualitative one in relativistic physics. Instead, it is merely a quantitative difference, since "matter is where the concentration of energy is great, field where the concentration of energy is small"(1938, p. 242). Thus, Einstein and Infeld conclude, mass-energy equivalence entails that we should adopt an ontology consisting only of fields.
Strictly speaking, Einstein and Infeld's conclusion concerning the ontology of modern physics does not follow from E = mc2 alone. As we have noted toward the end of Section 1, mass-energy equivalence by itself does not entail that a chunk of what we ordinarily regard as material can be completely converted into energy. Thus, even if E = mc2 is true, it is still logically possible that a theory whose basic ontology consists of both matter and fields might be required. What speaks against this option is a generalized hypothesis concerning the nature of matter based on the empirical observation that some sub-atomic particles can radiate all of their mass. Finally, the development of quantum field theories subsequent to Einstein and Infeld's interpretation lend further support to their view, since these empirically successful theories treat the basic constituents of matter (such as electrons) as quantizations of a field.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 11-13-2018 at 04:22 PM..
Matadora has just enough knowledge about it to be dangerous and completely miss the underlying truth.
This is just your assumptions and no where near the truth.
I posted an excellent video that explains what E = mc2 really means as well as a link, from a theoretical physicist, who explains very clearly that matter and energy don’t belong to the same categories; putting them together is like referring to apples and orangutans, or to heaven and earthworms, or to birds and beach balls.
He even provides a link to an article going into more detail about why matter and energy are a false dichotomy.
Instead of trying to undermine my understanding I suggest you take the time to understand why matter and energy are a false dichotomy. If you don't like what the PhD Theoretical Physicist states then perhaps you can pen him and set him straight?
This is just your assumptions and no where near the truth.
I posted an excellent video that explains what E = mc2 really means as well as a link, from a theoretical physicist, who explains very clearly that matter and energy don’t belong to the same categories; putting them together is like referring to apples and orangutans, or to heaven and earthworms, or to birds and beach balls.
He even provides a link to an article going into more detail about why matter and energy are a false dichotomy.
Instead of trying to undermine my understanding I suggest you take the time to understand why matter and energy are a false dichotomy. If you don't like what the PhD Theoretical Physicist states then perhaps you can pen him and set him straight?
Instead of appealing to authority that does NOT actually address the issues raised by relativistic physics and quantum theory I suggest you just read the excerpt I posted earlier and try to comprehend it.
This excerpt is from the Stanford Encyclopedia:
According to Einstein and Infeld, in pre-relativistic physics one can distinguish matter from fields by their properties. Specifically, matter has energy and mass, whereas fields only have energy. Since mass and energy are distinct in pre-relativistic physics, there are physical criteria that allow us to distinguish matter from fields qualitatively. So it is reasonable to adopt an ontology that contains both matter and fields. However, in relativistic physics, the qualitative distinction between matter and fields is lost because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Consequently, Einstein and Infeld argue, the distinction between matter and fields is no longer a qualitative one in relativistic physics. Instead, it is merely a quantitative difference, since "matter is where the concentration of energy is great, field where the concentration of energy is small"(1938, p. 242). Thus, Einstein and Infeld conclude, mass-energy equivalence entails that we should adopt an ontology consisting only of fields.
Strictly speaking, Einstein and Infeld's conclusion concerning the ontology of modern physics does not follow from E = mc2 alone. As we have noted toward the end of Section 1, mass-energy equivalence by itself does not entail that a chunk of what we ordinarily regard as material can be completely converted into energy. Thus, even if E = mc2 is true, it is still logically possible that a theory whose basic ontology consists of both matter and fields might be required. What speaks against this option is a generalized hypothesis concerning the nature of matter based on the empirical observation that some sub-atomic particles can radiate all of their mass. Finally, the development of quantum field theories subsequent to Einstein and Infeld's interpretation lend further support to their view, since these empirically successful theories treat the basic constituents of matter (such as electrons) as quantizations of a field.
I recall it was pointed out (By Matadora to Mystic as i recall) that matter and energy was the same thing. We tend to regard them as different because the stuff is doing different things or doing things that look different to us.
I think you meant that mass and energy are the same.
Keep in mind that mass is simply a property that energy exhibits. It can be thought of as an amount of energy.
This article does a great job of explaining why matter and energy don’t even belong to the same categories.
Instead of appealing to authority that does NOT actually address the issues raised by relativistic physics and quantum theory I suggest you just read the excerpt I posted earlier and try to comprehend it.
This excerpt is from the Stanford Encyclopedia:
Perhaps instead of appealing to authority that does not address what Einstein meant by E = MC2, that you take the time to read what Einstein himself actually wrote about this equation.
Perhaps instead of appealing to authority that does not address what Einstein meant by E = MC2, that you take the time to read what Einstein himself actually wrote about this equation.
Do you intend to TRY to think about this using your own considerable intellectual abilities or continue to distract with strawman arguments that have no bearing on the ontology being discussed. The mathematical representations of measurement events are artificial correlates for the underlying ontology but you seem too tied to thinking about their mathematical significance and NOT their ontological significance as indices of our underlying reality. The mathematical rubric is artificial as are the measures represented in the measurement events. Reality does NOT do math, but the indices reveal the nature of the underlying ontology.
Do you intend to TRY to think about this using your own considerable intellectual abilities or continue to distract with strawman arguments that have no bearing on the ontology being discussed. The mathematical representations of measurement events are artificial correlates for the underlying ontology but you seem too tied to thinking about their mathematical significance and NOT their ontological significance as indices of our underlying reality. The mathematical rubric is artificial as are the measures represented in the measurement events. Reality does NOT do math, but the indices reveal the nature of the underlying ontology.
Yes I do and have. Anytime energy is brought up it always turns into you trying to undermine my understanding of what well established science is.
Please take no offense but I'm not interested in distorting science knowledge with "philosophical' blunder.
What a blatant misrepresentation The basis of disbelieving a claim is because we don't 'know'. Faith -based belief is claiming to 'know' when really you don't.
BUHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Seriously dude !!
How many of my posts would you like to see where I clearly stated that we don't really know.
So you stole my words, change them to what suits you and trying them on me?
Seriously, do you want me to refer to a few posts of mine where I stated that "we (both Theists and Atheists) don't really know the answer to the question whether God exists or not?"
Sorry Mystic don't take it personal. I just don't like seeing science fluffed up into things its not.
I know science does not hold all the answers and it never claimed to. However it's the best method we have in discovering and understanding the world in which we live.
I'm 100% sure that there are things we will never understand through science. However science has given us so much knowledge that far removes the mysticism that once seemed plausible.
I've experienced some very interesting events that appeared as if some sort of spirit swooped in to save me from a catastrophic event or even death. I've experienced incredible oddities in my life that I can't explain nor can science. They are real and I experienced them and even have witnesses to some of these events. Trust me there was something going on that I can't pinpoint but I refuse to attribute it to the constructs that humans have invented such as a god watching over me.
There are interesting oddities of children who can recall past lives or are born prodigies. There are interesting events from people who have had NDE's and they are completely changed afterwards from what they felt and experienced in this state.
Since I don't know what shaped some of the most bizzare events that I've experience throughout my lifetime...I leave it at that. I just don't know.
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.
The basis of disbelieving a claim is because we don't 'know'. Faith -based belief is claiming to 'know' when really you don't.
