The reality of energy.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Occidental on 23 Feb 2010 16:48 Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. Energy beams are a staple of science fiction, but (ISTM) they are impossible since particle or waves are needed to transmit energy. Ie a pure energy beam could not exist.
From: BURT on 23 Feb 2010 20:30 On Feb 23, 1:48 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a > part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian > mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a > directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is > also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. Energy beams > are a staple of science fiction, but (ISTM) they are impossible since > particle or waves are needed to transmit energy. Ie a pure energy beam > could not exist. Mass is infinetly dense and wieghs in gravity, motion change and magnetism. Unbound particles are more massive. Their bond energy is zero. All is in the mass of a point particle. Mitch Raemsch
From: Jenny on 23 Feb 2010 22:54 On Feb 23, 3:48 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a > part of the universe as space, time and matter. In clasical physics mass (matter) (M), length (L), charge (Q) and time (T) are often treated as fundamental properties of the world. (Note that for simplicity I will largely ignore electric charge in what follows) Energy (MLT^-2) appears as a derived property in that treatment. We can, if we like, treat Energy (E) as fundamental and mass (ET^2L^-2) as a derived property. EM and relativistic mechanics go further and treat (T^2/L^-2) as (electric constant) x (magnetic constant) = a constant (c^2) and claim that energy is proportional to mass i.e that in some sense energy and mass are equivalent (E = mc^2). >In Newtonian > mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a > directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is > also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. Mass also is tough to measure directly. When we weigh things what we're actually doing is measuring forces and converting to mass via some mathematicotheoretical process. Perhaps we should therefor treat force (F) as fundamental and then energy becomes (FL) - which as I recall is how the concept of energy was originally derived. Mass becomes (FT^2L^-1) or (FLc^-2) and like energy represents a Force Distance product. > Energy beams > are a staple of science fiction, but (ISTM) they are impossible since > particle or waves are needed to transmit energy. Ie a pure energy beam > could not exist. "Particle" and "wave" are just placeholders to help us picture where forces are and how forces move. "PARTICLES" and "WAVES" are not actual "things" In this way of looking at things, forces are the fundamental elements occupying spacetime. "Particles", "waves" and "energy" are merely convenient illusions. Love, Jenny
From: maxwell on 24 Feb 2010 11:27 On Feb 23, 7:54 pm, Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 3:48 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a > > part of the universe as space, time and matter. > > In clasical physics mass (matter) (M), length (L), charge (Q) and time > (T) are often treated as fundamental properties of the world. > > (Note that for simplicity I will largely ignore electric charge in > what follows) > > Energy (MLT^-2) appears as a derived property in that treatment. > > We can, if we like, treat Energy (E) as fundamental and mass > (ET^2L^-2) as a derived property. > > EM and relativistic mechanics go further and treat (T^2/L^-2) as > > (electric constant) x (magnetic constant) = a constant (c^2) > > and claim that energy is proportional to mass i.e that in some sense > energy and mass are equivalent (E = mc^2). > > >In Newtonian > > mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a > > directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is > > also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. > > Mass also is tough to measure directly. When we weigh things what > we're actually doing is measuring forces and converting to mass via > some mathematicotheoretical process. > > Perhaps we should therefor treat force (F) as fundamental and then > energy becomes (FL) - which as I recall is how the concept of energy > was originally derived. > > Mass becomes (FT^2L^-1) or (FLc^-2) and like energy represents a Force > Distance product. > > > Energy beams > > are a staple of science fiction, but (ISTM) they are impossible since > > particle or waves are needed to transmit energy. Ie a pure energy beam > > could not exist. > > "Particle" and "wave" are just placeholders to help us picture where > forces are and how forces move. > > "PARTICLES" and "WAVES" are not actual "things" > > In this way of looking at things, forces are the fundamental elements > occupying spacetime. "Particles", "waves" and "energy" are merely > convenient illusions. > > Love, > Jenny Our conceptual views of reality, exchanged between members of the same community, are described in natural language (not math - a sub- language). As such, we have determined from experience that our language scheme should be based on nouns (things) and verbs (actions & relationships). Thus, the dual bases of physics (another sub- language) are fundamental things (e.g. electrons) that exist and interactions between these things (defining their properties & effects on these things). Thus, FORCE is a derived concept (assuming continuous interactions between things) and is NOT fundamental. The fact that Newton started with 'force' (actually non-continuous impulse) was his magnificent attempt to get the game started in simple mathematical terms, hence the title of his masterpiece: "The Mathematical Principles OF Natural Philosophy" (i.e. concepts first, math second).
From: PD on 24 Feb 2010 14:13
On Feb 23, 3:48 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a > part of the universe as space, time and matter. It is a measurable property of systems which seems to have an extraordinarily consistent rule that applies to it, making it of fundamental interest in science. I'm not sure what you mean by "a fundamental part of the universe". > In Newtonian > mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a > directly measurable part of any dynamical system. What on earth ever gave you that idea? > Presumably this is > also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence. Energy beams > are a staple of science fiction, but (ISTM) they are impossible since > particle or waves are needed to transmit energy. I assume you mean waves in a material medium, and again I ask, whatever gave you that idea? Secondly, if energy is a mathematical abstraction and not a measurable part of a system, then what is it that is being transmitted by particles or waves in material media? Formulas? Numbers? Third, we can confirm experimentally that energy is being transmitted in certain circumstances. You have a statement, which you are alleging is universally true, that the observation of energy transfer *necessarily* implies the presence of material particles or a material medium. This statement should be taken as something with testable consequences, whereby we could *independently* confirm the presences of these particles or this medium by some signal other than the transmission of the energy. What are those testable consequences, and do those match up with the experimental data at hand? If not, then you have an untestable statement, and untestable statements are purely USELESS in science. > Ie a pure energy beam > could not exist. |