Dubbelosix Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) I'll let you know I understand energy. If I take relativity seriously, then they are both the same thing, but in what way do we mean this, really? What does [math]E = Mc^2[/math] actually mean, in this context? Or as you ask, what exactly is energy: 1) energy is nothing but a diffused form of matter 2) matter is the physics of condensed energy From this, many have concluded, matter is just a trapped form of energy, quite possibly light since most particles can and will reduce back to photon energy in matter-antimatter collisions. This may be a non-trivial relationship of light to matter. A group of Glaswegian scientists showed that matter could actually be trapped forms of light in tightly curved geodesics (knot theory). I actually found it, quite convincing. same thing* edited Edited October 20, 2017 by Dubbelosix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said: I'll let you know I understand energy. If I take relativity seriously, then they are both the same thing, but in what way do we mean this, really? What does E = Mc^2 actually mean, in this context? Or as you ask, what exactly is energy: 1) energy is nothing but a diffused form of matter 2) matter is the physics of condensed energy From this, many have concluded, matter is just a trapped form of energy, quite possibly light since most particles can and will reduce back to photon energy in matter-antimatter collisions. This may be a non-trivial relationship of light to matter. A group of Glaswegian scientists showed that matter could actually be trapped forms of light in tightly curved geodesics (knot theory). I actually found it, quite convincing. same thing* edited Or as 10cc put it Quote Life is a Ministrone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) Oh joy geometrodynamics reduced to a bowl of soup lol. Really hits the topic of G.U.T theoretically. Seriously though, matter, energy, mass, can all be described as properties of the same state. ie under action displacement, with time and time independent relations. This is fully applicable to any kinematics I mentioned above. Quite frankly the fastest way from my experience to understand all major topics of physics is to understand how to model geometric displacement via scalar and vectors. Then study how each of the more advanced models organize and reduce the complexity of multivector fields. Naturally engineering and physics both apply many of the same techniques and formulas. As I have my two grandaughters over this eve, I can't help but think of them as an example of condensed matter, but with seemingly unlimitted energy. Wonder what Grandma would think, if I tried mathematically modelling my granddaughters? On 19/10/2017 at 9:37 AM, The_Believer1 said: Hello guys! I am confused about the concept of energy. I have read that energy is the ability to do work. But this definition of energy seems incomplete to me. I wonder what exactly is energy. Well as discussed it is a property of the state being described. Yes it does seem incomplete, as it is just one of many properties of the same state. In order to appreciate the definition, you need to study how that definition is applied with other related properties. The ability to perform work definition would be extremely difficult to beat considering the sheer and far ranging diversity of applications work is applicable to. 15 hours ago, studiot said: I think the best way to achieve an understanding of energy is to include some historical material since the history of the subject has left us with some mixed up terminology often due to historical misunderstandings such as the (incorrect) belief that heat energy is a substance they called caloric. It took the best part of a century to dispel this notion. It should be noted that Newton did not work in terms of energy and energy laws. He discussed something which we now called momentum. Energy did not start to surface till the century following Newton, and conservation a century after that. There is also more to Work and its relationship to energy than has so far been presented here. I completely concur with the above Edited October 21, 2017 by Mordred 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted October 21, 2017 Author Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) Well if you want to get really technical, mass exists at the expense of the electroweak symmetry breaking in early cosmology. The Higgs boson can be thought of as the reason why a massless particle can obtain mass. In this picture, the Higgs mechanism can be thought of a mexican hat potential in which a Goldstone Boson deviates from the ground state (implying that mass has been added to the system) in a non-trivial way. Since most scientists think of pure energy fields leading to symmetry breaking, then the definition of mass in context of energy becomes unclear, because in a way, you can argue energy is actually more fundamental than mass. Edited October 21, 2017 by Dubbelosix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 8 hours ago, Mordred said: Wonder what Grandma would think, if I tried mathematically modelling my granddaughters? Assume a spherical child... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 22 hours ago, Dubbelosix said: From this, many have concluded, matter is just a trapped form of energy, quite possibly light since most particles can and will reduce back to photon energy in matter-antimatter collisions. This may be a non-trivial relationship of light to matter. A group of Glaswegian scientists showed that matter could actually be trapped forms of light in tightly curved geodesics (knot theory). I actually found it, quite convincing. I've seen this before. Any chance you've posted here under another name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 23 hours ago, Dubbelosix said: A group of Glaswegian scientists showed that matter could actually be trapped forms of light in tightly curved geodesics (knot theory). Do you have a reference for this? I did a search but couldn't find anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 52 minutes ago, Strange said: Do you have a reference for this? I did a search but couldn't find anything. Try this https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=knot+theory+and+solitons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=5crrWcH8BoKh4gSm8b4I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, studiot said: Try this https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=knot+theory+and+solitons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=5crrWcH8BoKh4gSm8b4I OK. Thanks. Interesting. (Of course, solitons are not matter, so I'm not sure if that is what Dubblosix was thinking of.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Strange said: OK. Thanks. Interesting. (Of course, solitons are not matter, so I'm not sure if that is what Dubblosix was thinking of.) Nor am I sure, but if you don't thinks solitons are matter, try standing in the way of the Severn Bore. I have heard of people modelling sub atomic particles and photons as solitons. There is some stuff about this is the University of Cambridge Applied Maths series books. Solitons an Introduction Drazin and Johnson, but they understandably concentrate of calculation methods. I don't have Drazin's other book to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interested Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Richard Gauthier has written a load of stuff on electrons being helically spinning charged photons, maybe this is relevant https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281322004_The_electron_is_a_helically-circulating_spin-12_charged_photon_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength other authors have also written about this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, studiot said: Nor am I sure, but if you don't thinks solitons are matter, try standing in the way of the Severn Bore. I am not denying that water is a formal matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interested Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Then I stumbled across this from glasgow university http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf On the nature of the photon and the electron J.G.Williamsona a University of Glasgow, College of Science & Engineering, Glasgow G12 8LT, Scotland; ABSTRACT A new theory, describing both light and material particles, is proposed. The experimentally-observed nature of space and time are brought into the theory at the most fundamental level. An equation encompassing the usual free-space Maxwell equations but similar in form to the Dirac equation is proposed. This equation has new kinds of solutions. Propagating, pure-field solutions may have any energy, but the energy transferred must be proportional to the frequency. These are identified with the physical photon. Solutions with a rest-mass term allow any incoming propagating field to merge into re-circulating vortex-like solutions. The minimum energy configuration “rectifies” the oscillating electric field of light into a uni-directional, radial (inward or outward directed) configuration. The resulting apparent external charge may be readily estimated and is found to be of the order of the elementary charge. The spin may, likewise, be calculated, and is found to be half integral, exhibiting a double-covering internal symmetry. Charge is then not a fundamental quantity in the theory - but is a result of the way field folds from a rest-massless bosonic to a rest-massive fermionic configuration. The simplest such charged, fermionic particles are identified with the electron and positron. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 16 hours ago, swansont said: I've seen this before. Any chance you've posted here under another name? It's not my theory, its one that has existed for a while so no, it wouldn't be me. 15 hours ago, Strange said: OK. Thanks. Interesting. (Of course, solitons are not matter, so I'm not sure if that is what Dubblosix was thinking of.) Here is the paper I was referring to. http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf These scientists actually have a much more complicated second paper they published later, but for the life of me cannot remember the name of it. It extends everything more compactly. 14 hours ago, interested said: Then I stumbled across this from glasgow university http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf On the nature of the photon and the electron J.G.Williamsona a University of Glasgow, College of Science & Engineering, Glasgow G12 8LT, Scotland; ABSTRACT A new theory, describing both light and material particles, is proposed. The experimentally-observed nature of space and time are brought into the theory at the most fundamental level. An equation encompassing the usual free-space Maxwell equations but similar in form to the Dirac equation is proposed. This equation has new kinds of solutions. Propagating, pure-field solutions may have any energy, but the energy transferred must be proportional to the frequency. These are identified with the physical photon. Solutions with a rest-mass term allow any incoming propagating field to merge into re-circulating vortex-like solutions. The minimum energy configuration “rectifies” the oscillating electric field of light into a uni-directional, radial (inward or outward directed) configuration. The resulting apparent external charge may be readily estimated and is found to be of the order of the elementary charge. The spin may, likewise, be calculated, and is found to be half integral, exhibiting a double-covering internal symmetry. Charge is then not a fundamental quantity in the theory - but is a result of the way field folds from a rest-massless bosonic to a rest-massive fermionic configuration. The simplest such charged, fermionic particles are identified with the electron and positron. Oh ok, some one here has found that second paper! On 21/10/2017 at 0:28 PM, swansont said: Assume a spherical child... Big moon-faced children, full of energy ready to go supernova. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) I hadn't seen this paper in years... I read too much lol. Though the above paper came up on other forums I used to visit. I hadn't seen much continuation on the toroidal approach to the electron. Though never did particularly try to keep track of this aproach. It is a variation of the toriodal ring model which was later replaced with spin via Dirac and experimentation, looking for an internal structure to the electron. None so far has been detected, in terms of the toriodal ring. Wiki has a bit on it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_ring_model Edited October 22, 2017 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 34 minutes ago, Mordred said: I hadn't seen this paper in years... I read too much lol. Me too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Dubbelosix said: It's not my theory, its one that has existed for a while so no, it wouldn't be me. I didn't ask if it was your theory. I asked if you've posted here before, under another name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, swansont said: I didn't ask if it was your theory. I asked if you've posted here before, under another name. No. I would have remembered because you asked me if I have posted about this and I don't recall posting this anywhere except on facebook in my own subforum. 1 hour ago, Mordred said: . Though never did particularly try to keep track of this aproach. It is a variation of the toriodal ring model which was later replaced with spin via Dirac and experimentation, looking for an internal structure to the electron. None so far has been detected, in terms of the toriodal ring. Wiki has a bit on it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_ring_model Yes, well there has been attempts to measure the ''shape of electron.'' In phase space, it seems meaningless to talk about points since points themselves are smeared like a ''Planck cell.'' Plus, points does not really make sense in any of the physical theories we chose, self energies for classical electrons encounter singularities - relativity also encounters singularities when the radius goes to zero. So there are existing problems with our models when thinking about the electron without a structure. https://www.livescience.com/14322-electron-shape-standard-model-particle-physics.html Electrons also experience a secondary phenomenon. Electrons can be split up into what some scientists consider, the elementary fundamental constituents - such as a spinon, orbitons and holons. The real tricky question is to explain this phenomenon - because they do behave in circumstances as independent particles. This is achieved through low temperatures in solid mediums. Edited October 22, 2017 by Dubbelosix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 53 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said: Electrons also experience a secondary phenomenon. Electrons can be split up into what some scientists consider, the elementary fundamental constituents - such as a spinon, orbitons and holons. The real tricky question is to explain this phenomenon - because they do behave in circumstances as independent particles. This is achieved through low temperatures in solid mediums. And that's the key. It's a composite system where you see this behavior. It's not electron properties being measured, it's system properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, swansont said: And that's the key. It's a composite system where you see this behavior. It's not electron properties being measured, it's system properties. Composite does not mean not fundamental. Quarks also experience a similar phenomenon - ie. you can never find a lone quark. They are composite as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 11 hours ago, Dubbelosix said: Composite does not mean not fundamental. Quarks also experience a similar phenomenon - ie. you can never find a lone quark. They are composite as well. Never said that it did. Not sure of your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted October 23, 2017 Author Share Posted October 23, 2017 Ok, I am not sure about yours either, if it was just to say the phenomenon also exhibit pair phenomenon, then ok. I just thought that maybe you where implying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 20 hours ago, Dubbelosix said: Ok, I am not sure about yours either, if it was just to say the phenomenon also exhibit pair phenomenon, then ok. I just thought that maybe you where implying something. You said that electrons can be split, and while that may be the way pop-sci presents it, that's not what is actually happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubbelosix Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 In certain conditions, they can become deconfined, that is, they can behave like independent particles ''Spinons are one of three quasiparticles, along with holons and orbitons, that electrons in solids are able to split into during the process of spin–charge separation, when extremely tightly confined at temperatures close to absolute zero.[1] The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three, with the spinon carrying the spin of the electron, the orbiton carrying the orbital location and the holon carrying the charge, but in certain conditions they can become deconfined and behave as independent particles.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 12 hours ago, Vmedvil said: Well, energy is defined as change is space2 per Change in Time2 for a unit of mass which velocity increases mass via relativistic mass at increased rate of travel through space, So it is safe to say that Mass is compressed energy and the increase in velocity somehow increases the amount of energy able to be stored in the mass field due to Time Dilation or Length Contraction probably by increasing the time experience by the particle, so that would mean that Mass is a reaction to time increasing as Space Decreases and since Mass increases as time does we can say that Mass allows time to move more quickly and is somehow more stable with increased time rate and has decreased entropy as time rate increases, No, I don't think it is safe to say that. On 10/24/2017 at 11:10 AM, Dubbelosix said: In certain conditions, they can become deconfined, that is, they can behave like independent particles ''Spinons are one of three quasiparticles, along with holons and orbitons, that electrons in solids are able to split into during the process of spin–charge separation, when extremely tightly confined at temperatures close to absolute zero.[1] The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three, with the spinon carrying the spin of the electron, the orbiton carrying the orbital location and the holon carrying the charge, but in certain conditions they can become deconfined and behave as independent particles.'' "when extremely tightly confined" i.e. when in a composite system. This behavior is not exhibited by free electrons. IOW, while the description is often presented as the electrons doing this, it's really the system that is doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now