pantheory

Although XNA research will only make headlines as these breakthroughs have a new spin, this research will now attract much larger funding because of the many possible future applications. From now on I would expect to see maybe one new off-shoot field of possible application at an ever increasing frequency //

There is much evidence to support the idea that photons are corpuscular/ bundles/ particulates having a separate physical existence, and the energy of relative motion via the speed of light. The energy of relative motion can be measured by velocity, but like velocity I don't think it is best described as something having a physical substantive existence. / Swansont, Mass, I think, is an interesting measurement being the same as weight adjusted by an Earth standard factor. It seems to me that mass can be equated to the exact count or quantity of the matter being weighed -- directly proportional to the quantity of nucleons and electrons being weighed. So in this way it also can be converted into a measurement of count. Does that sound right? //

This also goes along with my simple concept of time. Now back to energy and its essence. One of my main points was that energy, like time, I think is also a man-made concept which also comes in very handy to explain observed reality. It has physical characteristics like photons, and maybe physical waves in the form of a particulate background field waves. De Broglie, who discovered matter waves, believed in their having a physical existence. In the same way EM radiation was once proposed to have a carrier particle forming waves and having energy of motion like the old aether models -- or particulates like dark matter or some other modern proposed background field particulate(s) model, mostly non-mainstream. //

Aethelwulf, The zeno effect is interesting but understandable in that hitting something with a photon for measurement can either slow it down of speed up processes. I'm unimpressed by quantum theory, but the predictive systems and equations of quantum mechanics is a indispensable mathematical system based upon over 80 years of observations. Like Einstein, I also consider most of it as solely a system of probabilities based upon mathematical statistics and the normal curve. I think we are in agreement here. In this way I think the meaning of "the flow of time" refers to the unimpeded singular direction of time -- that time cannot go backwards. This is where there can be disagreement in the theory of time. My view is that time is a very simple man-made concept which can be solely defined as: "an interval of change" and nothing more. But there are many others in quantum physics that would make the definition of time much more complicated. Bottom line is that there are different hypothesis both mainstream and otherwise, as to the essence of time. Sounds right OK, I see no problem with this statement We may have different perspectives of the nature of energy, but maybe no major disagreements either. //

Sometimes intended meanings can be ambiguous when made by anyone. I just wrongly thought I could detect a foreign language influence. Moving on: I don't think any such system can be stopped or suspended, only greatly slowed down close to absolute zero, or behavior modified by external influences and measurement. All systems and matter have a ground state of energy. Accordingly no lower state can be achieved. One of those ground states is particle spin which involves motion. Another ground state is Zero Point Energy. There is no universally accepted theory of time. I expect that in the future some of the more complicated time concepts today will be greatly simplified. Time, with the absence of such convolutions, might be simply defined as an interval of change. All concepts and definitions of energy and motion involve an interval of time, usually the second. //

Sounds good to me! but provide a better and simpler interpretation as to the intent of your meaning? Try your best to put it into common language words so that I can better understand your intended meaning There seems to be many possible ambiguous or maybe wrong misinterpretations of your statement(s). //

Aethelwulf, What is you native language my friend? It appears that you are using some words in English in an unfamiliar way. Your insights seem quite valuable, in my opinion, but based upon your use of some verbiage your meaning might be misinterpreted. Consider that possibility my friend // Now moving on: (your quote) "..so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second The validity of such a system does not stand alone. This system continues because of its seeming lack or variance compared to other time keeping systems before it and realize that some of the previous systems have not been dismantled. This system is thought to be the most consistent and accurate of such systems. If it were wrong by a septilionth of a second every thousand years, for instance, what difference would it make? Do you think that our accounting system of our man-made system of time-keeping has importance other than for science? I like your enthusiastic inquiry into the possibilities of other science-based models, which I believe is generally lacking in most science educated people today. So keep up the inquiry, but first consider and study the mainstream model and try to understand it the best that you can before you logically try to consider alternative mainstream or other non-mainstream models/ hypotheses/ theories/ ideas, or develop your own ideas. When you have such knowledge I think your arguments will be more ineligible. what sayeth you? //

Aether models are no longer mainstream theory. Aether last century was defined as a particulate background field. A luminiferous aether was a particulate background field that was the "carrier" of EM radiation. Although there are still a great many hypothetical particulate background field models involving the Zero Point Field such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, etc. these models no longer like to be called aether models. Dark matter particles as an "aether," are accordingly influenced by gravity. There are also a large number of non-mainstream aether based gravity models, most that I know of are mechanical gravity models involving pushing gravity aethers. I don't understand your meaning here? There are many models of space in the 20th century that propose very complicated models of space. The extremely simple models of space generally are now unfavored because of General Relativity via warped and curved space, the Big Bang model via expanding space, and the dark energy hypothesis concerning accelerated expansion of space. The good news is that in the last 10-20 years there is less dogma, which I think generally happens during times of theoretical changes. def: There are more that one non-mainstream model that I have heard of, that makes such a proposal Such proposals include both massive and non-massive aether particles which accordingly make up/ produce the so-called aether wind based upon differential field pressures. This is the mainstream view concerning dark matter. There are a number of experiments trying to find dark matter, in one or more possible forms. //

''Time involves many different hypothesis, but maybe from the simplest perspective time is an interval of change.'' "All-that-there-is in-the-universe" statements, in my opinion, are perspectives like every other description of reality from a particular point of view. ''Its observable physical motions are of matter and/or EM radiation. '' To have a condition of no motion at all within matter generally would require a temperature of absolute zero, whereby this temperature may be theoretically unobtainable. Even at absolute zero matter still has spin to it, which involves measurable change. // (quote from link below) http://en.wikipedia....i/Absolute_zero ''In the same way I consider time to be a measurement of changing conditions and locations. What say you'' I think the motion of the second hand on a clock can give a good sense of the rate that time passes, relative to the second. As to time being subjective, if you mean a human perspective of reality, then I would agree. Get lots of rest, inhale the appropriate meds , and talk to you soon // //

michel123456, Not that there really is such a thing, but any theory that proposes anything happening instantaneously, if valid, would be an example of change(s) not involving time. Theoretical examples might be Newton's instantaneous gravity, maybe the alleged effects of quantum entanglement, any instantaneous changes of state in the quantum theory, if one believes these things then they would be examples of changes without time being involved concerning that event/ change. //

midas_touch_68, It might be true that if one could put vast quantities of dark matter and dark energy where they might be needed to "tidy up" what's been seen, then everything might calculate correctly. Such a combination also might be called a particulate aether, but not necessarily the carrier of EM radiation as was the alleged luminiferous aether of the 19th century. But theory allows only certain types of distributions of the dark stuff and not solely for the purpose of balancing equations. The question of this thread in the news section, is that some studies have indicated that dark matter does not behave as if it were matter, or anything else known for that matter, if it really exists. This thread relates to present news that seems to support, contradict, or analyze the dark matter hypothesis, then we can discuss it here. //

Aethelwulf, Time involves many different hypothesis, but maybe from the simplest perspective, time is an interval of change. Its observable physical motions involve matter and/or EM radiation. Its measurement is via standard measuring devices/ tools which we call clocks, which are of many different designs. Since time is an interval, the clock requires an actuated or calculated beginning and ending to it. A clock's measured intervals are a comparative measurement of change, like a ruler is to length, for instance. In the concepts of Special Relativity, the energy of motion or inertia are solely from a relative perspective, and have no reality to them. The energy of EM radiation is based upon the relative speed (the speed of light) to the background gravitational field which contains it, as in General Relativity. In both cases their would be nothing physical to it. Many things are not either true or false but can involve one or more differing perspectives. From the perspective that EM radiation is physical, one might argue that theoretically photons are considered substantive and therefore are physical. I see nothing wrong with this perspective or argument. But I think concerning relative motion, it is a condition described by changing locations rather than something physical. In the same way I consider time to be a measurement of changing conditions and locations. What say you

Aethelwulf, Energy has many categories to it: EM radiation, momentum, relative motion, potential energy, Zero Point Energy, etc. Even unrealized energy, AKA potential energy, and the list goes on. My perspective is that energy is a relative condition concerning matter, but concerning EM radiation its nature can depend upon variations of theory. Energy, like dimensions, and time, are an explanation of measurement. Measurement is not physical. EM radiation, for instance, might have physical particles associated with it however. EM radiation, for instance, supposedly has physical constituents in the form of quanta AKA photons. There also may be background field particulates like dark matter, Higg's particles, etc. If background field particles are involved with the propagation, or being the carrier of EM radiation, for example, then I think that "etherial" might be the proper word for the propagating medium. In my view there is a difference between substantive and massive. Mass, simply described, is a measurable characteristic that can be made within a gravitational field, measured in weight then converted into standard mass units such as Earth pounds or kilograms. Substance might be like a photon at rest, it could have existence but no mass. Its energy when traveling at the speed of light is what gives it a mass equivalence. When traveling far below "light speed" such as in a solid or liquid, photons can have much less linear velocity but the asserted cause of this is deflection by the medium so that much of its energy of linear motion might be lost to the medium producing heat energy via molecular vibrations, and maybe detectable in the form of increased temperature. I think "energy," like "time," is just a man-invented concept, but a good one in my opinion Does this seem reasonable to you? //

Aetherlwulf, There are a number of mainstream explanations for the redshifting of EM radiation and the perceived loss of total energy in the universe. Although I agree with none of them, the mainstream explanation that I presently prefer is this: As the universe expands the Zero Point Field accordingly maintains its intensity per volume. The supposed loss of the energy of EM radiation, by this hypothesis, is conserved via the maintenance of the energy density of the ZPF. Another proposal is that what EM radiation losses to redshifts it gains in changes to dark energy. I agree that this may be a serious mainstream problem if one wishes to maintain the conservation of energy principle in the universe as a whole And you're right, this is not the forum for personal ideas other than possibly brief mentions. //

Aetherwolf, Faith is not a good word in science . not that faith is necessarily a bad word in general, au contraire Monsieur, . But the so called law of the conservation of mass/ energy is based upon the concept that if there is less energy in the universe at a given time there accordingly would be more matter/ mass. This is the present consensus I think. If you would, please post whatever links that you think might assert otherwise, or your own ideas, so that I and others might analyze them and express our opinion I'm not necessarily a fan of many mainstream models so you have my ear -- even though I happen to agree with this conservation principle. //

Aetherwolf, Yup, mass/ energy conservation in a closed system is still, as far as I know, a standard mainstream assertion with only a very few alternative-mainstream asserted exceptions Why do you think that such assertions of the conservation of mass/ energy may not be valid in the universe as a whole? //

I know, I know Forget the cup. Just pour and present Swansont with a glass full of his favorite drink, shaken but not stirred. After he consumes it he might relish, or not, that if dark energy is omnipresent, that it will "remain" (maybe moving in and out) in the empty glass which you presented him. If later on it is theoretically determined that dark energy probably does not exist, then (or sooner) he no longer would need to prize the empty glass as being full of dark energy and dark matter, and would then be able to use it for a better purpose, as I would if equal opportunity were involved. //

Got it

-- Work = Force times Distance = Energy expended -- would have been a better description -- E = Mc2 The point was the different ways that Energy can be created. Einstein agreed with Planck's ideas concerning EM radiation being made up of quanta. "To this day, physicists describe the photon the carrier of the electromagnetic force. This verbiage of "carrier" an "radiation" imparts a dualistic nature to the subject which, curiously, rarely gets mentioned in scientific articles." http://www.nobeliefs.com/photon.htm The energy of EM radiation, absent the waves, has been called pure energy. "Einstein's theory is embodied in his famous equation E=mc². Although light photons don't have mass, they have energy, and "Einstein's theory says that even pure energy has to behave in some ways like mass. Therefore light could be bent by the gravitational force of the sun." I'm sure you're right. Einstein may not have used the term "pure energy" but others think his theories imply it as in the quote above from the link below. http://ww.oecd.org/d.../31/1946278.pdf I also do not think presently that all the mass in large quantities can be converted into all energy, but the atomic bomb I think is a good example of some mass being converted into lesser mass, along with heat, light, and neutron radiation energy In the other way two opposing gamma rays can create new electrons and positrons. //

"Can change happen without time?" For the mainstream model as well as all the theories of time that I know of, the answer to this question is NO. The duration of changes in matter or EM radiation, can be measured and quantified by time when using a clock to measure the duration of an interval of change. "No" is the correct answer to your question. But the other side of the coin is more debatable. That flip-side question would be "Can time pass without any change happening?" This question gets into the different theories of time. There accordingly is no standard theory of time, but instead there are different hypothesis concerning the nature of time. In my opinion the correct answer to this question also is NO, but many believe that time or spacetime is a dimension independent of matter and energy. But others like Einstein believed that space, time, and gravity could not exist without the existence of matter.

Andres, The white race may be cool but the all of humanity is far cooler Humanities intellect is what it's all about in my opinion. What do you think?

What is energy, exactly? In the 19th century and before, according to Newtonian physics, energy was defined by matter whereby a force applied to it, times the distance traveled, defined the resultant energy absorbed. F x D = E. In the 20th century matter was proposed to have an energy equivalent whereby Energy accordingly is equal to mass times the speed of light squared: E = MC2 . In the 19th century EM radiation was the wave motion of the aether, in the 20th century Einstein proposed the idea of pure energy with no carrier particle since an aether was proposed to be no longer needed. In a closed system concerning calculations, energy is proposed to always be conserved converting from one type of energy/ matter into another. Are the present theories of energy correct? Most aspects of energy are simply definitions and therefore cannot be wrong. Most also believe that energy conservation in a closed system must be maintained. If any part of the present theory of energy could be wrong it seemingly could only be Einstein's formulation of mass-energy conversion, or his idea of pure energy which would be invalid if EM waves were comprised of a carrier particle of some kind. //

Has Aether been disproved? Aether has never been disproved, but an aether of a certain type concerning a minimum speed relative to the Earth's motion, has been seemingly disproved by a number of experiments. Gravity-centered aether has never been disproved. Or aether speeds less than the accuracy of the testing equipment, cannot be disproved. The mathematics of Special Relativity was developed before Einstein by Hendrik Lorentz. His proposal was that the aether could not be observed with an interferometer because the equipment's rotating motion would change dimensionally and therefore could not be used to detect the aether. Einstein proposed his Special theory of Relativity where aether was not needed, so it was thought to be a simpler explanation since aether had not been detected. In the 19th century there were many different types of aether proposals. Most were particulate aether models and most proposed that luminiferous aether was the "carrier" of electro-magnetic radiation , which accordingly would be physical EM waves of aether. There are many new mainstream particulate aether theories today. None choose the name aether, however, since most consider the aether to have been disproved. Dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum foam, and many other hypothetical models can be called aether models. Newly proposed aetherial energy is the dark energy hypothesis and other such proposed energies. Real energies known to exist in the background field nowadays is called the Zero Point Field. In the 19th century this too was theoretically known as the aether field. So has aether been disproved? Absolutely not if the aether is defined as a particulate background field! A background field of one type or another has been proven to exist in the form of the ZPF. What is in this field? known energies and maybe a number of theoretical particles along with known particles like neutrinos. Is this field the "carrier of light?" there is no recognized evidence so far that EM radiation has a particle carrier as in the luminiferous aether proposed in the last century. Could there still be a luminiferous aether? I think the possibility still remains -- But most would agree that the mainstream answer is no, that the luminiferous aether has been disproved.

Einstein said that gravity is not a force but instead motion and acceleration caused by the warpage of space surrounding matter. This is the standard model of gravity. Newton proposed that gravity is a force at a distance between matter. Quantum Theory has proposed a particle, the graviton, that carries the force of gravity. Another entry is Loop Quantum Gravity. It proposes that space can be viewed as a fine fabric or network "woven" of finite quantised loops of excited gravitational fields called spin networks. Over time these spin networks are referred to as spin-foam. Many think this model of gravity is a real theoretical contender. Although GR has had many successes in prediction, it fails at the galactic scale without the inclusion of hypothetical dark matter which many still consider to be unproven hypothesis. There are also a great number of lesser known models of gravity and alternative mainstream models. Any successful model of gravity that can replace General Relativity as the mainstream model, will have to be able to make predictions equal to GR but also explain other things that GR presently could have problems with, since dark matter has never been observed and GR's predictions with it are thought to be lacking compared to other predictive models at the galaxy scale. So, is gravity a force or natural motion? In the mainstream model GR, gravity is a natural motion which is the mainstream answer to your question. It might be understood that these models mentioned are just a few of the many choices offered theoretically. Also a Force can have more than one meaning. Force can mean an a-priori force like magnetism and the other so called forces of nature. Or the gravitational force could be an applied force based upon an unknown a still unknown or unrecognized phenomena and cause. Lots of choices for gravity if you wish to consider all the so-called possibilities of future theory and formulations.

According to the standard model photons at rest have no mass (of course photons can never be at rest by definition ). Photons moving at the speed of light, however, have energy as in a solar sail and therefore this energy has its mass equivalence. Accordingly to GR EM radiation follows the warp in space surrounding matter, but if not it would bend anyway under the influence of gravity based upon its mass-equivalence as Newton predicted