Energy/Math Discussion

[gloggawogga]

Alpha - How is it I'm doubting my senses? I don't ignore the information that is presented to my senses; I create models based on it and use those models in every day decision making. But at the same there is nothing wrong with remembering that I create this modeling in my mind, and staying open to the fact that thare could be much better ways of modeling/understanding the information presented to me. Honestly, since my ideas about 'matter' start out as 'information' presented to my senses, It makes more sense to me to say that 'information' is innate to the universe than it does to say that 'matter' is innate the universe. 'Matter' is just a way of modeling 'information' presented to me that has certain persistant nature to it. That doesn't make it any less 'real' to me. And it doesn't mean I ignore physical laws in my day to day business. But for me, modeling the universe as being entirely 'matter' and saying thats all there is to it would be ignoring my senses

 

[zorn]

In other words the "point particle" is simply the center of a force field, where the force field is most concentrated.

I think you're getting at the right notion, although that's not physics terminology -- eg, "force fields" don't exist outside the script of Star Trek. The field/fields due to a particle are indeed typically strongest close to it. For example, the electric field of an electron is k*e/r^2 and points in the direction of the electron, where k is a constant, e is the electron charge, and r is the distance from the electron.

But there is more to a particle than just the field(s) due to it: as I mentioned, it also possesses properties such as mass, charge, spin, lepton number, and so forth.

 

[yougene]

I still don't see why I can't view it as a field of energy.

 

[thursday]

because in science the terms "field" and "energy" have defined meanings that don't describe point particles.

 

[yougene]

nevermind the above question.

electric field obviously implies a field of energy.

But there is more to a particle than just the field(s) due to it: as I mentioned, it also possesses properties such as mass, charge, spin, lepton number, and so forth.

Can't at least some of these properties be attributed to the fact that there is energy in a certain configuration around a center?

 

[nowonmai]

Ask questions I'll explain what would happen, otherwise piss off.

Ok, I'm gonna bite.

1. Describe gravitational interaction in terms of 'your' theory.

2. Describe the electromagnetic force in terms of the same.

3. Describe any symmetries that exist in the two above and where such symmetries break down.

That'll do for the moment. Oh, and don't be afraid to lay on the math. I may not be an expert on tensors or any of the other fancy stuff usually found in such theories, but I can generally get the jist of an idea given time.

 

[Euler]

Oh, and don't be afraid to lay on the math. I may not be an expert on tensors....

Not to worry - we found out (to our amusement) that David doesn't know what tensors are. When referring to the Einstein Field Equations; he made the boob of thinking all the sufficies were exponents and multiplicitive constants.

Sadly - the thread in question seems to have been pruned.

EDIT - I've found it here.

 

[ebola?]

>>Not to worry - we found out (to our amusement) that David doesn't know what tensors are. When referring to the Einstein Field Equations; he made the boob of thinking all the sufficies were exponents and multiplicitive constants.

Sadly - the thread in question seems to have been pruned.>>

Would you like your very own thread for this argument of limited interest?
I'll even make it sticky.

ebola

 

[Euler]

Excellent

 

[zorn]

I still don't see why I can't view it as a field of energy.

...electric field obviously implies a field of energy.

There's no such thing as a "field of energy." Energy is not a thing. However, all fields do have energy associated with them (just like all particles do), and in the case of fields, the energy is 'spread out' over space. For example, the energy density of the electric field of an electron I mentioned of is proportional to e^2/r^4.

Can't at least some of these properties be attributed to the fact that there is energy in a certain configuration around a center?

No. Those are all fundamental properties of the particle. Different particles can have different mass, spin, etc. and generate the exact same electric field. The proton, positron, and W+ boson, for instance.

 

[sexyanon2]

zorn - so if energy is not a thing, why do we say objects have Kinetic or Total energy? Or E = mc^2? Joules is a measurement of energy, right? How can you measure something that isn't something?

What is energy? Just an idea?

 

[compact]

Energy is not a "thing" in the sense that it should really more be thought of as a property that certain "things". That might sound like a pointless distinction, but it's very important for making sense of the big picture, physics-wise (I know I've railed on about interpreting energy before on this board).

More concretely, energy is certainly a quantity we attach to physical systems via well-known formulas. The important distinction, though, is that energy is not really the most fundamental quantity involved, and is really just a very convenient and powerful consequence of the geometry of things. So saying that things are "made of energy" is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

 

[ebola?]

Should we then think of mass similarly?

ebola

 

[yougene]

What would be more fundamental then?

 

[compact]

With respect to particle physics, it would be intrinsic properties of a particle such as mass, spin, charge, and a few other related concepts. These are really the things which go into the equations to make them work (no the other way around).

For what it's worth, I'm not just expressing my vague opinions here, there's some technical merit to what I'm thinking here. Without getting into jargon, energy is just an invariant or conserved quantity which carries a lot of useful and crucial information about a system, but it's not really an intrinsic property in the sense that things like mass, charge, etc. are.

 

[sexyanon2]

but it's not really an intrinsic property in the sense that things like mass, charge, etc. are.

energy is just an invariant or conserved quantity which carries a lot of useful and crucial information about a system

Energy carries cruicial information, while mass and charge don't? I'm failing to see the difference between the two.

The term energy-matter comes to mind. Does that have any relevance?

 

[PGTips]

Energy carries cruicial information, while mass and charge don't? I'm failing to see the difference between the two.

The rest mass or spin of a particle is a constant. Energy is a more dynamics property. For you ask me "What is the spin of this electron" and I reply "1/2", then you get a little bit of information which isn't particularly useful. If you asked me "What is the Hamiltonian" or "What is the Lagrangian" then you get an enormous amount of information.
If you've not come across these in physics yet, The Hamiltonian, H, is H = T+V (kinetic + potential energy), and the Lagrangian, L, is L = T - V. From these you can get equations of motion for every variable of the system. You can derive any "constants of motion" like total energy, linear momentum or angular momentum. You can see how any other coordinate or momentum variable will evolve.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Lagrangian.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HamiltonsEquations.html

Both are incredibly flexable and versatile.

 

[thursday]

you can create information about energy just as you can about any property or characteristic of any "thing." but being able to describe/document physical qualities and attributes doesn't mean that those qualities or attributes are information. a battery does not store information. you can have information about batteries, but that doesn't make battery = information. you can use energy to communicate or transfer information, but the actual medium you're using to transfer the information does not become information.

a boat you use to transfer a shipment of fish does not become fish. the physical molecules constituting the ink used to write a poem should not be equivocated with the poem. information is metaphysical. energy and matter are both physical/noumenal concepts. the electrical signals used to transfer data through ethernet cables are no more "information" than the air molecules serving as the medium carrying sound waves are themselves "sound."

how long are people going to keep arguing over these banal equivocations? for fucks sake, get off the pseudo-intellectual new-age bullshit and read a fucking physics book before you start butchering scientific concepts with your inappropriate analogies. leave the quantum physics to the quantum physicists, and the mathematical proofs to mathematicians. stop trying to apply your vague knowledge of complex concepts on dense subject-matters to every single argument you make in order to sound smart. this thread doesn't even have anything to do with 90% of the scientific/mathematical topics being raised. talking about special relativity, black holes, quantum physics, or any other esoteric scientific concept here just makes you look like an ass.

 

[zorn]

zorn - so if energy is not a thing, why do we say objects have Kinetic or Total energy? Or E = mc^2? Joules is a measurement of energy, right? How can you measure something that isn't something?

Right, energy is a property that objects have. What I meant is that's in not a basic, 'physical' object in the same way a particle or a field is; rather, it's a property of such objects.

It's just like, for example, speed (in the non-amphetamine sense ). We say objects have some speed, and measure it in mph, or kph, or m/s. But we wouldn't talk about a "field of speed" or something being "made of speed."

Should we then think of mass similarly?

Precisely.

 

[zorn]

The term energy-matter comes to mind. Does that have any relevance?

That's mass-energy. People often mix these things up:

Mass and energy are both properties of particles, systems, etc. In a sense they're just the same thing up to a unit conversion: E=mc^2. This is why you sometimes hear about mass-energy, to emphasize the two things are the same. However the terms are used in different ways: when we talk about the mass of a particle, we always mean its "rest mass," which is different from its energy (unless it's at rest); and we typically use "energy" to refer to only a certain part of the system's total energy, not the whole bit.

Matter is a type of stuff -- anything made out of atoms is certainly matter. Sometimes electrons, protons, neutrons (ie anything made out of quarks & leptons) are considered matter; the term is fairly vague. It's defined in contrast to radiation, which is electromagnetic waves a.k.a photons. 'Matter' is also used to mean "regular" matter, as opposed to antimatter.