Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:43:32 +0000 Subject: Re: Energy? Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <66A8307B.8B6@ix.netcom.com> <9U6dneBCi4_A_DX7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <66A9CBC9.2213@ix.netcom.com> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:43:43 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <66A9CBC9.2213@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Lines: 86 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-RM3YJ1iqHS7EOUuAXSHgQEqpNtbBKj8wdua2hGzAqXv+/gVCffM6+rt/NbX9cjGr0DDAluhOsAZMQkf!KGSAYn6hxhrlEyMuzHM67JWpqUWwCjR+x62VpnVfWmjlFnYoh3cXBVgoXDEOQhc1y/7OcPUfgGUf X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 4290 On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >> On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the >>> word...Energy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Stefan Ram wrote: >>>> >>>> In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a >>>> system with mass m = 0: >>>> >>>> E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector" >>>> >>>> . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no particle >>>> at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore >>>> p^'3-vector' <> 0.". >>>> >>>> So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle without mass >>>> must have momentum. >>>> >>>> But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no particle."? >>>> >>>> 300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that there is >>>> no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with no mass. >>>> >>>> Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or could there >>>> be a particle with "E = 0"? >>>> >>>> Here's the Unicode: >>>> >>>> E²/c² = p⃗ · p⃗ >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, or we >>>> |have a particle, E ≠0, and therefore p⃗ ≠0. >>> >> >> Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other, >> "Aristotle's and Leibniz'". >> >> The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae, >> content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis, >> which are the same word, one for power the other potential. >> >> So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least. > > What is Einstein's definition of...Energy? > > > It's capacity to do work. It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon velocity, and neutron lifetime. I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws, and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants, and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action. These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of theory. Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply action on information, with, "levers" everywhere. Moment and Motion, .... If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.