| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<lhbbmkFlirrU4@mid.individual.net> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Energy? Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:01:47 +0200 Lines: 226 Message-ID: <lhbbmkFlirrU4@mid.individual.net> References: <Energy-20240728103722@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <66A8307B.8B6@ix.netcom.com> <9U6dneBCi4_A_DX7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <66A9CBC9.2213@ix.netcom.com> <T8CdnXBAIsR5Djf7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <66AD00A3.3BC9@ix.netcom.com> <66ae09cc$0$3667$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <U6CcnSDN2JMgSjP7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <lh8vilFamjuU2@mid.individual.net> <VDGdnTrz8--ABTL7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net bikuFAZ8NQsf9519YeK+9QI0qvdcwvqqzRk9Y2pluORoHOEX5d Cancel-Lock: sha1:quDiDITTxHwlVHUHUN9dGm5TMf4= sha256:ZLNoM/8Dylpd3nAvXyheBVE8L8y18411Z1qAshDgEhU= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: <VDGdnTrz8--ABTL7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> Bytes: 9676 Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 17:03 schrieb Ross Finlayson: > On 08/04/2024 02:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 03:22 schrieb Ross Finlayson: >>> On 08/03/2024 03:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ · pâ∞˜ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> |This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0, >>>>>>>>>> or we >>>>>>>>>> |have a particle, E â≈ 0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈ 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Okay, let me put it this way...it seems you are trying to make an >>>>> 'attempt' to >>>>> define the word "energy". >>>>> >>>>> You got 5 or 6 paragraphs that seems you are scrounging the >>>>> Internet in >>>>> seach for meanings. >>>>> >>>>> It sounds like 6 different people wrote it! >>>> >>>> Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want. >>>> But back to basics: something that you call 'energy' >>>> isn't really an energy in a physical sense >>>> unless you can show how it can be converted >>>> (partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2. >>>> >>>> With conservation of energy of course, >>>> >>>> Jan >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Einstein of course got e = mc^2 as the first term of >>> the Taylor expansion of classical mechanics K.E., >>> it doesn't just "appear", and it's only the first >>> terms of an infinite series "kinetic energy". >>> >>> So, you SR-ians say "we define this" yet it's derived >>> and you don't know the rest of it. >>> >>> >>> Another great thing to think about is that the Heisenberg >>> uncertainty, about momentum and position and half-Plancks, >>> it's just a thing about triangle inequality and Born rule >>> and the baggage of the Eulerian-Gaussian root-mean complex, >>> in the non-linear and highly non-linear similarly, it's not >>> so difficult to contrive classical actions that keep the >>> continuum of the continuous manifold in the quantized. >>> >>> Of course lots of people know that every five years the >>> Particle Data Group produces the latest fundamental physical >>> constants of which the small get smaller and large get larger, >>> as with regards to the "running constants" and "Planckian regime" >>> as with regards to "superstring theory". >> >> Stringtheory is imho nonsense. >> >> my own theory is this >> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings. >> >> The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual. >> >> Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is >> smooth, but has internal structures. >> >> The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a >> certain phenomenon called 'handedness'. >> >> Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon. >> >> This has two sides, but only one surface. >> >> If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features) >> and let them influence the neighborhood, then structures could appear, >> which we can call 'matter'. >> >> This moebius strip is now 'bumping' up and down along the timeline, >> hence stablizes kind of involution of expansion and contraction. >> >> This is such a structur, if timelike stable and could be regarded as >> material object. >> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========