The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: If Energy is neither created nor used up, where did energy come from?  (Read 13499 times)

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Hi agyejy. You're correct, but then again so am I.

Unfortunately that isn't really true.

Quote
Yes. I'm well-aware of the fact that the internal potential energy of a closed system contributes to the mass of the system. I took that into account when I described nuclear fission on my website. See:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/nuclear_fission.htm

The reason that we're both correct is because we're each correctly talking about two different things. I'm talking about the external  potential energy of a body while you're talking about the internal potential energies between the particles that make up that body.

I direct your attention to the couple of sentences of my previous post:

Quote from: Me
Even for a single free electron there is still a mass renormalization due to the interaction of the electron with its own field. This is often described as the electron being surrounded by a collection of virtual particles that increase the observed mass.

There is no experimental evidence for an internal structure to electrons and physicists have been looking for awhile. However, you cannot correctly calculate the mass of a totally free completely isolated electron without taking into account interactions between the electron and its own fields. This is the so called self-energy of the electron and the processes of correcting for it is known as mass renormalization.

Beyond that the concepts of internal and external are completely arbitrary and assigned by humans. Speaking in terms of physics and calculations you should get the same result regardless of if you pick a single electron as your frame or reference or the entire atom. Which frame results in easier mathematics is largely dependent on the properties you wish to calculate. For example, for calculating most of the properties of an atom using the center of mass frame (which really just amounts to keeping the nucleus stationary due to how much heavier it is) results in much simpler math. That doesn't mean you can't do the same calculations in an arbitrary frame it just wouldn't be as convenient. The spin-orbit interaction is a case where it is often easier to consider the frame of the electron and treat the nucleus as a source of an external magnetic field that interacts with the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron.

You are correct in making the distinction that the mass of a system is only well defined for a closed system but there is no real point in making a distinction between internal and external. We only see changes in mass due to changes in potential energy when that change in energy is carried away (i.e. the system is not closed). The simplest example of this would be the emission of a photon either from an electron moving to a state of lower potential energy or similarly a proton in the nucleus moving to a state of lower potential energy (this usually gives us a photon in the gamma ray energy range). In fact the very reason we don't see a change in mass when potential energy is converted into kinetic energy is precisely because both forms of energy impact the measurement of mass in identical ways.

Quote
Here's what I'm talking about: If there is a charged particle, such as an electron, which is moving in a static electric field then the electron will have three types of energy: Kinetic energy, rest mass energy and potential energy. An electron does not have any internal structure so there will not be any internal potential energy associated with interacting parts. The total energy, which I'll label W, is the sum of those three energies, i.e. W = K + E0+ U where U is the potential energy associated with the position of the electron in the electric field. The potential energy, U, of the electron in the electric field is U = eV where e is the charge of the electron and V is the electric potential.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4427.pdf <- Dynamical electron mass in a strong magnetic field

The jist of it is that the mass of an electron depends on the strength of the magnetic field at its current position.

Quote
There is an important difference here to keep in mind and that's the difference between the potential energy of a particle due to its position in a field and the internal potential energy between particles within a body. I was speaking of the former which you appear to have confused it with the later. My intention in raising this point was because I believed that some people might have these two things confused.

A distinction between what is and isn't within a body is completely arbitrary and has no impact on physical observables. You can freely change your definition of a system from encompassing the entire Earth to a single atom on the Earth any it will have no impact on the measured properties of that atom. Another way of putting it is that non-zero fields (i.e. fields that create differences in potential energy) always have a source. Given a non-zero field one can always find a way to extend the definition of the current system to include the source of the non-zero field thereby making it internal. Thus it makes absolutely no sense to distinguish the action of internal fields from external fields because all fields capable of doing anything (i.e. non-zero fields) have a source that can be made internal upon changing the arbitrary definition of the boundaries of the system under consideration.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity. But it's not; it's probably zero.

Light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy." And yes, there's a lot of it (though no one is sure quite how much). Most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. The positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all.

That's an extremely flawed conclusion.  There's plenty of it.  If you had 10 particles of matter and 10 particles of anti-matter, and they were separate from each other, then even though if they came in contact they'd obliterate each other, would it be accurate to then state, whilst they are still separate and minding their business, that there are actually no particles at all?
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all.

That's an extremely flawed conclusion.  There's plenty of it.  If you had 10 particles of matter and 10 particles of anti-matter, and they were separate from each other, then even though if they came in contact they'd obliterate each other, would it be accurate to then state, whilst they are still separate and minding their business, that there are actually no particles at all?
[/s]

To the entity that responded to my posts you are not worthy of my attention or the attention of any other logical thinking person and I ignore all your rubbish!
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all.

That's an extremely flawed conclusion.  There's plenty of it.  If you had 10 particles of matter and 10 particles of anti-matter, and they were separate from each other, then even though if they came in contact they'd obliterate each other, would it be accurate to then state, whilst they are still separate and minding their business, that there are actually no particles at all?
[/s]

To the entity that responded to my posts you are not worthy of my attention or the attention of any other logical thinking person and I ignore all your rubbish!

How bout you  address the logic and content of the post itself? Or do you simply not have it in you? Fact is, what I posted was perfectly clear and a very straightforward analogy refuting your point. Do you have an aversion to straightforward logic or something?
« Last Edit: 18/06/2016 00:48:53 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: agyejy
Unfortunately that isn't really true.
Oh, great! Another newbie who thinks he knows everything but can't fathom the simple statement from Rindler's SR text, i.e.
Quote from: Wolfgang Rindler
One kind of energy that does not  contribute to mass is potential energy of position.
As we physicists say It's intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer!  ;D  Anybody who thinks about this carefully will understand this fact. For instance; if there is an electron in a uniform static electric field then the potential energy of the electron will depend on where the particle is in the field. However the force on the electron is independent of where the electron is so there is no physical difference between the electron when its at positions of differing potentials. Therefore there can be no difference in the mass. Got it???

Of course you're welcome to write an article and attempt to publish it in the American Journal of Physics and attempt to argue that you're right and experiments are wrong. By the way. You're abusing the meaning of mass renormalization. From what you wrote its clear that you have a poor understanding of it. Every single physicist worth his salt and every single relativist that's existed since SR was created knows this very trivial fact of SR. 

But in one sense you're right. We're not both right. I'm right and you're wrong and that's according to observations made in the lab during experiments with particle accelerators. As I said, the potential energy due to the position of a particle in an external field does not effect the mass of the particle. That's a fact that's demonstrated every single time that a particle accelerator is in operation. If you don't understand that then you don't understand mass-energy equivalence. Your comment on mass renormalization is completely irrelevant to this point. You really need to better. That's why I suggested that you read the section from Rindler that I gave you. But if you can't even understand that then I don't see the point of me trying to help you understand this anymore than I already have.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2016 07:33:29 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all.

That's an extremely flawed conclusion.  There's plenty of it.  If you had 10 particles of matter and 10 particles of anti-matter, and they were separate from each other, then even though if they came in contact they'd obliterate each other, would it be accurate to then state, whilst they are still separate and minding their business, that there are actually no particles at all?
[/s]

To the entity that responded to my posts you are not worthy of my attention or the attention of any other logical thinking person and I ignore all your rubbish!

How bout you  address the logic and content of the post itself? Or do you simply not have it in you? Fact is, what I posted was perfectly clear and a very straightforward analogy refuting your point. Do you have an aversion to straightforward logic or something?

I love straightforward logic but and do not have an aversion to it , however, I have an aversion to you as a person, "which is my right" and all your "terminological inexacititudes"
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Oh, great! Another newbie who thinks he knows everything but can't fathom the simple statement from Rindler's SR text, i.e.
Quote from: Wolfgang Rindler
One kind of energy that does not  contribute to mass is potential energy of position.

I would ask that you don't make assumptions about what I know and my level of education. I happen to think that is somewhat less than polite. I managed to avoid impugning your education and ability to reason and I would appreciate the same consideration.

Also I think it is important look at the entire quote:

Quote from: Wolfgang Rindler
One kind of energy that does not contribute to mass is potential energy of position. In classical mechanics, a particle moving in an electromagnetic (or gravitational)
field is often said to possess potential energy, so that the sum of its kinetic and
potential energies remains constant. This is a useful Ďbook-keepingí device, but energy
conservation can also be satisfied by debiting the field with an energy loss equal to the
kinetic energy gained by the particle. In relativity there are good reasons for adopting
the second alternative,
though the first can be used as an occasional shortcut: the Ďrealí
location of any part of the energy is no longer a mere convention, since energy (as
mass) gravitates; that is, it contributes measurably (in principle) to the curvature of
spacetime at its location.

Basically Rindler is of the opinion that potential energy is simply a "'book-keeping' device" and feels that it is better to attribute all potential energy to the field. However, the changes in the external field are intrinsically linked to the particle and its position in the field. So regardless of where you claim the energy is stored you still have to know where the particle is to know how the energy density changes and the place where the energy density changes the most from the presence of the particle has to be the position of the particle. You might ascribe the potential energy to the field but if you go out a measure a particle in the field the measurement you get is always going to include both the particle and the field together.

Further this is the opinion of someone who is an authority in relativity not in quantum mechanics. Relativity has nothing at all to say about the origin of mass and on its own does a very poor job of describing the quantum realm. If you want to discuss the origin of mass and how mass is impacted by the presence of fields you need to be using a relativistic quantum field theory at the bare minimum. Relativity alone is either unable to answer the question or is just plain wrong.

Quote
As we physicists say It's intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer!  ;D  Anybody who thinks about this carefully will understand this fact. For instance; if there is an electron in a uniform static electric field then the potential energy of the electron will depend on where the particle is in the field. However the force on the electron is independent of where the electron is so there is no physical difference between the electron when its at positions of differing potentials. Therefore there can be no difference in the mass. Got it???

Force is not mass. Force is related to mass by the proportionality constant we call acceleration or more specifically by the time derivative of momentum. A physicist should be well aware that acceleration is not a fixed quantity and that a constant force on a changing mass results in a changing acceleration. Of course that point is made entirely moot by the point Rindler himself raised. Namely that the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy in a conservative force field (for anyone else that might not know off the top of their head a uniform static electric field is a conservative field) doesn't change. Therefore if you accept that the potential energy and the kinetic energy both contribute to the mass the only conclusion is that in a conservative force field mass does not change at least as long as we're sticking to only relativity.

Quote
Of course you're welcome to write an article and attempt to publish it in the American Journal of Physics and attempt to argue that you're right and experiments are wrong. By the way. You're abusing the meaning of mass renormalization. From what you wrote its clear that you have a poor understanding of it. Every single physicist worth his salt and every single relativist that's existed since SR was created knows this very trivial fact of SR.

Again I point out that we're talking about a region of physics were relativity on its own is known to be wrong. I would hope any relativist would be able to recognize that fact. As far as papers about the effect of fields on particle masses (not written by me but still a paper):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4427.pdf <- Dynamical electron mass in a strong magnetic field

And if you don't like that one you can look through any of the references which say very similar things. These should be a fairly good start:

Quote
[10] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys.
Rev. D 52, 4747 (1995); Nucl. Phys. B462, 249 (1996);
D. K. Hong, Y. Kim, and S. J. Sin, Phys. Rev. D 54,
7879 (1996).
[11] D.-S. Lee, C. N. Leung, and Y. J. Ng, Phys. Rev. D 55,
6504 (1997); E. J. Ferrer and V. de la Incera, ibid. 58,
065008 (1998).
[12] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1291 (1999); Nucl. Phys. B563, 361
(1999); Phys. Rev. D 67, 107703 (2003); A. V. Kuznetsov
and N. V. Mikheev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011601 (2002).
[13] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 089101 (2003); A. V. Kuznetsov
and N. V. Mikheev, ibid., 089102 (2003).
[14] C. N. Leung and S.-Y. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B747, 266
(2006); Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 322, 701 (2007).

As for your opinion of my understanding of mass renormalization you'll understand if I don't trust your judgement given that you didn't immediately realize that there was no way the electric field of a free photon should have more energy than the magnetic field and the fact that you seem to have at best very sparse knowledge of relativistic quantum field theories especially in regards to what they say about the origins of mass.

Quote
But in one sense you're right. We're not both right. I'm right and you're wrong and that's according to observations made in the lab during experiments with particle accelerators. As I said, the potential energy due to the position of a particle in an external field does not effect the mass of the particle. That's a fact that's demonstrated every single time that a particle accelerator is in operation. If you don't understand that then you don't understand mass-energy equivalence.

Nothing about the operation of a particle accelerator does any such thing. Simply put the fields used in a particle accelerator aren't remotely strong enough to have a noticeable effect above all the other sources of beam instabilities and sources for mass changes in the beams (particles are picked up by and lost from the acceleration bunches all the time). The reasons the fields aren't strong enough are actually pretty simple. The first is that at least for the magnets we don't have electromagnets capable of sustained fields much higher than what is used and the second is what is known as rf breakdown which can set in at electric field gradients of less than 100 MV/m. Though currently prototype plasma wakefield generators are doing much better by well using plasmas and also lasers.

Quote
Your comment on mass renormalization is completely irrelevant to this point. You really need to better.

I simply cannot fathom why anyone would think that a discussion of how we calculate the masses of elementary particles and how those calculations are changed in the presence of strong magnetic fields is unrelated to a discussion about the masses of things.

Quote
That's why I suggested that you read the section from Rindler that I gave you. But if you can't even understand that then I don't see the point of me trying to help you understand this anymore than I already have.

As I pointed out above Rindler himself admits that as far as classical physics is concerned neither of the viewpoints he discusses are correct. Furthermore, he didn't say that it was wrong to think in terms of potential energy. What he said was that he feels that when working specifically with relativity and only relativity there are reasons to use his other viewpoint. Clearly there is no reason to believe Rindler's views
should hold for quantum mechanics or relativistic quantum field theories. Rindler definitely has no real expertise in terms of discussing the origins of mass because his area of expertise is in a theory in which the existence of mass is axiomatic. Certainly he could be more of an expert than me but he probably isn't more of an expert than people that publish about relativistic quantum field theories or those that do work on the standard model.

Rindler's quote was nothing more than him pushing his opinion about how people should think about potential energy when working with pure relativity. It should never be mistaken for a universal fact or even a fact in terms of relativity. The viewpoint expressed by Rindler is simply his choice of pedagogy and he is entitled to that choice. I doubt he would support it as unassailable scientific fact.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
It still is apparent that some of us still seek Richards Feynman blobs of energy with others insisting that energy is just a mathematical equation, used in physics and thermodynamics, as a means of explaining the conversion of work (Energy) from one form into the other.?

Or

Is there some "Primordial Source" of from which all energy emerged, out from, something like an infinitely tight spring that was sprung at the big bang or earlier.

Or

Do we exist as part of an infinite multiverse of which our universe is just one example of, and if so we are left with the problem of "Infinite Regression"

Alan
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: agyejy
I would ask that you don't make assumptions about what I know and my level of education.
I made no assumption about your background in math and physics. I was speaking about your response which is what I like to call word salad which means that it's all words with no direct bearing on the case at hand. I.e. mass renormalization has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that potential energy of position does not contribute to the mass of an object. And your comments on virtual particles is also irrelevant. First of all that has to do with quantum mechanics and this is all about classical physics. The virtual particles that you're talking about only pertain to the screening effect of charges. Mass renormalization only has to do with the relationship between bare mass and rest mass.

I clearly said Oh, great! Another newbie who thinks he knows everything but can't fathom the simple statement from Rindler's SR text, ... and that's quite true.  I don't care if you have a college degree in both math and physics. It's your reasoning that's all wrong here. It's as if you're taking words that you found in textbooks which refer to mass and attempting to fit them into what you (erroneously) believe to be the case. It's your lack of your ability to understand and follow arguments, by Rindler and myself, which clearly shows that you think that you know different but in reality you're clearly wrong. I explained why you were wrong by giving you an illustrative example and you totally ignored it which shows that you can't correctly argue your case and don't understand the reasons why you're wrong, i.e. you still don't get it. At this point its very clear to me that you just don't have enough of an open mind to understand this or you can't admit you're wrong so you won't consider the arguments which prove it. However I do care what others here think so for their sake I'll explain it again in more detail, for their sake.

An electron does not have a rest mass that can be changed, neither by a change in position, a change in kinetic energy or its position in an electric field, i.e. it's invariant - period. In the case of kinetic energy the relativistic mass depends on kinetic energy. However it doesn't depend on the potential energy of its position. This is a very simple fact. This doesn't mean that the electrons potential energy can't change. It means that when it does change both the relativistic mass and rest mass remain the same. Consider again the following  example: let there be a Cartesian coordinate system in the inertial frame of reference S. Also in S let there be a uniform electric field pointing in the x-direction. The choice of zero potential is arbitrary so there's no physical way to distinguish when the potential energy of the particle is zero, where its positive or where it's negative. Also, all physical spatial locations in S are physically identical. It's quite literally impossible to determine where you are in the field since its spatially uniform. However when the position of the electron is changed from z = 0 to z = h the potential energy undergoes a change in potential energy by an amount 967878d1da852d4b07a961e3168b0fff.gifU = e967878d1da852d4b07a961e3168b0fff.gifV where V is the electric potential. Recall that changes in potential energy are physically meaningful. However there is no physical difference in the electron between the first and second case. Therefore there can be no difference in the rest mass of the electron. Especially since it's impossible to change the rest mass of the electron.

Your misunderstanding of what Rindler wrote in his text cannot change the fact that - One kind of energy that does not  contribute to mass is potential energy of position.   What part of that you're claiming is wrong is something you've never stated, for what reason nobody can say. But it's very suspicious that you didn't.

Re - Rindler is of the opinion that potential energy is simply a "'book-keeping' device"

So what? Any good physicist knows that to be true. In fact that's what I explained in my website at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/cm/what_is_energy.htm
Quote
How seriously must we take the physical existence of this energy? No more and no less than any other bookkeeping practices. The physical quantities are those such as the EM field.
Here's a challenge that I'll wager that you'll never accept for fear of being wrong and having to admit that you made a mistake. That seems to be the case here. E-mail Rindler. Please do the forum a favor. Instead of passing on your misconception please send him an e-mail explaining to him why his statement One kind of energy that does not  contribute to mass is potential energy of position. is wrong. Tell him that Peter Brown was trying to explain to you why this is a perfectly correct statement and that your interpretation, with all your erroneous comments about mass renormalization is wrong. If you'd like I'd be happy to explain what mass renormalization is exactly and why you used it incorrectly, if you ask politely.  :)

However if you don't do this then I'll assume that you have no intention of getting straight to the truth and will place you in my ignore list. I only say this so you won't waste time asking me questions and then making invalid assumptions about why I don't respond.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2016 12:13:09 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline garth john greiner

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
The only response I can give to this question is that energy is built in to the chemistry of the universe.
I feel that energy is generated by the behavior and interactions of the diverse chemicals that exist in the universe,
Ie: all the different particles that exist have a job to do and by doing so interact with each other and thus generating energy.
The force of the big bang ignited this process.
 

Offline garth john greiner

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
It makes you wonder what sort of energy production was present pre big bang to initiate that level of force but that's the golden question we would all like to know !!! Lol
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
...Anybody who thinks about this carefully will understand this fact. For instance; if there is an electron in a uniform static electric field then the potential energy of the electron will depend on where the particle is in the field. However the force on the electron is independent of where the electron is so there is no physical difference between the electron when its at positions of differing potentials. Therefore there can be no difference in the mass.
All:beware, this is wrong I'm afraid. Check out the mass deficit. When you pull an electron away from a proton, you do work on it. You add energy to it. You increase its mass. The mass of the hydrogen atom is less than the mass of the free proton plus the mass of the free electron.   

 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
...Anybody who thinks about this carefully will understand this fact. For instance; if there is an electron in a uniform static electric field then the potential energy of the electron will depend on where the particle is in the field. However the force on the electron is independent of where the electron is so there is no physical difference between the electron when its at positions of differing potentials. Therefore there can be no difference in the mass.
All:beware, this is wrong I'm afraid. Check out the mass deficit. When you pull an electron away from a proton, you do work on it. You add energy to it. You increase its mass. The mass of the hydrogen atom is less than the mass of the free proton plus the mass of the free electron.

Hold your horses John Boy there's too many chickens in the coop. The loss in energy is due to the negative binding energy. Note I didn't say mass.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
I made no assumption about your background in math and physics. I was speaking about your response which is what I like to call word salad which means that it's all words with no direct bearing on the case at hand. I.e. mass renormalization has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that potential energy of position does not contribute to the mass of an object. And your comments on virtual particles is also irrelevant. First of all that has to do with quantum mechanics and this is all about classical physics. The virtual particles that you're talking about only pertain to the screening effect of charges. Mass renormalization only has to do with the relationship between bare mass and rest mass.

I simply cannot fathom why anyone would think that a discussion of how we calculate the masses of elementary particles and how those calculations are changed in the presence of strong magnetic fields is unrelated to a discussion about the masses of things.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4427.pdf <- Dynamical electron mass in a strong magnetic field (i.e. the rest mass is changed due to the effect of the field on the screening)

Quote
[10] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys.
Rev. D 52, 4747 (1995); Nucl. Phys. B462, 249 (1996);
D. K. Hong, Y. Kim, and S. J. Sin, Phys. Rev. D 54,
7879 (1996).
[11] D.-S. Lee, C. N. Leung, and Y. J. Ng, Phys. Rev. D 55,
6504 (1997); E. J. Ferrer and V. de la Incera, ibid. 58,
065008 (1998).
[12] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1291 (1999); Nucl. Phys. B563, 361
(1999); Phys. Rev. D 67, 107703 (2003); A. V. Kuznetsov
and N. V. Mikheev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011601 (2002).
[13] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 089101 (2003); A. V. Kuznetsov
and N. V. Mikheev, ibid., 089102 (2003).
[14] C. N. Leung and S.-Y. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B747, 266
(2006); Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 322, 701 (2007).

Quote
I clearly said Oh, great! Another newbie who thinks he knows everything but can't fathom the simple statement from Rindler's SR text, ... and that's quite true.  I don't care if you have a college degree in both math and physics. It's your reasoning that's all wrong here. It's as if you're taking words that you found in textbooks which refer to mass and attempting to fit them into what you (erroneously) believe to be the case. It's your lack of your ability to understand and follow arguments, by Rindler and myself, which clearly shows that you think that you know different but in reality you're clearly wrong. I explained why you were wrong by giving you an illustrative example and you totally ignored it which shows that you can't correctly argue your case and don't understand the reasons why you're wrong, i.e. you still don't get it. At this point its very clear to me that you just don't have enough of an open mind to understand this or you can't admit you're wrong so you won't consider the arguments which prove it. However I do care what others here think so for their sake I'll explain it again in more detail, for their sake.

Well that's nothing but an outright lie. Since when is an entire paragraph:

Quote from: My response
Force is not mass. Force is related to mass by the proportionality constant we call acceleration or more specifically by the time derivative of momentum. A physicist should be well aware that acceleration is not a fixed quantity and that a constant force on a changing mass results in a changing acceleration. Of course that point is made entirely moot by the point Rindler himself raised. Namely that the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy in a conservative force field (for anyone else that might not know off the top of their head a uniform static electric field is a conservative field) doesn't change. Therefore if you accept that the potential energy and the kinetic energy both contribute to the mass the only conclusion is that in a conservative force field mass does not change at least as long as we're sticking to only relativity.

ignoring something?

Quote
An electron does not have a rest mass that can be changed, neither by a change in position, a change in kinetic energy or its position in an electric field, i.e. it's invariant - period.

Again:

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4427.pdf <- Dynamical electron mass in a strong magnetic field (i.e. the rest mass is changed due to the effect of the field on the screening)

Quote
[10] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys.
Rev. D 52, 4747 (1995); Nucl. Phys. B462, 249 (1996);
D. K. Hong, Y. Kim, and S. J. Sin, Phys. Rev. D 54,
7879 (1996).
[11] D.-S. Lee, C. N. Leung, and Y. J. Ng, Phys. Rev. D 55,
6504 (1997); E. J. Ferrer and V. de la Incera, ibid. 58,
065008 (1998).
[12] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1291 (1999); Nucl. Phys. B563, 361
(1999); Phys. Rev. D 67, 107703 (2003); A. V. Kuznetsov
and N. V. Mikheev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 011601 (2002).
[13] V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 089101 (2003); A. V. Kuznetsov
and N. V. Mikheev, ibid., 089102 (2003).
[14] C. N. Leung and S.-Y. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B747, 266
(2006); Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 322, 701 (2007).

Do you know something the entire field of scientists working on relativistic field theories don't know?

Quote
In the case of kinetic energy the relativistic mass depends on kinetic energy. However it doesn't depend on the potential energy of its position. This is a very simple fact. This doesn't mean that the electrons potential energy can't change. It means that when it does change both the relativistic mass and rest mass remain the same. Consider again the following  example: let there be a Cartesian coordinate system in the inertial frame of reference S. Also in S let there be a uniform electric field pointing in the x-direction. The choice of zero potential is arbitrary so there's no physical way to distinguish when the potential energy of the particle is zero, where its positive or where it's negative. Also, all physical spatial locations in S are physically identical. It's quite literally impossible to determine where you are in the field since its spatially uniform. However when the position of the electron is changed from z = 0 to z = h the potential energy undergoes a change in potential energy by an amount 967878d1da852d4b07a961e3168b0fff.gifU = e967878d1da852d4b07a961e3168b0fff.gifV where V is the electric potential. Recall that changes in potential energy are physically meaningful. However there is no physical difference in the electron between the first and second case. Therefore there can be no difference in the rest mass of the electron. Especially since it's impossible to change the rest mass of the electron.

Again a uniform electric field is a conservative field so the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy must remain unchanged. Therefore either the kinetic energy must have changed by an amount exactly equal to the change in potential energy or some energy was added/removed from the system. In the case of the former since totally energy didn't change then clearly the relativistic mass didn't change. In the latter case some energy was clearly added/removed that had nothing to do with the original field. If you imagine electrons moving around without thinking about how the movement is accomplished you are going to come up with wrong answers. Of course this has very little to do with how the fields affect the mass renormalization of an electron by changing its self-energy and therefore its renormalized mass.

Quote
Your misunderstanding of what Rindler wrote in his text cannot change the fact that - One kind of energy that does not  contribute to mass is potential energy of position.   What part of that you're claiming is wrong is something you've never stated, for what reason nobody can say. But it's very suspicious that you didn't.

Again since when are paragraphs:

Quote from: My response
Basically Rindler is of the opinion that potential energy is simply a "'book-keeping' device" and feels that it is better to attribute all potential energy to the field. However, the changes in the external field are intrinsically linked to the particle and its position in the field. So regardless of where you claim the energy is stored you still have to know where the particle is to know how the energy density changes and the place where the energy density changes the most from the presence of the particle has to be the position of the particle. You might ascribe the potential energy to the field but if you go out a measure a particle in the field the measurement you get is always going to include both the particle and the field together.

Further this is the opinion of someone who is an authority in relativity not in quantum mechanics. Relativity has nothing at all to say about the origin of mass and on its own does a very poor job of describing the quantum realm. If you want to discuss the origin of mass and how mass is impacted by the presence of fields you need to be using a relativistic quantum field theory at the bare minimum. Relativity alone is either unable to answer the question or is just plain wrong.

Quote from: Also my response
As I pointed out above Rindler himself admits that as far as classical physics is concerned neither of the viewpoints he discusses are correct. Furthermore, he didn't say that it was wrong to think in terms of potential energy. What he said was that he feels that when working specifically with relativity and only relativity there are reasons to use his other viewpoint. Clearly there is no reason to believe Rindler's views
should hold for quantum mechanics or relativistic quantum field theories. Rindler definitely has no real expertise in terms of discussing the origins of mass because his area of expertise is in a theory in which the existence of mass is axiomatic. Certainly he could be more of an expert than me but he probably isn't more of an expert than people that publish about relativistic quantum field theories or those that do work on the standard model.

Rindler's quote was nothing more than him pushing his opinion about how people should think about potential energy when working with pure relativity. It should never be mistaken for a universal fact or even a fact in terms of relativity. The viewpoint expressed by Rindler is simply his choice of pedagogy and he is entitled to that choice. I doubt he would support it as unassailable scientific fact.

not stating something?

Quote
Re - Rindler is of the opinion that potential energy is simply a "'book-keeping' device"

So what? Any good physicist knows that to be true. In fact that's what I explained in my website at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/cm/what_is_energy.htm
Quote
How seriously must we take the physical existence of this energy? No more and no less than any other bookkeeping practices. The physical quantities are those such as the EM field.

The entire statement was:

Quote
Basically Rindler is of the opinion that potential energy is simply a "'book-keeping' device" and feels that it is better to attribute all potential energy to the field.

Which was less clearly worded than maybe it could have been. I was not really saying anything against the notion of energy as a book-keeping device. I was simply summarizing Rindler's statements in order to point out that no matter where you say the energy is (in the particle or the field) it doesn't really change your observations just how you calculate what you should observe.

Quote
Here's a challenge that I'll wager that you'll never accept for fear of being wrong and having to admit that you made a mistake. That seems to be the case here. E-mail Rindler. Please do the forum a favor. Instead of passing on your misconception please send him an e-mail explaining to him why his statement One kind of energy that does not  contribute to mass is potential energy of position. is wrong. Tell him that Peter Brown was trying to explain to you why this is a perfectly correct statement and that your interpretation, with all your erroneous comments about mass renormalization is wrong. If you'd like I'd be happy to explain what mass renormalization is exactly and why you used it incorrectly, if you ask politely.  :)

I'm not doing this for several reasons. One is that I'm sure Rindler is far too busy to really care about this. Simply put it is a waste of his time and energy. I'm not going to bother a 92 year old man over this and even suggesting it is absurd. Furthermore, as I have already pointed out Rindler's area of expertise does not lie in relativistic quantum field theories and so he cannot be considered a valid expert on how mass renormalization (and therefore observed mass) changes in the presence of strong fields. However, it is instructive to look at how Matt Strassler thinks about energy and mass:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/the-energy-that-holds-things-together/

Quote
The ripples are quanta, or particles; they each have mass and motion energy, both of which are positive.

The green fieldís disturbance has some energy too; itís also positive, though often quite small compared to the energy of the particles in a case like this. Thatís often called field energy.

But there is additional energy in the relationship between the various fields; where the blue and green fields are both large, there is energy, and where the green and orange fields are both large, there is also energy. And hereís the strange part. If you compare Figures 1 and 2, both of them have energy in the region where the blue and green fields are large. But the presence of the ripple in the orange field in the vicinity alters the green field, and therefore changes the energy in the region where the blue fieldís ripple is sitting, as indicated in Figure 3.

Depending upon the details of how the orange and green fields interact with each other, and how the blue and green fields interact with each other, the change in the energy may be either positive or negative. This change is what Iím going to call interaction energy.

...

But now I want to bring you back to something I said in my mass and energy article, one of Einsteinís key insights that he obtained from working out the consequences of his equations. If you have a system of objects, the mass of the system is not the sum of the masses of the objects that it contains. It is not even proportional to the sum of the energies of the particles that it contains. It is the total energy of the system divided by c2, as viewed by an observer who is stationary relative to the system.  (For an observer relative to whom the system is moving, the system will have additional motion-energy, which does not contribute to the systemís mass.)  And that total energy involves

the mass energies of the particles (ripples in the fields), plus
the motion-energies of the particles, plus
other sources of field-energy from non-ripple disturbances, plus
the interaction energies among the fields.
What do we learn from the fact that the energy required to break apart hydrogen is 14 electron volts? Well, once youíve broken the hydrogen atom apart youíre basically left with a proton and an electron that are far apart and not moving much. At that point, the energy of the system is

the mass energies of the particles  = electron mass-energy + proton mass-energy = 510, 999 electron-volts + 938,272,013 electron-volts
the motion-energies of the particles = 0
other sources of field-energy from non-ripple disturbances = 0
the interaction energies among the fields = 0
Meanwhile, we know that before we broke it up, the system of a hydrogen atom had energy that was 14 electron volts less than this.

Now the mass-energy of an electron is always 510, 999 electron-volts and the mass-energy of a proton is always 938,272,013 electron-volts, no matter what they are doing, so the mass-energy contribution to the total energy is the same for hydrogen as it is for a widely separated electron and proton.  What must be the case is that

the motion-energies of the particles inside hydrogen
PLUS other sources of field-energy from non-ripple disturbances (really really small here)
PLUS the interaction energies among the fields
MUST EQUAL the binding energy of -14 electron volts.
In fact, if you do the calculation, the way the numbers work out is (approximately)

the motion-energies of the particles = +14 electron volts
other sources of field-energy from non-ripple disturbances = really really small
the interaction energies among the fields = -28 electron volts.
and the sum of these things is -14 electron volts.

Itís not an accident that the interaction energy is -2 times the motion energy; roughly, that comes from having a 1/r2 force law for electrical forces. Experts: it follows from the virial theorem.

So today's particle physicists clearly have a different way of thinking about potential energy (called interaction energy) than Rindler does. I'm more inclined to trust them on this matter based on their expertise.

Quote
However if you don't do this then I'll assume that you have no intention of getting straight to the truth and will place you in my ignore list. I only say this so you won't waste time asking me questions and then making invalid assumptions about why I don't respond.

This is utterly unreasonable. There are many reasons I might not want to bug a 92 year old man about this. Some of them are given above. I've presented many different sources to back up my claims and demonstrated that the one source (aside from yourself) that you've used can't really be considered as an expert in what is currently under discussion. You've flat out ignored my sources up to this point going so far as saying I never made arguments which I very clearly made. From where I am sitting the person showing an unwillingness to get to the truth is you.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: agyejy
I simply cannot fathom why anyone would think that a discussion of how we calculate the masses of elementary particles and how those calculations are changed in the presence of strong magnetic fields is unrelated to a discussion about the masses of things.
That's clear proof that not only have you been unable to understand the subject that I've been telling you but that you're unwilling to learn it. Nobody has been talking about elementary particles except you. The fact is that it's totally unrelated to the subject at hand, i.e. that you cannot change the proper mass of a particle by potential energy of position. Once again you've demonstrated that you're unable to show that the example I gave is wrong and it's for that reason you keep ignoring it.

Quote from: agyejy
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4427.pdf <- Dynamical electron mass in a strong magnetic field (i.e. the rest mass is changed due to the effect of the field on the screening)
This shows that you appear to be searching for articles which appear to be related to the subject when in fact they're unrelated. If an electron is placed into a magnetic the potential energy is zero and for that reason the proper mass cannot change for that reason.

As I said, you're shown that you're refusing to take the challenge of contacting Rindler to straighten out all of your misconceptions. I have no time for ignorant people such as yourself. That's why you're going into my ignore list. It's now clear to me and probably others, why you're hiding your formal background in math and physics. You don't have any. Instead you pick through papers which appear to support your bad ideas and use them as if they proved your point. They don't.

Again folks - Ignore this person. He's clueless.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
That's clear proof that not only have you been unable to understand the subject that I've been telling you but that you're unwilling to learn it. Nobody has been talking about elementary particles except you. The fact is that it's totally unrelated to the subject at hand, i.e. that you cannot change the proper mass of a particle by potential energy of position. Once again you've demonstrated that you're unable to show that the example I gave is wrong and it's for that reason you keep ignoring it.

Let's take second to examine the logic of that last sentence. If i have demonstrated that I'm unable to show that your example is wrong than I must have attempted to show that it is wrong and failed (and I didn't fail). If I made an attempt to show that your example is wrong then clearly I read it and responded to it. If I read it and responded to it then how could that ever be considered ignoring by any reasonable definition of the word ignore?


Quote
This shows that you appear to be searching for articles which appear to be related to the subject when in fact they're unrelated. If an electron is placed into a magnetic the potential energy is zero and for that reason the proper mass cannot change for that reason.

As far as we have observed there are no spinless charged particles so all charged particles have a magnetic moment and therefore potential energy in a magnetic field. Additionally, any moving charged particle consitutes a current that has an associated magnetic field which means it also has a potential energy when subjected to an external magnetic field.

Quote
As I said, you're shown that you're refusing to take the challenge of contacting Rindler to straighten out all of your misconceptions.

This ignores all of the very good reasons I gave for not doing that. Not the least of which is that Rindler isn't even a proper expert for this discussion. I even gave an alternative more appropriate expert.

Quote
I have no time for ignorant people such as yourself.

This is just a straight insult.

Quote
That's why you're going into my ignore list.

I guess all that talk about getting to the truth was meaningless than. I've made solid points backed with varied references. You've got one reference that I've shown isn't even really a good one for this. I've also never once insulted you.

Quote
It's now clear to me and probably others, why you're hiding your formal background in math and physics. You don't have any.

Again an insult. Also, ignores other perfectly valid reasons like I don't want crazy people emailing me with crazy questions or messing with my life.

Quote
Instead you pick through papers which appear to support your bad ideas and use them as if they proved your point. They don't.

Saying it is so does not make it so. You have not even remotely supported your accusation and now you claim that you aren't even going to try. Ignore me if you want but anybody that has been reading this knows I had the stronger argument.

Quote
Again folks - Ignore this person. He's clueless.

And another insult to close things out. Honestly if anyone should be ignored for here it is you for your propensity to insult people for no other reason than that they disagree with you.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
I feel I should take a momentum to clarify my position because I am actually arguing two different points and I feel that I'm doing a terrible job at keeping them separate. The two points are:

1) A quantity someone might call rest mass can be altered in the presence of very strong fields by impacting the virtual particle cloud that surrounds real particles. If the vacuum state around a particle changes the mass it picks up (or loses) due to interactions with the vacuum will change as well and there might not be an obvious reason. This would be the "other sources of field-energy from non-ripple disturbances" that Matt Strassler mentions in the link I provided and the quote from that link. Someone measuring the particle might call that a change in rest mass.

2) With respect to relativity alone the decision to say that the potential energy is subtracted from the external field rather than a property of the particles in a field is a pedagogic one. Further, it is decision which modern particle physicists disagree with probably because in modern particle physics everything is made of fields and the distinction between energy being a property of the excitation of one field vs a property of another non-excited field the excited field is interacting with is unimportant. Seeing as modern particle physics requires one to use both relativity and quantum mechanics and the work towards a total unification of relativity and quantum mechanics is happening in modern particle physics I trust an expert in modern particle physics to have a more accurate model of reality than someone that is just an expert in relativity. Basically I prefer Matt Strasser's pedagogy over Wolfgang Rindler's pedagogy because Matt Strasser should have a more complete and accurate model of reality due to his area of expertise.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Where did energy come from=no one knows?
Obviously

When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
Our energy came from the big bang

What is Energy = no one knows?
No one knows for certain, but there's a big thread on here detailing what many bright minds believe it to be. 

Was there always energy=Yes?
Ours came from the big bang.  Was there energy to be found external of our Universe, or in multiverses, or whatever, prior to our big bang? Obviously no one knows that either. 

Will there always be energy=Yes?
Probably

Will there be an end to energy=no?
Probably not

Was energy created=No?
Our energy came from the big bang. You're getting repetitive.

Can you touch energy=No
Not a specific enough question, and you'll get a multitude of answers, since there is no definitive definition on what energy is to begin with. 

How much energy exists =Infinity?
No.

How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
No idea what you're even talking about here.  Source of energy? There's not like some energy creating pump out there. 

How long has there been energy = Eternity
In our Universe, since the big bang. 

Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
God lmao.  No, there's no magic man in the sky, that's just silliness.  But even if, I fail to see how the two are even remotely related enough in concept to be equated within a logical argument. 

Does Energy contain all information=Yes?
Ummm... No.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2016 22:12:43 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
You are making the assumption that the Big Bang was both the beginning and source of everything, however, logic tells me that there must have been a form of existence before the event of the big bang and this is what I meant by stating "Infinite Regression", remember the Big Bang event is just a theory, albeit the best one, of what happened at the very start of our universe. If there were a something before that it must be just be an assumption and that what is what I was doing in my last post on this subject, namely guessing or speculating as to what, where and how, etc, about the primordial source of energy, indeed if such a thing exists as a reality within existence before and beyond the confines of our universe?

I was making no assumption, but rather answering what was asked. Now if your question is what existed prior to the big bang, well that's a different question altogether, and more a philosophical one and exercise in futility more than anything else since no one knows.  But there are a million hypothetical discussions about what may or may not have caused the big bang or what may have existed before it, online for your perusal. You're free to explore. Www.google.com

As for my thoughts? I have several, depending on my mindset.  But generally, believe that either it all started with the big bang for reasons unknown, that this source of indescribable energy become unstable and burst into existence, and that the energy itself could be literally the energy of nothingness, but the concept still boggles my mind.  Or I may believe in the brane theory, that two colliding branes caused the rupture that on our end became the big bang, or I may believe it could be the product of some other universes black hole, or also what simply happens in the multiverse, that there's this soup of extro-universal state energy that our physics simply can't describe, and that its becoming unstable and bursting universes into existence is simply what it does.

Course, at times I might find myself tripping my friggin face off, I might instead believe that a separate universe had too much dark energy in a runaway expansion, which in time would cause that universe to tear, so an advanced race within it came up with a device that could suck in all the energy and direct it into a tight beam, and focused on a single sub atomic point of spacetime, and that once enough energy was siphoned and beamed into this point, it would cause a new external universe to be created, our big bang, thereby relieving that universe of the extra energy and giving it to ours, causing their universe to achieve a balance to where the risk of a spacetime tear was abated, and that all the energy within our Universe is from their excess that was given to us. And they repeat as necessary. Cause they figured out that any time a certain threshold of energy is crossed within a singularity type point in spacetime, that spacetime will rupture and the product will be the creation of a new spacetime containing the energy that caused the rupture, and that any time a new space time is created inflation will occur. This, like I said, is a theory reserved for when I'm tripping my face off, however.

But the awesome part about "what happened before or may have existed prior to the big bang?" discussions, is that even the wildest of wild theories can have credibility, because no one has a clue what the real answer to the question is. 

What I do know within me with as much certainty as an opinion can muster, is that no higher level consciousness, no theoretical "god", was necessary, nor will ever be found to have played a role. In the end, it is my strong belief, that when the answers are in fact found, that God will be relegated to nothing more than a field, a force that can create from nothingness.  Not because it bears any consciousness or can hear any prayers or any other gobblygook, but instead merely because it's what it does, and can do. 
« Last Edit: 18/06/2016 23:59:26 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
agyejy - Iím going to go over reply #107 again because I recently realized precisely the nature of your mistakes. First of all everything that youíve posted to date demonstrates that you have quite poor reasoning skills. Thatís been clear since the point where confused the action of a field on an object with the objects potential energy of position. Youíve confused yourself with this stuff about ďwhereĒ the field energy is when in fact thereís no physical meaning to locating energy as being at a place in space. We only use energy density and assign it a location to make things easier to think about and calculate.

Youíve also been completely unable to grasp the most simplest of all facts by which I mean that you couldnít understand the example I gave to you, i.e. an electron placed in a uniform electric field. There is no physical difference between the electrons being at one position than at another. Itíd be impossible to tell the difference. Therefore the mass of the electron simply cannot be a function of position such a field. However the potential energy of the electron varies as one moves along a field line. And that's what it means to say that the mass does not depend on the potential energy of position, i.e. the mass may change when placed in a uniform field but it won't change when moved to a higher potential. This is the part which you're unable to grasp.

You were unable to prove that was wrong so you changed to a straw argument, i.e. an electron in a strong magnetic field. First of all the potential energy of an electron in a magnetic field is zero so the fact that the potential energy not being a function of position is irrelevant. In the second place nobody said that the mass of an object wonít change when itís placed in a field. Thatís the straw here, i.e. you changed the subject from potential energy to field strength. Theyíre different concepts so your example is bogus. Thereís absolutely no reason whatsoever that, in general, the proper mass of a classical object will remain unaffected when placed in either an electric or magnetic field. So once again youíre confusing the issue. This time you confused the notion that potential energy of position is not part of the energy in E = mc2.

Then you made some ignorant remarks about Rindler suggesting that just because heís an authority in relativity it implies that he doesnít know quantum mechanics, elementary particle physics or quantum field theory. In fact most people take those courses to earn a PhD in physics. One doesnít get to be an authority such as Rindler by knowing only one field of physics. Itís a horrible mistake to assume that Rindler doesnít know Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics or Quantum Gravity. Without that knowledge he wouldnít know much about Hawking Radiation, etc.
Please stop changing the subject of conversion so that youíll appear to be correct. Iím trying to help the folks here learn something, in this case what kinds of mass/energy are part of E = mc2.

 First of all your absolute worst mistake is using a straw argument, i.e. youíve changed the subject from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. Youíve incorrectly assumed that the subject was about elementary particles when in fact classical mechanics doesnít address such entities. Relativity is the subject and thatís part of classical mechanics, not quantum mechanics. As such it can address such examples as radiation being absorbed or emitted by a macroscopic body just like Einstein used in his paper on E = mc2.

Itís such a shame when people such as yourself get so confused and try to pass it off as someone elseís mistakes like you did here.
« Last Edit: 19/06/2016 05:45:04 by PmbPhy »
 
The following users thanked this post: IAMREALITY

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
Where did energy come from=no one knows?
When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
What is Energy = no one knows?
Was there always energy=Yes?
Will there always be energy=Yes?
Will there be an end to energy=no?
Was energy created=No?
Can you touch energy=No
How much energy exists =Infinity?
How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
How long has there been energy = Eternity
Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
Does Energy contain all information=Yes?
Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
agyejy - Iím going to go over reply #107 again because I recently realized precisely the nature of your mistakes.

Kind of unfair of you to do this if I am on your ignore list.

Quote
First of all everything that youíve posted to date demonstrates that you have quite poor reasoning skills.

Ad hominem.

Quote
Thatís been clear since the point where confused the action of a field on an object with the objects potential energy of position.

Never happened.

Quote
Youíve confused yourself with this stuff about ďwhereĒ the field energy is when in fact thereís no physical meaning to locating energy as being at a place in space. We only use energy density and assign it a location to make things easier to think about and calculate.

I guess Wolfgang Rindler is confused as well then. In case anyone missed it the first time:

Quote from: Rindler
In classical mechanics, a particle moving in an electromagnetic (or gravitational)
field is often said to possess potential energy, so that the sum of its kinetic and
potential energies remains constant. This is a useful Ďbook-keepingí device, but energy
conservation can also be satisfied by debiting the field with an energy loss equal to the
kinetic energy gained by the particle.

So is Rindler confused when he says classical mechanics says that the particle posses potential energy and that in relativity we should consider the field as having lost energy? Clearly something cannot lose energy that doesn't have energy.

Quote
Youíve also been completely unable to grasp the most simplest of all facts by which I mean that you couldnít understand the example I gave to you, i.e. an electron placed in a uniform electric field. There is no physical difference between the electrons being at one position than at another. Itíd be impossible to tell the difference. Therefore the mass of the electron simply cannot be a function of position such a field. However the potential energy of the electron varies as one moves along a field line. And that's what it means to say that the mass does not depend on the potential energy of position, i.e. the mass may change when placed in a uniform field but it won't change when moved to a higher potential. This is the part which you're unable to grasp.

See the funny thing about a conservative force field (and I've said this many times) is that in a conservative force field the sum of kinetic and potential energy doesn't change. Therefore when an electron moves along a field line under the influence of the field it loses potential energy and gains an exactly equal amount of kinetic energy. Since the total energy is unchanged the clearly the mass associated with it should not change. It is also important to note that you just admitted that placing an electron in a field may change its mass. Where was the electron before it was in the field? Clearly it was not in the field and thus at a different potential. Ergo a change in potential caused a change in mass. Now if you let that charge move freely under the influence of the field the energy does not change because as I said before potential energy is converted into an equal amount of kinetic energy and total energy doesn't change because the field you describe is conservative. If you force the electron to move from one part of the field to another part of the field (say by picking it up and moving it) then you have to account for that extra force you applied which does work and changes the energy.

Quote
You were unable to prove that was wrong so you changed to a straw argument, i.e. an electron in a strong magnetic field.

Not true.

Quote
First of all the potential energy of an electron in a magnetic field is zero so the fact that the potential energy not being a function of position is irrelevant.

As I said before it is well known the electrons have a magnetic moment and therefore even when stationary have a nonzero potential energy in a magnetic field. Further, a moving electron definitely has a potential energy in a magnetic field because there is a force acting on it. The force is applied in a direction that cannot do work so the electron stays on a line of equipotential but it still has potential energy. I did make this point very clear in another post but I guess you do have me on ignore. It is too bad really because this statement was a rather big error and it is going to be rather embarrassing for you if you repeat it to someone else that knows electromagnetism.

Quote
In the second place nobody said that the mass of an object wonít change when itís placed in a field.

Clearly if the mass of an object changes when it is placed in a field the amount it changes by should be affected by the properties of the field. Certainly the magnitude of the field which controls the potential energy should have something to do with it. If we force a particle to move around a field to different potentials (i.e. not letting it move from place to place under the influence of the field alone) then clearly the total energy changes and thus the mass. This is analogous to taking a particle from outside the field and forcing it into the field. The reason the mass does not depend on the position of the particle in a conservative force field when that particle moves only under the influence of the field is simply because when undergoing such movement in a conservative field the total energy cannot change. This has nothing to do with the potential energy not counting toward the mass.

Quote
Thatís the straw here, i.e. you changed the subject from potential energy to field strength. Theyíre different concepts so your example is bogus. Thereís absolutely no reason whatsoever that, in general, the proper mass of a classical object will remain unaffected when placed in either an electric or magnetic field. So once again youíre confusing the issue. This time you confused the notion that potential energy of position is not part of the energy in E = mc2.

Potential energy is governed explicitly by field strength. In order to place an object in a field it must have first been outside of the field. If the object was outside of the field then it had a different potential energy after you put it into the field. Thus a change in potential energy related with position (outside the field and then inside the field) has caused a change in mass. At this point I should note this is different than the changes due to mass renormalization and only occurs if you move the particle in a way that does not conserve total energy. For example, an electron and a proton forming a Hydrogen atom after the electron emits a photon and thus changes its energy.

Quote
Then you made some ignorant remarks about Rindler suggesting that just because heís an authority in relativity it implies that he doesnít know quantum mechanics, elementary particle physics or quantum field theory. In fact most people take those courses to earn a PhD in physics. One doesnít get to be an authority such as Rindler by knowing only one field of physics. Itís a horrible mistake to assume that Rindler doesnít know Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics or Quantum Gravity. Without that knowledge he wouldnít know much about Hawking Radiation, etc.

To be clear I didn't say he doesn't know any of those things. What I said was he is less of an expert than say Matt Strassler. I said that because Rindler has never published any peer reviewed articles on particle physics, quantum mechanics, or quantum field theory. His faculty website lists his expertise as "Basic problems in General Relativity, Relativistic Theoretical Cosmology". Meanwhile Matt Strassler's faculty page lists his expertise as "Particle Physics, Quantum Field Theory, String Theory". Now which one of those two people do you think knows more about quantum field theories? Which one of them should be considered an expert on quantum field theory?

It is also important to point out that a degree (even a PhD) in one field of physics does not make you an expert in every field of physics. This is one of the many reasons I don't rely on my educational qualifications to support my arguments. I support my arguments with citations from people that are clearly experts and that themselve provide evidence for their statements. This is how one should present an argument.

Quote
Please stop changing the subject of conversion so that youíll appear to be correct. Iím trying to help the folks here learn something, in this case what kinds of mass/energy are part of E = mc2.

Haven't changed the subject at all.

Quote
First of all your absolute worst mistake is using a straw argument, i.e. youíve changed the subject from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. Youíve incorrectly assumed that the subject was about elementary particles when in fact classical mechanics doesnít address such entities. Relativity is the subject and thatís part of classical mechanics, not quantum mechanics. As such it can address such examples as radiation being absorbed or emitted by a macroscopic body just like Einstein used in his paper on E = mc2.


The subject was the nature of energy. Classical mechanics does not have sole dominion over the concept of energy. Furthermore, it is well known that classical mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all approximations. In fact if you polled physicists I bet most are of the opinion that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental and therefore the closest to reality of the three. This is why the majority of attempts to fully unify relativity and quantum mechanics are focused on quantizing gravity not on doing what would be the reverse on quantum mechanics (I'm not sure if it even has a name).

Quote
Itís such a shame when people such as yourself get so confused and try to pass it off as someone elseís mistakes like you did here.

That's quite clearly not what is happening.

Now since I guess you've got me on ignore you won't be reading this reply. Personally I feel it is quite rude to attempt to refute a person's arguments while doing the digital equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "La La I can't hear you!". If you wish to ignore me than do so. It is perfectly within your rights to do so and honestly I can live without the insults. However, I ask that you cease responding to any of my posts because it is very rude to talk to/about someone and then refuse to hear that person's response. My only hope is that either I'm not actually on ignore yet or that at least this part of the message will somehow find its way to you.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile

"If we go further than even the Big Bang into the very depths of the fundamentals, we come across Brane and String Theories that might ultimately give the answer as to the origin of all the energy in our universe (My comment Alan)"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-where-did-the-point-of-energy-come-into-existance-frm-for-the-big-bang-to-occour.206466/

Well It seems that String Theory(ST) can provide an answer. ST predicts that the smallest composition of matter are tiny vibrating strands of energy called strings. The way these string wiggle and depending upon whether they are closed or open ended they make up the fundamental particle that we see.

The messenger particle responsible for the transmission of gravity is the gravition. Its is presumed that all the open ended strings are tied to a 3-D surfaces called Branes that floats in a higher dimensional space. There can be many branes that carry parallel universes.

It is believed that two Branes, floating parallely may collide. The energy produced in that collision must have to go somewhere. Where does it go? It goes into the Big Bang. It creates the rapid expansion that we see. ST also provides an answer to why gravity is much weaker than all other fundamental forces of the universe.

The Strings that make up the graviton are open ended. So they may not be confined to the brane that contains our universe. They can seep off in a higher dimensional space. However String Theory is presently untested. The Strings are too small to be dected by the present day accelerators. The Large Hadron Collider which is much powerful than all previous accelerators will primarily search for Something called 'sparticles'- the superpartner of every fundamental particle.

Yes... I touched upon this earlier when I gave a few theories on where the universe originated
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
Where did energy come from=no one knows?
When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
What is Energy = no one knows?
Was there always energy=Yes?
Will there always be energy=Yes?
Will there be an end to energy=no?
Was energy created=No?
Can you touch energy=No
How much energy exists =Infinity?
How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
How long has there been energy = Eternity
Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
Does Energy contain all information=Yes?
Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.


Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.


Hi Pete I looked it up that was IAMREALITY answering my questions and not me responding to you?

Quote
Where did energy come from="no one knows?" (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
When did Energy come from = "Energy is eternal?" (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
What is Energy = "no one knows?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Was there always energy="Yes?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Will there always be energy="Yes?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Will there be an end to energy="no?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Was energy created="No?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Can you touch energy="No"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
How much energy exists ="Infinity?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)

Alan

Ummmm, where did I say these things exactly?  I literally have no idea what you're talking about or why you're quoting me as having said these things.
« Last Edit: 20/06/2016 22:39:06 by IAMREALITY »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums