[Alan McDougall (OP)]

I could probably come up with dozens of theories, but they'd still have no more legitimacy than anyone else's, when it comes down to it.  Cause if it's one thing I've learned from my exploration of the universe and its wonders, is that literally ANYTHING is possible.  Anything at all.  Any theory could hold water, no matter how unreasonable or unlikely it sounds to another. 

So having that said, I guess I'll go in this direction.  We are taught energy can be neither created nor destroyed.  However we forget one small caveat: the fact that only applies to our universe, only to our set of physics, only to our 'reality' and within our own bounds.  No law of physics though, none at all, are said to be multiversally multiversal, if that makes sense (is that the first such a phrase has been uttered?  If so, I hereby lay claim to it!!!).  So we have no idea what the rules for energy or the creation/destruction of it would be external of our own universe, and therefore there can be a whole other set of theories as to where the energy that formed the singularity that has expanded ever since and condensed into all forms of matter may have come from.  Just something to ponder...

You are speculating , there is absolutely no evidence of a macro universe, it has not even reached the stage of being considered a theory. Theories are based on some good evidence and there is of now, no evidence of macro or any other different universe, operating under different rules.

And even if there were other universes,  I simply cannot fathom how the conservation of energy would not apply in them as a fundamental law of physics?

[IAMREALITY]

I could probably come up with dozens of theories, but they'd still have no more legitimacy than anyone else's, when it comes down to it.  Cause if it's one thing I've learned from my exploration of the universe and its wonders, is that literally ANYTHING is possible.  Anything at all.  Any theory could hold water, no matter how unreasonable or unlikely it sounds to another. 

So having that said, I guess I'll go in this direction.  We are taught energy can be neither created nor destroyed.  However we forget one small caveat: the fact that only applies to our universe, only to our set of physics, only to our 'reality' and within our own bounds.  No law of physics though, none at all, are said to be multiversally multiversal, if that makes sense (is that the first such a phrase has been uttered?  If so, I hereby lay claim to it!!!).  So we have no idea what the rules for energy or the creation/destruction of it would be external of our own universe, and therefore there can be a whole other set of theories as to where the energy that formed the singularity that has expanded ever since and condensed into all forms of matter may have come from.  Just something to ponder...

You are speculating , there is absolutely no evidence of a macro universe, it has not even reached the stage of being considered a theory. Theories are based on some good evidence and there is of now, no evidence of macro or any other different universe, operating under different rules.

And even if there were other universes,  I simply cannot fathom how the conservation of energy would not apply in them as a fundamental law of physics?

Ummmm, every single one of us are speculating son, that's the whole point of the exercise.    And though I'm not a fan of the multiverse myself, I am also forced to admit that there are plenty of reasons to accept that it actually is plausible.  There is nothing that has ruled it out and it is no longer considered a fringe idea. In fact, some of the best and brightest in the field accept the possibility.

Science since it's very first days has been limited by those with limited minds; who only can think as deep as their own narrow beliefs.  I choose to not be a slave to such limitations; even when dealing in angles I'm not a fan of.  I will still never allow my mind, nor my thought experiments, to have any boundaries. 

And it's not surprising to me that you are unable to fathom such a concept as you state, because you are in fact a slave of your self imposed mental limitations.  And it is silly to say there is no evidence of there being different rules in different universes, since it is likely that it would be impossible, no matter how advanced we get, to ever have any proof of anything beyond the bounds of our own universe.  So it will always be speculation based on the best theories or concepts our intelligent minds can indeed fathom.  And right now we're just only getting started.  But yes, there are not only reasons to believe the multiverse concept can be real, but also reasons to believe that physics may indeed act differently there.  Unless, of course, you believe Stephen Hawking to be a chump...

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

IAMREALITY?

For me to be your son you would have to be at least 105 years old so please no patronising here keep it serious.

I see nothing wrong with speculation, however, there is another sub-forum for this type of debate

Maybe you should start a thread under 'New Theories" below? 

Thanks

Alan

[IAMREALITY]

IAMREALITY?

For me to be your son you would have to be at least 105 years old so please no patronising here keep it serious.

I see nothing wrong with speculation, however, there is another sub-forum for this type of debate

Maybe you should start a thread under 'New Theories" below? 

Thanks

Alan

Sorry son, but I feel no need to start a new thread in a sub forum, when it is perfectly appropriate as an answer written here.  You asked a question.  I merely gave my opinion on it.  It's ya know, kinda like the point here and stuff. 

But you have yet to refute one thing I've said nor give any credible reason as to why my replies are any more invalid than anyone else's.  You seem to want to think you're the be all end all, but you've clearly shown to be the opposite.  You want to dabble in the deeper mysteries of the universe, the things we do not yet know, yet you start with boundaries and mental limitations that are not in any way conducive to discovery or the process.   You don't seem to like there to be any discussion about the multiverse for example, when it is actually a product of our physics and starting to be regarded more and more as a likelihood; albeit one that may always be impossible to prove.  But the things we can prove, and the theories we do have, and as a product of our own physics, the concept and even likelihood of a multiverse is very, very real...

So you're just gonna have to find a way to get over it I think.  I'm sure in time you will.

For now though, I will continue to reply to whatever thread I like, whenever I like, however I like, and do not require your permission nor your advisement with any of it.  For I will not ever take advice from a limited mind.  Thanks.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

IAMREALITY?

For me to be your son you would have to be at least 105 years old so please no patronising here keep it serious.

I see nothing wrong with speculation, however, there is another sub-forum for this type of debate

Maybe you should start a thread under 'New Theories" below? 

Thanks

Alan

Sorry son, but I feel no need to start a new thread in a sub forum, when it is perfectly appropriate as an answer written here.  You asked a question.  I merely gave my opinion on it.  It's ya know, kinda like the point here and stuff. 

But you have yet to refute one thing I've said nor give any credible reason as to why my replies are any more invalid than anyone else's.  Fact is, you've got nuttin pal.  You seem to want to think you're the be all end all, but you've clearly shown to be the opposite.  You want to dabble in the deeper mysteries of the universe, the things we do not yet know, yet you start with boundaries and mental limitations that are not in any way conducive to discovery or the process.   You don't seem to like there to be any discussion about the multiverse for example, when it is actually a product of our physics and starting to be regarded more and more as a likelihood; albeit one that may always be impossible to prove.  But the things we can prove, and the theories we do have, and as a product of our own physics, the concept and even likelihood of a multiverse is very, very real...

So you're just gonna have to find a way to get over it.  I'm sure in time you will.

For now though, I will continue to reply to whatever thread I like, whenever I like, however I like, and do not require your permission nor your advisement with any of it.  For I will not ever take advice from a limited mind.  Thanks.

(PS... I just read your god post lmao.  Ok, it all makes sense to me now lol.  )

OH! GREAT ONE! who is only able to write in gutter level English and has the gall to insult the intellect of someone he knows nothing about will in future be ignored.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0

[PmbPhy]

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.

Jeff is correct in what he said. When physicists use the term energy that is precisely what it means. Have you never read the Feynman Lectures on this topic? On the meaning and subject of energy Feynman writes
[quotes]
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives “28” -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.

The same sentiment is reflected in most good texts on physics such as those by French, Glashow, etc.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.

Jeff is correct in what he said. When physicists use the term energy that is precisely what it means. Have you never read the Feynman Lectures on this topic? On the meaning and subject of energy Feynman writes
[quotes]
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives “28” -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.

The same sentiment is reflected in most good texts on physics such as those by French, Glashow, etc.

Feynman's the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature. Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing  energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter and energy that is useful tool in the physics .

[IAMREALITY]

OH! GREAT ONE! who is only able to write in gutter level English and has the gall to insult the intellect of someone he knows nothing about will in future be ignored.

Gutter level english lmao.  And awwww, how cute, you're gonna ignore me for merely coming at you with logic, could you be any more childish?  How bout actually responding to the points given to you instead of constantly replying as if you're the be all end all with your nose up in the air while obviously having no idea what you're talking about?  You are just too funny!  And nah, not insulting your intellect...  You've done more than a fine enough job of that on your own with your own words and sentiments son...

Oh, and ps... I will say I appreciate you calling me Great One though....  I don't mind sharing that title with Gretzky one bit!

[IAMREALITY]

Jeff is correct in what he said. When physicists use the term energy that is precisely what it means. Have you never read the Feynman Lectures on this topic? On the meaning and subject of energy Feynman writes
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives “28” -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
The same sentiment is reflected in most good texts on physics such as those by French, Glashow, etc.

Who is Feynman??


Just kidding hehehe.  I'm familiar with him of course and have watched some of his lectures, but not necessarily what you are referring to.  I did just read a little about it, however. 

I guess what throws me off is how based on what I know everything had come from a singularity of unimaginably hot, pure, higher state energy, and how mass and matter only came thereafter.  How can something only be an attribute of something else that does not yet exist?  I guess that's the part that throws me off a bit.

And was Jeff earlier inferring that it is only an attribute of mass or that right now that's merely the only way we have to describe it?

[JohnDuffield]

You assume to know what Einstein meant. You think that your one opinion outweighs the multitude of professionals working directly with the particles whose energy to presume to know all about.

Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.

They don't and I'm not. There is no subtlety to E=mc². What Einstein said is there in black and white for all the world to see: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²." If somebody tells you something different, don't just take it for granted, ask him why he's contradicting Einstein. And when he can't or won't explain, you'll know there's a problem, won't you?

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass.

No it isn't. Please don't peddle such twaddle.

Mass itself is not straightforward.

Mass is straightforward.

John uses the term mass without specifying its type.

When used without qualification, we mean rest mass.

Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand.

I understand them all. The latter three are nowadays considered to be measures of energy. A photon has a non-zero inertial mass, but it has a zero rest mass.

It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science.

That's what you've been doing. Energy is not an attribute of mass because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.   

It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.

The best answers come from people who explain things carefully and back up what they say with robust references to papers and evidence.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

You assume to know what Einstein meant. You think that your one opinion outweighs the multitude of professionals working directly with the particles whose energy to presume to know all about.

Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.

They don't and I'm not. There is no subtlety to E=mc². What Einstein said is there in black and white for all the world to see: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²." If somebody tells you something different, don't just take it for granted, ask him why he's contradicting Einstein. And when he can't or won't explain, you'll know there's a problem, won't you?

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass.

No it isn't. Please don't peddle such twaddle.

Mass itself is not straightforward.

Mass is straightforward.

John uses the term mass without specifying its type.

When used without qualification, we mean rest mass.

Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand.

I understand them all. The latter three are nowadays considered to be measures of energy. A photon has a non-zero inertial mass, but it has a zero rest mass.

It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science.

That's what you've been doing. Energy is not an attribute of mass because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.   

It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.

The best answers come from people who explain things carefully and back up what they say with robust references to papers and evidence.

Richard Feynman the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy, nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature.

Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter, that is useful tool in the physics and thermodynamics .

[IAMREALITY]

Richard Feynman the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy, nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature.

Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter, that is useful tool in the physics and thermodynamics .

De Ja Vu.  Not sure you're really saying much of anything at all though, or at least to the point that it needs to be repeated now for any further inquiry on the subject...  I can't help wondering if you're thinking it's more profound than it actually is?  But anyway, there may not be blobs of energy roaming about, but I'm not certain that makes it any less worthy of existence than fields, or waves, or anything else there aren't blobs of.  What I've gathered so far, is that energy is simply something we have not yet wrapped our heads around to the point of truly understanding, much like so many other aspects of physics, quantum physics, and everything else universal.  In the end it could have mind blowing explanations, and be far more 'real' than we could even begin to surmise right now.  The most important thing Feynman said was that we simply do not know what it is.  I would caution you'd be well served to not try to imply that you in fact do.

[jeffreyH]

You assume to know what Einstein meant. You think that your one opinion outweighs the multitude of professionals working directly with the particles whose energy to presume to know all about.

Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.

They don't and I'm not. There is no subtlety to E=mc². What Einstein said is there in black and white for all the world to see: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²." If somebody tells you something different, don't just take it for granted, ask him why he's contradicting Einstein. And when he can't or won't explain, you'll know there's a problem, won't you?

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass.

No it isn't. Please don't peddle such twaddle.

Mass itself is not straightforward.

Mass is straightforward.

John uses the term mass without specifying its type.

When used without qualification, we mean rest mass.

Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand.

I understand them all. The latter three are nowadays considered to be measures of energy. A photon has a non-zero inertial mass, but it has a zero rest mass.

It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science.

That's what you've been doing. Energy is not an attribute of mass because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.   

It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.

The best answers come from people who explain things carefully and back up what they say with robust references to papers and evidence.

Define what you think Einstein meant by radiation. You have your audience.

[jeffreyH]

John, for your personal education and development. Read and absorb.  []

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_coefficients

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

John, for your personal education and development. Read and absorb.  []

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_coefficients

I read the article. Thanks

I know you know what I am saying below? However, I would like to put it over in my own way!

Energy for instant is released from an atom when an electron changes is discrete position from either a higher or lower state from the electron cloud or "Orbit", ("which is not a correct description of the make up of an atom but useful analogy") with the resulting release of a photon of light "containing potential energy", as is in the case of atomic fusion in the sun, where hydrogen atoms in the core are progressively over vast periods of time fuse into heaver and heaver elements. This energy then gets released in turn into the universe increasing its state of chaos and entropy.

In the almost unimaginably distant future at say "the heat death of the universe", all the original energy released into the universe "would still be it is confines", but so dissipated and the entropic state increased to almost infinity, that no further activities could ever take place again.

The basic causes of release of energy is the fusion taking place due to the huge force of gravity and colossal temperature at the core of the sun Thus; in my opinion while gravity plays a huge part in the energy flow or entropy of the universe at large, "it not really the primordial source of energy".

Energy can only be described as "an equation of thermodynamics" and is not a real separate, tangible material thing that could, "hypothetically, be picked up and held in a persons hands"

[PmbPhy]

Regarding energy and mass, I'd like to make a point that people might know subconsciously but not be aware of it consciously. Consider a  body whose relativistic mass m. Then The E in the expression E = mc² is not the total energy of the body but what I like to refer to as the inertial energy which is the sum of the bodies rest energy and its kinetic energy. The E does not contain the energy of position, i.e., potential energy.

One of the excuses people use against relativistic mass is We don't need relativistic mass because it's the same thing as energy. This is wrong because energy means total energy which includes potential energy. However the E in  E = mc² is not total energy because it doesn't contain potential energy.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

Regarding energy and mass, I'd like to make a point that people might know subconsciously but not be aware of it consciously. Consider a  body whose relativistic mass m. Then The E in the expression E = mc² is not the total energy of the body but what I like to refer to as the inertial energy which is the sum of the bodies rest energy and its kinetic energy. The E does not contain the energy of position, i.e., potential energy.

One of the excuses people use against relativistic mass is We don't need relativistic mass because it's the same thing as energy. This is wrong because energy means total energy which includes potential energy. However the E in  E = mc² is not total energy because it doesn't contain potential energy.

What then in the case of an matter - antimatter "Clash"? Does that release all the energy (Total)  "held"? in those two opposing forms of matter, converting them into gamma rays? However, in the event just described, "all of the energy"? has just been dissipated into the gamma ray cloud only changed in form.

We are lucky this did not happen in the early universe or we would not be debating this subject, especially in light of the fact that the universe would have then existed as a vast gamma-ray void.

There is no such thing as anti-energy, as some have speculated , energy is energy, the release and consequence usage thereof, can only be reflected as an equation of thermodynamics, in the macro world. At the quantum level it seems to be more mysterious and difficult to define?

There must be a loss somewhere, because it is impossible to convert 100% of energy from one form of it to another. where would that energy have gone?

[PmbPhy]

What then in the case of an matter - antimatter "Clash"? Does that release all the energy (Total)  "held"? in those two opposing forms of matter, converting them into gamma rays? However, in the event just described, "all of the energy"? has just been dissipated into the gamma ray cloud only changed in form.

The phrase release the energy is a confusing one since it doesn't have a exact meaning. Typically when people use this phrase they have in mind that photons are energy that's been released or something similar. However that's thinking of photons as "being" energy rather than "having" energy, which is the correct viewpoint. I recommend avoiding that kind of phrasing. It can lead to the wrong idea. For example when a nuke goes off, a lot of the damage that the radiation (in the forum or photons, alpha rays, beta rays, neutrons etc) that is released can do is in the form of particles with very high kinetic energy. So perhaps that's what you may have meant when you say released, i.e. particles with kinetic energy are released?

What is not well known is that when a particle annihilates its antiparticle the result is not always photons. Sometimes its other particles.

There must be a loss somewhere, because it is impossible to convert 100% of energy from one form of it to another. where would that energy have gone?

It's possible to convert potential energy completely into kinetic energy. It's also possible to convert rest energy completely into radiant energy (in the form of photons).

[jeffreyH]

Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

So you are effectively ignoring the gamma factor in there which shows that it is relativistic mass that Einstein is talking about. If you knew your physics you wouldn't make such silly mistakes.

[timey]

Regarding energy and mass, I'd like to make a point that people might know subconsciously but not be aware of it consciously. Consider a  body whose relativistic mass m. Then The E in the expression E = mc² is not the total energy of the body but what I like to refer to as the inertial energy which is the sum of the bodies rest energy and its kinetic energy. The E does not contain the energy of position, i.e., potential energy.

One of the excuses people use against relativistic mass is We don't need relativistic mass because it's the same thing as energy. This is wrong because energy means total energy which includes potential energy. However the E in  E = mc² is not total energy because it doesn't contain potential energy.

Ah - interesting!

Ok - so let me get with this one a bit better.

You say E=mc2 is inclusive of what you call 'inertial energy' and kinetic energy.

KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE

So when I see the formula E=mc2, can I assume that the calculation for KE has already been completed?

And that the m in the equation is already complete with the relativistic mass added via the additional KE energy?

And... is this what distinguishes the terms of E=mc2 and e=mc2?