Science > Physics > Energy in the Knowledge Equation 7: Matter, Radiation, etc.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
28 Nov 2005 02:16:37 PM |
| Object: |
Energy in the Knowledge Equation 7: Matter, Radiation, etc. |
From Osher Doctorow
The "Fundamental Nature of Energy" thread on sci.physics.research,
which I've been discussing for a few sections of my thread here,
generally concludes that different types of energy apply to Matter and
to Radiation, the former with mass, the latter without mass. Since
there is also Dark Energy whose type is not even known, as well as
Quasilocal Energy whose nature relative to the other types is only
beginning to be examined, and since there is not even a single
definition across GR, QM, QFT, classical non-GR physics, general
cosmology, etc., we are in a situation where comparison of the types of
Energy really is needed and where new ideas really are needed. This
runs counter to the "superiority complexes" of some physicists to whom
Founding Fathers and Wise Men are sacred and Department Chairs are the
highest form of life.
The "Know Nothing" crowd, which included arguably Heisenberg, Bohr
partly, and Neumaier of the Fundamental Nature of Energy thread at
least in his first 2 Feb 2004 posting (he later seems to have aroused
from his mental cobwebs somewhat), maintains that Energy is nothing but
a mathematical expression (or several expressions) and doesn't
represent anything physical in the way that force represents a
"push-pull". Although most physicists don't seem to agree, something
has been preventing a major improvement to the results of the
Fundamental Nature of Energy thread, and even that thread should have
been much earlier in history (2004 isn't exactly early physics history
unless we're really in the Primitive Era - which may be true come to
think of it).
Moreover, if most physicists disagree, then why do they not complain
more vocally or in print about the lack of unity in Energy concepts?
Well, in a way they do, since for example it wasn't the top
Neumaier-Carlip-Baez people but "lower" people like McGrew, Sweetzer,
etc., who first complained in the above thread. And Carlip, Baez, and
several others gave good replies and even Neumaier warmed up toward the
end, but here we are again over 1.5 years later and as far I know my
threads are the only ones comparing Energy across scenarios. arXiv and
Front For the Mathematics arXiv/ArXiv keep doing "everything else"
except comparing Energy across scenarios of GR, QM, QFT, Non-GR
Classical, Dark Energy, Quasilocal Energy, etc. (O.K., undoubtedly
somebody will come up with a paper by Frozenboggle of Antarctica that
I've never heard of, but what about tbe thousands of papers that I have
seen?)
I think that Energy is a political weapon protected by Rich
Non-Evangelical Protestants and Rich Islamists, on the one hand, and
leaders but not the people of Russia, Materialist France, China, and
their Islamist and corrupt African allies (Nigeria, etc.) on the other
hand. If anybody did come up with a unified theory of Energy which
enough people read, the monopoly on Energy and therefore on political
power would be endangered.
But enough of politics in this section of this thread. Let's take a
look at what's common to Energy scenarios, and I'll assign that as
Homework until next time.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy in the Knowledge Equation 7: Matter, Radiation, etc. |
28 Nov 2005 03:42:53 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Although Baez linked his contribution to Noether's Theorem, he actually
"gave away" a dimensional viewpoint (consciously or subconsciously)
since he stated (9 Feb 2004 05:07:51 - 0500 Re: Fundamental nature of
energy):
Crudely speaking, energy is that which >causes change in time. In quantum >mechanics, you could even say energy >*is* change in time, since there's a >formula like this:
H = i hbar d/dt
But since h is dimensionally ML^2 T^(-1), multiplying h by d/dt yields
ML^2 T^(-2) dimensionally as in the classical non-GR case.
Still, Baez has noticed that the variable part of H is d/dt with
dimension T^(-1). Let's put that down as the first dimensional
"representation" (DR) of Energy in a generalized sense.
1) DR1(E) = T^(-1)
and we'll put down the usual DR as DR2:
2) DR2(E) = ML^2 T^(-2)
Notice from (1) that if we use variable E in place of DR1(E) and time t
as a variable in place of dimension T, we get:
3) Et = 1
which has an amusing relationship to the Heisenberg U(E)U(t) > =
positive constant. Actually, it may be more than amusing, but that's a
possible story for later.
We don't really need 1 because we could use the constant hbar or ihbar
from H = ihbar d/dt instead, but I'll keep 1 for simplicity here.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy in the Knowledge Equation 7: Matter, Radiation, etc. |
28 Nov 2005 09:01:37 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
We also have:
1) E = hv
for frequency v, and hence for period (time dimensionally) T:
2) E = h/T = hT^(-1)
which corresponds to the first dimensional representation (generalized)
of energy of the previous posting:
3) DR1(E) = T^(-1)
I should also mention that Neumaier wasn't the only proponent of energy
as a purely mathematical concept in the "Fundamental nature of energy"
thread referred to. P. M. Brown, who otherwise put up a "good fight",
and Andrew Resnick of NASA (who didn't put up a good fight), both took
that viewpoint.
We also have several remaining candidates for alternative generalized
representations of Energy (in various contexts) to choose from and
probably more:
1) E = M (energy as mass)
2) E = radiation
3) E = potentiality (of motion)
4) E = actuality (of motion)
5) E = charge (somewhat restricted)
6) E = curvature or a function of curvature
7) E = "dark energy" (almost entirely unknown)
8) E = quasilocal energy
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
