Re: Energy?

Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 17:03 schrieb Ross Finlayson:

On 08/04/2024 02:22 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000004, 04.08.2024 um 03:22 schrieb Ross Finlayson:

On 08/03/2024 03:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 07/30/2024 10:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 07/29/2024 05:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

There is no one person on earth that can even define correctly the
word...Energy.
>
>
>
Stefan Ram wrote:

>
     In a chapter of a book, the author gives this relation for a
     system with mass m = 0:
>
E^2/c^2 = p^"3-vector" * p^"3-vector"
>
     . Then he writes, "This implies that either there is no
particle
     at all, E = 0, or we have a particle, E <> 0, and therefore
     p^'3-vector' <> 0.".
>
     So, his intention is to kind of prove that a particle
without mass
     must have momentum.
>
     But I wonder: Does "E = 0" really mean, "there is no
particle."?
>
     300 years ago, folks would have said, "m = 0" means that
there is
     no particle! Today, we know that there are particles with
no mass.
>
     Can we be confident that "E = 0" means "no particle", or
could
     there be a particle with "E = 0"?
>
     Here's the Unicode:
>
EÂ"/cÂ" = pâ∞˜ · pâ∞˜
>
     and
>
|This implies that either there is no particle at all, E = 0,
or we
|have a particle, E â≈  0, and therefore pâ∞˜ â≈  0.

>

>
Entropy has two definitions, sort of opposite each other,
"Aristotle's and Leibniz'".
>
The energy or energeia then relates to the entelechiae,
content and connectedness, what results to dynamis/dunamis,
which are the same word, one for power the other potential.
>
So, energy is defined by other definitions, the least.

>
What is Einstein's definition of...Energy?
>
>
>

>
It's capacity to do work.
>
It's usual that "everything's energy, after mass-energy equivalence
and the energy of the wavepackets of what are photons", yet, it is
that quantities are _conserved_ as with regards to changes of state
and the _conservation of quantities_ for matter, charge, photon
velocity, and neutron lifetime.
>
I.e., there are conservation laws, about Emmy Noether's theorem
and symmetries and invariance, yet they're really continuity laws,
and quasi-invariance and super-symmetry, and about running constants,
and the regimes of extremes, in a usual theory with least action.
>
These days sometimes it's "information" instead of "energy" which
is "the quantity", with regards to free information and the imaging
of optical visible light and these kinds of things, sort of a
super-classical and quite modern and thoroughly inclusive sort of
theory.
>
Just like anything else, it's capacity to do work, with regards
to "least action: sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials" as it's
the potential fields what are real and then intelligence is simply
action on information, with, "levers" everywhere.
>
Moment and Motion, ....
>
If you want to know Einstein's opinion, his last word on the matter
is "Out of My Later Years", "Relativity", one theory, with GR first.

>
>
Okay, let me put it this way...it seems you are trying to make an
'attempt' to
define the word "energy".
>
You got 5 or 6 paragraphs that seems you are scrounging the Internet in
seach for meanings.
>
It sounds like 6 different people wrote it!

>
Indeed, you may call things 'energy' in any way you want.
But back to basics: something that you call 'energy'
isn't really an energy in a physical sense
unless you can show how it can be converted
(partly, and at least in principle) to 1/2 mv^2.
>
With conservation of energy of course,
>
Jan
>
>

>
Einstein of course got e = mc^2 as the first term of
the Taylor expansion of classical mechanics K.E.,
it doesn't just "appear", and it's only the first
terms of an infinite series "kinetic energy".
>
So, you SR-ians say "we define this" yet it's derived
and you don't know the rest of it.
>
>
Another great thing to think about is that the Heisenberg
uncertainty, about momentum and position and half-Plancks,
it's just a thing about triangle inequality and Born rule
and the baggage of the Eulerian-Gaussian root-mean complex,
in the non-linear and highly non-linear similarly, it's not
so difficult to contrive classical actions that keep the
continuum of the continuous manifold in the quantized.
>
Of course lots of people know that every five years the
Particle Data Group produces the latest fundamental physical
constants of which the small get smaller and large get larger,
as with regards to the "running constants" and "Planckian regime"
as with regards to "superstring theory".

>
Stringtheory is imho nonsense.
>
my own theory is this
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings.
>
The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual.
>
Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is
smooth, but has internal structures.
>
The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a
certain phenomenon called 'handedness'.
>
Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon.
>
This has two sides, but only one surface.
>
If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features)
and let them influence the neighborhood, then structures could appear,
which we can call 'matter'.
>
This moebius strip is now 'bumping' up and down along the timeline,
hence stablizes kind of involution of expansion and contraction.
>
This is such a structur, if timelike stable and could be regarded as
material object.
>
But these objects are not real things, hence can be created out of nothing.
>
Such structures do not need particles or strings, but only spacetime and
a certain kind of connection between the elements.
>
This is a mutliplicative connection and acts, as if the elements would
rotate each other and the elements themselves were biquaternions.
>
>
TH

  It's a continuum mechanics, yes? That's all superstrings are,
"atoms again" as much smaller than atoms as atoms are us.
 

It is in fact based on a continuum, but with internal structure.
The 'mechanism' which creates this structure is assumed to be the kind of interaction.
This is similar to quaternion multiplication 'sideways'.
This is anti-symmetric and can create kind of 'moebius-strip-behaviour'.
With this concept I have tried to establish a connection between GR and QM.
This is realtively simple and goes like this:
assume, that spacetime of GR is a real physical system, which is composed of pointlike elements.
These elements can have features and behave like if they were a certain type of quaternions called 'bi-quaternions' which interact with their direct neighbours in a certain way.
This is similar to a mathematical concept called 'geometric algebra' with complex four-vectors and Pauli algebra.
Now I assume, that the universe behaves like this and therefore tried to build particles out of spacetime.
Out came 'structured spacetime'.
And as far as I can tell, the concept works quite well.
TH