Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#39228 07/29/11 10:05 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Here's a thought for people to kick around (out?).

The Universe contains only two kinds of energy: Kinetic energy and potential energy.


There never was nothing.
.
Bill S. #39229 07/30/11 12:56 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
My kick around .... I toy with this stuff all the time

Potential energy against what?
Chemical potential
Gravitational potential
Electrical Potential
Nuclear potential

Why does E=MC2 what has light got to do with things and does it have potential energy or kinetic energy?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39230 07/30/11 01:19 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Potential energy against what?


Is potential energy any less "potential energy" because it can be classified as one variety or another?
Is it not all potential energy?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39234 07/30/11 02:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
My take on the difference between kinetic energy and potential energy? Forget it. Energy is all there is. It has several forms and most of the forms are dependent on what your point of view is. There is radiant energy, which is primarily electromagnetic energy. There is matter, which is just energy wrapped up in a small volume. There is mechanical energy, there is electrical energy.

Kinetic energy and potential energy are basically just book keeping. They are ways of stating how much energy you can get out of a system. And they are relative. For example if you are sitting in a stationary car and there is a road under the car that is moving at 70 mph with respect to the car, then the car will have 0 kinetic energy and 0 potential energy. However, a concrete barrier on the road that is approaching at 70 mph will have a large kinetic energy.

And if you think my road is ridiculous, think about running on a treadmill, it is about the same thing.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39236 07/30/11 05:22 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
then the car will have 0 kinetic energy and 0 potential energy.


Let's look a little closer at the idea of 0 potential energy. Suppose your mobile road had a hole in it, say 100m deep, as it aligned itself with the car, the car would suddenly acquire considerable potential energy, without having done anything.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39237 07/30/11 05:27 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
OK, that is a red herring.

A few questions arise from your last post, Bill, the first of which is: how do you define radiant energy, and electromagnetic energy. I suppose that's two questions really. smile


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39239 07/30/11 07:26 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I don't think I have much to add to what I said. As I said radiant energy is primarily electromagnetic energy, which is the energy carried by an electromagnetic wave. But basically energy is energy. Everything else is book keeping, and I think that is enough said.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill S. #39284 08/04/11 02:11 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
A hole?

Whats holding the stuff together to put a hole in ... IE whats binding your road together?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39289 08/04/11 02:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Orac, I'm not sure that I see the problem. We are all familiar with holes in the road. If we can imagine a stationary car on a road that is moving at 70mph, how difficult is it to imagine a hole moving with the road?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39290 08/04/11 02:43 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
BTW, Bill, I don't think your road is ridiculous, I think Einstein's "Does Oxford stop at this train?" might be apocryphal, but the idea is the same.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39291 08/04/11 02:46 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Orac, I'm not letting the dreaded thread drift deprive me of an answer to my earlier question.

"Is potential energy any less "potential energy" because it can be classified as one variety or another?
Is it not all potential energy?"


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39296 08/04/11 06:36 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, I was going to try to drop out of this thread, but I will go ahead and try one more time.

Potential energy is the energy you can get out of a system when it transforms from one state to another. It depends on the difference in energy levels between the 2 states. As such it is purely relative to the system in which it is being calculated. Oh, it does have to be calculated, I don't think you can measure potential energy. It is a valuable concept in some areas, such as engineering a hydroelectric station. But in itself it is just another useful concept for making calculations. It does not exist as an independent entity. As I have said before it is just a form of book keeping.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39298 08/04/11 07:11 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
What Bill is describing is technically called gauge theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_gauge_theory)

I guess my view is if you have two states like Bill has given you why does it want to move down to the lower level, that is why when I release the ball does it drop rather than float up under gravity. What causes the directionality?

The normal view science view is that you are implying a stored force or a static force if you like a rubber band.

And there in lies the basic problem the moment you introduce a force there has to be something opposing it or else it will collapse or move (Newton called it the 3rd law).

And that leads you straight into the 4 fundemental forces if you believe the story :-)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)

Why I say believe the story because there is no actual proof of the 3rd law its totally deduced and worse we have no explaination of directionality it's the same as times arrow.

Nothing in gauge theory implies direction there would be no reason the ball shouldn't fall upwards because like most things in physics it can go both ways. Infact in some universe the laws of physics could be upside down and balls would fall up and all our formula's would work but backwards.

For some reason gravity has a direction as does energy as does time in our universe. Explain those expalin the universe.


Last edited by Orac; 08/04/11 07:11 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39300 08/04/11 09:11 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Can't you side-step at least some of those directionality issues, Orac, by explaining them in terms of General Relativity?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
redewenur #39314 08/05/11 03:06 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
As I approach my first anniversary as a SAGG poster I asked myself a few questions about the experience.

1. Are you likely to get a straight answer to a question?
Unlikely.

2. Will you get a lively discussion with lots of food for thought?
Usually.

3. Will it be fun?
You bet it will.

As far as this topic is concerned, I'm not sure that I am any further forward than I was at the start. Maybe there's more to come.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39315 08/05/11 03:35 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
A really naive thought!!!

Quote from: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/columbia-university-crackpot-joins.html

"Where is the energy that keeps the moon in orbit coming from? Well the moon already has some energy so lets look at that first. Its moving, so it has kinetic energy (the energy of motion) and it is in a gravitational field so it has potential energy. While the moon circles the Earth it actually trades gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. As it moves away from the earth it gains potential, as it does this it slows down losing potential. This causes it to move back towards the earth, losing potential and gain kinetic. It doesn't have enough energy to escape earth’s pull, which would require more kinetic energy than it has to over come the potential energy of the gravitational field."

Has the moon, and every other orbiting body, discovered perpetual motion?


There never was nothing.
redewenur #39316 08/05/11 03:49 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Can't you side-step at least some of those directionality issues, Orac, by explaining them in terms of General Relativity?


No it gets worse under GR because gravity is basically seen as things running down the gradient ... 1 sec let me see if I can find a visualization I like ... there ...
(http://web.mac.com/limuti/DWT/23_Gravity_Visualized.html) or another way (http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/gravitation.swf)

So basically its like a soft foam matress put two heavy balls on it they displace the foam and want to run together ... married couples in bed should be very used to te effect :-)

So now you are left with the sticky problem where Bill ends up what the hell is stopping it all just collapsing. Why don't all the planets just collapse into one big ball.

You can show the effect even in newtonian simulator just use a one sided gravity equation. (http://www.myphysicslab.com/beta/Inverse-square-gravity.html) Take the elasticity to zero so they don't bounce and see what happens.

So this is very much Bills problem as I see it potential energy at its most basic in gravity under our physics laws wants to drag stuff together .... what stops it?

See at it's heart the really big problem is a really simple question and I guess what I am saying is Bill is simply reworking the known bit but he still does not touch on answering the opposing ... that is all that potential energy is massive ... why doesnt it just collapse the universe in a blinding flash.

Last edited by Orac; 08/05/11 03:51 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39317 08/05/11 04:44 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
So this is very much Bills problem as I see it potential energy at its most basic in gravity under our physics laws wants to drag stuff together .... what stops it?


Not absolutely sure which Bill you mean. If you mean me, that's not really my problem; not that I restrict myself to only one!

My main problem is contained in my last post. How does the moon keep orbiting the Earth, exchanging potential and kinetic energy, apparently withour loss or input of energy?

A few people have already tried to explain this to me, but either I have a bad blind spot, or there is something still unsaid.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39319 08/05/11 06:36 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Thats because you have to start with forces not energy ... this sort of leads back to the above problem. For energy to be measured you first have to produce a force against something and that takes us to the four fundemental forces (http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/forces.htm)

So for your orbital problem we have two forces

Gravity trying to pull the objects together (A fundemental force)
Centrifugal force trying to throw the objects apart (A fictional force born of motion)

Viewed like that at any point in the orbit those two forces are balanced. The energy flow is a side product of the forces. This will help you can view the energy and forces etc (http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~teb/java/ntnujava/Kepler/Kepler.html). If you turn it into energy display it will show you the flow the calc is down below.

This is sort of what I was saying at the start you can't really start with energy because there is no directionality in energy you can't balance things into cycles.

Forces are directional they are always the start point we tend to think energy is but that is wrong. Every motor, every system we make we impart directionality to make them start .... a car engine can go backwards if not timed properly and the starter motor starts it rolling forward. I know of not to many things that will start without at least a gentle nudge to impart the direction we want it to go.

And that leads us back to the start ... in the universe what is the force pushing against and why the directionality.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39320 08/05/11 08:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Forces are directional they are always the start point we tend to think energy is but that is wrong. Every motor, every system we make we impart directionality to make them start .... a car engine can go backwards if not timed properly and the starter motor starts it rolling forward. I know of not to many things that will start without at least a gentle nudge to impart the direction we want it to go.

And that leads us back to the start ... in the universe what is the force pushing against and why the directionality.

Well, in the beginning things were moving in random directions. So some of them would randomly start moving in the same direction. As gravity pulled things together things would randomly start moving toward the center of gravity in a chaotic manner. When more of them started moving off to one side of of the center of gravity they would acquire angular momentum that would keep them moving in a generally circular path around the center of gravity. Since angular momentum is conserved that circular path would be kept up and things would be spinning. I assume that the the universe has a net angular momentum of zero, but I don't really know that. Anyway once a particular subsystem started spinning then it would keep up that spin, so there was no force that directed the motion of objects in orbit around other objects (such as the Moon around the Earth), it was just a random collection of angular momenta.

Anyway that's how I see it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39330 08/06/11 07:47 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
To me it's always a bit like the chicken and egg ... you need energy to create a force and a force transfers energy which came first who can say :-)


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39334 08/06/11 10:35 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
To me it's always a bit like the chicken and egg ... you need energy to create a force and a force transfers energy which came first who can say :-)

That's easy. If you break down anything you can find you will find that it consists of little packets (quanta) of energy in different forms. The universe consists of nothing but energy. So there isn't any question which came first, energy, that's all there is. Forces are the coupling devices between different energy packets.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Orac #39335 08/06/11 10:52 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Have I got this right?

At the dawn of our cosmos, only 'pure energy' is believed to have existed. No particles, not even photons. That energy transformed itself into all that exists today, owing to a bundle of fundamental laws that came with the package.

Something is known about the ways energy now manifests itself, and how it can be described in different ways as it's transferred from one form to another, all the while being conserved (well, so long as it doesn't disappear into another universe, I guess it would have to be). But almost all of the energy in the cosmos seems to be in forms that were entirely unsuspected until very recently, i.e. the mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Yet, even if/when those mysteries are solved, we will still not know what energy is in terms of anything else. As Bill Gill said, energy is energy.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
redewenur #39337 08/07/11 01:48 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I'm probably getting too quick off the mark in this reply. But I'm here so I might as well go ahead.

Basically that is about the way it is. The fact is that scientific laws are basically rules for how things work. They really don't say anything about what the universe is made of and where it came from. We say that a rock falls to the ground because of the law of gravity. But at the basic level we don't know what gravity is or where it comes from. We can tell how the rock will fall based on our understanding of gravity. But the real question "Why is gravity?" is something we just don't know, and probably never will know. That type of question is in the realm of philosophy.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39339 08/07/11 01:58 AM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
G
gan Offline
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
Here we know that our most imaginative theory "String Theory" tell us that Gravity is just Graviton, flying across space and time. (I don't actually believe in that)

For Energy. Yeah! It is the best question. I don't know. Energy starts from nowhere and goes to nowhere. xD
__________________________________________________________________
"Every moment of your life is infinitely creative and the Universe is endlessly bountiful. Just put forth a clear enough request, and everything your heart desires must come to you."
written by Shakti Gawain

gan #39347 08/07/11 02:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
String theory isn't the only thing that has gravitons, so does Quantum Theory. A graviton is a particle that carries gravitational force. Once again, that doesn't tell us what a graviton is, or what gravitational force is. We are still defining everything in terms of what it does. That's science. All it can tell us is how things interact.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39350 08/07/11 05:58 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
To me it's always a bit like the chicken and egg ... you need energy to create a force and a force transfers energy which came first who can say


Obviously, Bill answered this, but I think it's worth mentioning that the answer was contained in the wording of your question: you need energy to create a force, but you don't need a force to create energy.

BTW, evolution solved the chicken and egg problem: the chicken evolved from something else that was already laying eggs. smile


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39351 08/07/11 06:15 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
And that leads you straight into the 4 fundemental forces if you believe the story :-)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)


No problem with 4 forces, but I am yet to be convinced that there are more than 2 forms of energy.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39363 08/08/11 04:49 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

but you don't need a force to create energy.


Give me an example of creating energy without a force?


Quote:

BTW, evolution solved the chicken and egg problem: the chicken evolved from something else that was already laying eggs. smile


And energy evolves from something that is a precursor to a force :-)


I am not doing a socrates here it is the way you can't have energy without containment else it explodes or implodes in a flash and ceases to be energy.

Containment requires forces which is my basic problem with Bill's conjecture that at the start of the universe we just had a bundle of energy ... you could not have that energy as a bundle without the containment forces in place else it would have exploded or imploded.

Anyone show me raw energy without a containment force anyhwere in the universe?

I should say even under string theory your strings have to be vibrating in one of the modes to be energy and as such have to be exerting a force just perhaps not in this physical world.

Edit: And a final thought for you the absolute classic high school physics problem to explain. I have two permanent magnets and I bring them in to a distance and release them. Where does the energy to drag them together arise and I can seperate them and do it over and over again how is this possible? BTW I am not proposing energy for nothing here just showing you a little problem with defining energy :-)

Last edited by Orac; 08/08/11 09:18 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39374 08/08/11 09:49 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Orac
I am not doing a socrates here it is the way you can't have energy without containment else it explodes or implodes in a flash and ceases to be energy

Isn't that what happened? But...

Originally Posted By: Orac
Containment requires forces which is my basic problem with Bill's conjecture that at the start of the universe we just had a bundle of energy ...

I don't think anyone is disputing that there was a force and that gravity may have been either separate or included. My understanding of 'just a bundle of energy' is that there were, at that moment, none of the subsequent manifestations of energy, but I'm not putting words into Bill's mouth, he will speak for himself smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Orac #39376 08/08/11 02:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Here I go again. All ready to show my ignorance. I don't necessarily agree that energy requires containment. After all if you set off a stick of dynamite in a vacuum there is no containment for the energy released.

Then of course energy can provide its own containment. After all energy and mass are interchangeable. So a quantity of energy can generate a gravitational field that will contain the energy. This of course is a problem that I always had with the Big Bang Theory. With the entire mass of the universe contained in a point source, how did it start expanding? It seemed that the gravitational attraction of the mass should have contained the universe. That may be fixed by the idea of dark energy. It seems there is much more dark energy than there is normal(?) energy.

Originally Posted By: Orac
Containment requires forces which is my basic problem with Bill's conjecture that at the start of the universe we just had a bundle of energy ... you could not have that energy as a bundle without the containment forces in place else it would have exploded or imploded.

Well, at the start of the universe the energy that became the universe did explode, so I don't see a problem with that.

And on top of that we really have no idea what happened immediately after the start of the expansion of the universe. In the first few microseconds the energy density was so high that our current physics has no way to handle it. It is only after the Inflationary Period that things got cool enough for us to understand what happened.

Now I think I have driveled on long enough. I also seem to have kind of drifted around in what I had to say.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39380 08/08/11 04:21 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I pretty much agree with what you are saying Bill except at some point when the laws of physics come into being I suspect the opposing forces have to be in effect.

The magnet example gives you a clear indication and actually you can try googling but I doubt you will feel comfortable with the answer.

So we take 2 bar magnets confine them in a plastic "c" section channel perfectly flat note they have 0 kinetic energy and some potential energy relative to there hieight from centre of earth it doesnt matter. Now we slowly move them closer micron by micron at some point they attract and fly together. You hear the click of noise and they moved so there is energy transfer. After the join they still have zero kinetic and the same potential energy. The classic school answer is there is no energy in a magnetic process but you can see that isn't strictly true we lie to the students. So now the question where does the energy come from? I will leave you to ponder that one and perhaps do some reading.

There is actually another place you see it but its dubious many will have seen it which is the effect on the plates when you charge up a capacitor in electricity. And finally the more bizarre one of why do some substances undergo radiactive decay.

They are all very very subtle effects and in effect we usually lie away the answer to make science easier to study :-)


Last edited by Orac; 08/08/11 04:22 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39381 08/08/11 07:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
So we take 2 bar magnets confine them in a plastic "c" section channel perfectly flat note they have 0 kinetic energy and some potential energy relative to there hieight from centre of earth it doesnt matter. Now we slowly move them closer micron by micron at some point they attract and fly together. You hear the click of noise and they moved so there is energy transfer. After the join they still have zero kinetic and the same potential energy. The classic school answer is there is no energy in a magnetic process but you can see that isn't strictly true we lie to the students. So now the question where does the energy come from? I will leave you to ponder that one and perhaps do some reading.

As you say you can ignore the gravitational potential energy, because we are looking at a system that is all at the same level and gravity has no direct effect.

Now there is a potential energy present that has to be taken into account. That is the magnetic potential energy between the 2 magnets. As long as they are separated this potential exists. And it causes the 2 magnets to be attracted to one another.

Your description of the experiment leaves out one thing that is influenced by gravity. That is the friction that exists between the magnets and the surface of the channel. Gravity keeps the magnets in contact with the surface under them and produces the friction. This is why the magnets don't move toward each other until they are a certain distance apart. When the attractive force between the 2 magnets is large enough to overcome the effect of friction they begin to move toward each other.

As the magnets gain speed they gain kinetic energy. When they meet the kinetic energy is released as sound (the click you hear) and heat. At that point it is true the magnets will contain no kinetic energy and no potential energy with respect to each other, but the energy doesn't just up and disappear, it is transformed into a different form. The kinetic energy of the magnets is transferred to the molecules of air and the material the magnets are made of. Of course some of the energy will be transferred to the surface the magnets are moving on, which will be heated by the friction.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that schools teach there is no energy in a magnetic process. Magnetic processes are used to generate power, to change voltage levels in power transmission systems, and to turn motors, among many other things. There are some theoretical (idealized)discussions where things can be moved through a path which results in no net energy change. Of course in these discussions there are instantaneous changes in energy levels, but the overall result is that all the energy transferred between different parts of the system is returned to its source at the end.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39384 08/09/11 02:47 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
In essence you are moving the problem around here is the formula for magnetic potential and yes thats the name we give it

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magpot.html

And down the rabbit hole you go ....

So where does the magnetic potential arise from and where did it go when the two magnets joined?

I hope I am starting to make sense now ... to answer the question you are going to need to understand electron spin and QM and its why we lie to students.

And the page above gives the answer

Quote:

These relationships for a finite current loop extend to the magnetic dipoles of electron orbits and to the intrinsic magnetic moments associated with electron spin and nuclear spin.


Basically it is the same gravity it is fundemental to matter and the laws of physics which is QM.

This is my dislike of some of Big Bang theory we have given above it makes perfect sense from conventional physics (the world of gravity) but it is completely ridiculous from QM point of view.

QM had to arise at some point either right at formation or some point after. At that point certain things have to be in place it's not possible for them not to be.

There is alot of ridicule in QM circles about some who only see gravity world and big bang only involves gravity. In that world Stephen Hawkings is a funny little man in a wheelchair, as Sascha Vongehr commented, who wants to shoot schrodinger's cat.

The theory of big bang from QM perspective is yet to be written and I suspect there are a few nasty shocks coming.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39386 08/09/11 03:54 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I suspect this will develop into a more detailed discussion and not sure how to progress it so lets start with QM shock one from the above.

Remember GR and Einstein to make gravity "work" so he could explain the force and energy he had to join time and space into a foam so matter distorted space and time all good so far right the story works and we have tested GR over and over.

Now we have a problem from the above we have a fundemental attraction repulsion thing which Bill correctly identified as magnetic potential. It is acting across time and space or our spacetime loaf and it isn't related to its mass????? but related somehow to it's electron spin.

Something should be screaming in your head about now :-)

Edit: Even yesterday I saw a cute explaination of GR and the magic force of gravity that just comes into being (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-photons-view.html) do you see the problem with the above and this!


Last edited by Orac; 08/09/11 04:14 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39387 08/09/11 06:06 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
So this leads us to shock 2.

You can't unify QM into GR as we want to I will leave the background to some wiki reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)

The GR an QM unifications section has a telling quote

Quote:

Many prominent physicists, including Stephen Hawking, have labored in the attempt to discover a theory underlying everything, combining not only different models of subatomic physics, but also deriving the universe's four forces —the strong force, electromagnetism, weak force, and gravity— from a single force or phenomenon. While Stephen Hawking was initially a believer in the Theory of Everything, after considering Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable, and stated such publicly in his lecture, "Gödel and the end of physics" in 2002.[37] One of the leaders in this field is Edward Witten, a theoretical physicist who formulated the groundbreaking M-theory, which is an attempt at describing the supersymmetrical based string theory.


Now you probably understand why QM researchers view of Hawking.

Finally now the argument may have been settled by the LHC as super symmetry (SUSY) is read it death rites (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3864)
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmic...he-higgs-boson/)


So where does that lead us lets pick that up on shock 3?

Last edited by Orac; 08/09/11 08:27 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39388 08/09/11 06:16 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Shock 3 is the big one the reason it seems you can't unify GR and QM is the same as for GR and Newtonian physics ... one is a subset of the other no unification is neccessary one completely describes the other.

And the big shock is GR appears to be a subset of QM. That pesky thing that was an annoyance at small size may be very very important.

Enter Quantum electrodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics)

And lets kick forward to the unification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unified_theory)

Now you see my problem with big bang theory or some versions like the gravity driven version.

If GR is a subset of QM and it appears to be it is ridiculous to think it wasn't around at the start of any big bang.

And as a final parting thought:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)

Quote:

Electromagnetism is infinite-ranged like gravity, but vastly stronger, and therefore describes almost all macroscopic phenomena of everyday experience, ranging from the impenetrability of solids, friction, rainbows, lightning, and all human-made devices using electric current, such as television, lasers, and computers. Electromagnetism fundamentally determines all macroscopic, and many atomic level, properties of the chemical elements, including all chemical bonding.

In a four litre jug (approx 1 gallon) jug there are 4000g of H20 who hold a force of 4.1E26 Newtons of force

This is larger than what the planet Earth would weigh if weighed on another Earth

The nuclei in one jug also repel those in the other with the same force. However, these repulsive forces are cancelled by the attraction of the electrons in jug A with the nuclei in jug B and the attraction of the nuclei in jug A with the electrons in jug B, resulting in no net force. The conclusion is clear: Electromagnetic forces are tremendously stronger than gravity but conspire to cancel out so perfectly that for large bodies gravity can dominate.




Last edited by Orac; 08/09/11 07:20 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39389 08/09/11 08:06 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
So how is GR tamed by QM with the modern QM?

Well Sascha Vonhger has a magnificient teaching series to show you the basics.

This stuff is not about complicated mathematics its about simple understanding and should be able to be followed by any high school student.

First trick is to show there is no local realism this is the heart of Einstein's problem with QM and Bell's inequality
(http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/disproving_local_realism-79216)

That leads to the many worlds interpretations, SUSY and string theory which were all the rage but had basic problems
(http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/many_world_interpretation_splitting_wiener_sausage-80042)

Finally we end up at the nice situation of a toy world in which Einstein and QM can co-exist in new QM world
(http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/eins...l_realism-81490)


It's a simple toy world example but finally GR and QM can co-exist which is something Einstein, Hawkings etc could not.

Now lets extend it out to what they are really saying a real world example
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21...ace.html?page=1)

There is no way to say yet whether this particular model is correct but by now you should get the modern QM idea.

Last edited by Orac; 08/09/11 08:38 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39395 08/09/11 07:55 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
One thing that everybody agrees on is that QM (Quantum Mechanics) and GR (General Relativity) are incompatible. They both work extremely well in their spheres, but when you try to move gracefully from the GR area (large masses) to the QM area (small masses) there are a lot of hiccups along the way. I'm not sure where you get the idea that GR is a subset of QM. Now I will fully agree that there is some other explanation out there, but both GR and QM will be subsets of whatever that explanation is. I am certainly not going to accept that QM already contains GR, based on the speculations of 1 or 2 physicists. I'm certainly not accepting, for example, that String Theory is right. And that is the speculation of a great many physicists.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39399 08/10/11 02:33 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
QM and GR have to merge otherwise you have a boundary condition and why and what is causing that boundary condition?

The problem has been originally QM was considered to be only at very small distances the current records are massive by comparison to the original view of atom like scale. We have entagled 1500+ atom structures that is about the size of the insuline molecule and even made quantum resonators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_machine).

They used to have spheres they don't anymore so they have to merge because which you need to use is a bit arbitrary at the moment.

We have now spent almost 100 years trying to merge QM into GR and have been unable to do so. This was based around a backdrop that GR covered the larger area of size and so it just needed adjustment at very small scales.

On the reverse side QM which has exploded in the last 5-10 years and the small size it was supposedly restricted to grows upwards relentlessly. The laws and mathematics has also rigorously been refined and solidified.

What GR has failed to do in 100 years QM can now do trivially there are infact multiple ways to bridge GR into QM as opposed to exactly zero being the reverse because in reverse they always fail Bells Inequality and EPR. The merge does not need to change the laws of GR at all which itself is fascinating.

Like you Bill I am always skeptical and hence I don't say it is proven but given the problems with GR incorporating QM I therefore also do not except Big Bang or at least the gravity dominated view of big bang which is where this conversation started.

Whether any of these merges represent our real world is a completely different question the jury is still out on that one.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39402 08/10/11 02:03 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I can't agree that QM explains everything. For example QM doesn't explain galaxy formation. That is easily explained by GR. Also QM doesn't explain the formation of black holes. But it was QM that brought about the theoretical (but widely accepted) evaporation of black holes. QM also is used to determine what happened right after the big bang. GR is used to explain the expansion of the universe from that time to the present. QM just doesn't work on the scales involved.

Another example: The Sun. QM explains the mechanism by which hydrogen is converted to helium (and other elements), but GR is required to provide the pressures required for the process.

So QM and GR are complementary, but there definitely is a problem when they start getting into the same size range. We are definitely agreed on that. I don't think that that we will merge QM and GR. There will be some other theory that will contain both of them. And that seems to be where there is some minor disagreement between us.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39405 08/11/11 02:07 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Yep Bill I don't think we will ever disagree really you are very logical a trait I also follow :-)

I will correct one small detail

>>> For example QM doesn't explain galaxy formation <<<

You actually can't explain galaxy formation without QM because the universe started out as a compact homogenous lump when it expanded what we should see is a large homogoneous lump and that's not what we see.

To start getting slightly lumpy bits which further up the universe expansion become galaxies you need QM fluctuations to break up the homogenous universe when the universe was very very young.

And I will use wiki to show its is widely accepted is cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution)

Quote:

Galaxy formation is hypothesized to occur, from structure formation theories, as a result of tiny quantum fluctuations in the aftermath of the Big Bang


So again we have this QM thing there at the beginning if you accept the big bang story. At the moment my complaint is it is sort of painted in as a bit part actor.

Last edited by Orac; 08/11/11 02:07 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39423 08/11/11 07:35 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I agree that QM explains the start of the universe, and the first fluctuations that eventually evolved into galaxies. But the actual evolution of galaxies is explained much more clearly by GR. QM does not have a good grasp on gravity, which is the major force accounting for the formation of galaxies. One of the goals of theorists who are working on the Grand Unification Theories (GUTs) is to combine all 4 fundamental forces into a coherent whole.

As I said, both QM and GR are powerful theories that taken together explain almost everything in the universe. However they do not play well together at intermediate, and very small, sizes. So there does need to be a better theory that will provide the same results as QM in areas dominated by particle interactions and the same results as GR in areas dominated by gravity. Right now trying to scale QM up to galaxy sized interactions is not possible, and scaling GR down to atomic sized interactions is also not possible. Heck I don't think it is feasible to scale QM up to baseball sized objects.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39426 08/11/11 08:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Give me an example of creating energy without a force?


Give me an example of creating energy. smile


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39427 08/11/11 08:41 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Containment requires forces which is my basic problem with Bill's conjecture that at the start of the universe we just had a bundle of energy ... you could not have that energy as a bundle without the containment forces in place else it would have exploded or imploded.


What if the Universe were infinite and full of energy from the start? It would have nowhere to go.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39429 08/11/11 08:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill S

Im sure that you realize that you cannot create anything you can only manipulate things.

everything that is here has always been here , no more no less only the forms have changed.

perhaps orac should use generate vs create when talking about energy.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #39430 08/11/11 09:19 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Paul
Im sure that you realize that you cannot create anything you can only manipulate things.


That was precisely the point of my challenge; at least as far as energy is concerned.

However, in the process of converting energy from one form to another, you can generate (create?) a force.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39441 08/12/11 04:26 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Orac
Give me an example of creating energy without a force?


Give me an example of creating energy. smile


To easy radioactive decay ... the weak force

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction)

And yes Pauls comment is correct thats generate as opposed to create we know the source being mass.




Last edited by Orac; 08/12/11 04:28 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39443 08/12/11 11:27 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
To easy radioactive decay ... the weak force


Are we just sparring with words here? You are not saying that energy can actually be created, are you?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39444 08/12/11 11:37 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Orac, I followed your link and found it took me back to the OP!

“In the Standard Model of particle physics the weak interaction is theorised as being caused by the exchange (i.e. emission or absorption) of W and Z bosons;”

The energy involved in an exchange of particles must be kinetic energy, so the energy responsible for the weak force is kinetic energy.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39478 08/14/11 02:29 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Orac, I followed your link and found it took me back to the OP!

“In the Standard Model of particle physics the weak interaction is theorised as being caused by the exchange (i.e. emission or absorption) of W and Z bosons;”

The energy involved in an exchange of particles must be kinetic energy, so the energy responsible for the weak force is kinetic energy.


Your going to have to explain how W & Z bosons are Kinetic energy?

They are the same as any point particle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle) and all they do is spin. How do you get kinetic energy from something that has no radius spinning and they represent the very essence of the problem for you, as you are trying to confine the universe in a very classic sense and we know it fails.

You end up with kinetic energy from imaginary points that don't even really exist having energy by spinning yet how can a point spin at all and it doesnt actually exist in any solid reality becase we can superposition it as many times as we choose?

Perhaps I can agree if you redefine "kinetic energy" to include imaginary particles and there behaviour?

Last edited by Orac; 08/14/11 02:30 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39496 08/14/11 06:05 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I should also say if you are going to interpret "spin" in the old angular momentum way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)) then you are essentially banking on a higgs effect (http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Leib-Clk/higgs.html)

Which sort of equates to your energy hypothesis.

So you are betting on a higgs field Bill S or is it something different?

I am betting there will be no higgs field and far more controversial that fermions and bosons, like the old historic atom story of electrons, protons & nuetron found to be actually a 3D model of the one and only single anyon particle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon).

What I like about the anyon is it means no strange higgs effects and we only have one particle which is firmly linked in to quantum mechanics and wave/particle duality.

My problem with the standard model is QM is still stuck on the side like an ugly duckling with no real reason as to why it would exist other than it does and effects these fundemental particles.

So thats my wild guess at the moment :-)

Last edited by Orac; 08/14/11 06:34 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39501 08/14/11 09:46 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill S
The energy involved in an exchange of particles must be kinetic energy,


How do you exchange anything without movement?

My understanding of kinetic energy is that it is the energy of movement


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39508 08/15/11 03:28 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Bill S
The energy involved in an exchange of particles must be kinetic energy,


How do you exchange anything without movement?

My understanding of kinetic energy is that it is the energy of movement


See the problem is you want your classic phyisical world :-)

Under QM your classic physical world doesn't exist
(http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...ically-possible)

See the energy just jumps from one location to another which is not movement in your classic sense, which sort of contradicts your statement.

So now your problem becomes how did the energy do the jump under a kinetic/potential energy view. The only way I can see you can do it is to have those things outside space itself.

This is the frustration GR has with QM is GR is a descriptive of spacetime but QM simply refuses to play by those rules yet we know they describe some of the same things and must merge at some point.

Last edited by Orac; 08/15/11 03:30 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39514 08/15/11 08:56 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
To me it's always a bit like the chicken and egg ... you need energy to create a force and a force transfers energy which came first who can say :-)

I just got registered. Read your initial post, and now this one.

I agree with your initial post. There are only two types of energy: potential and kinetic. The energy locked inside any body is potential as far as the body is concerned. The speed of the body constitutes its kinetic energy. A transfer between these can be regarded as a change from potential to kinetic and back.

Why not force be regarded as a reactions to energy at the particle level, and spilled over to higher levels when the particles integrate. Then there can be three types of forces: one from kinetic energy, the second from potential energy and the third from the motion of a particle having potential energy. And there are the suitable candidates: gravity, electrostatic force and magnetic force.

finiter #39527 08/16/11 02:26 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The problem is posed in the post above you quantum transport energy how does that fit into the scheme.

Quantum Mechanics has a fundemental law that says quantum information can not be destroyed which is very similar to the law of energy. It's the one Stephen Hawkings ran foul of with some of his black hole work and his dislike of QM :-)

Background:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox) and to prove it (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article...anous-computing). Any attempt to destroy quantum information and it will automatically jump.


The secondary issue we think we 4 fundemental forces we know of

Strong force: The force holds quarks together to make hadrons such as protons and neutrons.
The strong force is carried by gluons. It is covered by quantum chromodynamics (QCD) theory.

Weak force: The force that causes beta decay in a fermion.
The weak force is carried by three gauge bosons: W+, W-, and the Z boson.

Electromagnetic force: This force explains electricity, magnetism, and other electromagnetic waves including light.
This force is carried by the photon. It is covered by quantum electrodynamics theory.

Gravity: A proposed fundamental force. It may be carried by a particle called the graviton, but not yet seen.


Explain the potent and kinetic energy they cover.

Last edited by Orac; 08/16/11 04:22 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39532 08/16/11 04:53 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I will put this in a seperate comment because people may want to comment on this in isolation.

We have two interesting laws

Classic physics: Energy can not be created nor destroyed
QM: Quantum information can not be created nor destroyed


The current view of QM is to make the two laws one and the same otherwise there is the possibility of violations

So for QM ..... Quantum Information = Energy

This is violently opposed by some classical physicists most notably Roger Penrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose) who like Einstein believes GR should cover all things on space and time.

The issue comes up heavily in black holes because QM does not see conventional forces like gravity under QM we say a black hole can not simply destroy matter like the classic physics view. Penrose argues QM measurement are non-unitary (they have no units and therefore no meaning) and therefore they can be destroyed. For Penrose the argument is vital for his Comformal Cyclic Cosmology theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology).

This is the classic square off QM versus GR.

I have to say I am firmly on the QM side simply because it would open up paradoxes in the normal universe.


Last edited by Orac; 08/16/11 04:54 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39533 08/16/11 05:09 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
The problem is posed in the post above you quantum transport energy how does that fit into the scheme.

The basic assumption by Newton that force can create acceleration has led to the wrong notion that 'energy transfer takes place whenever a force acts'. However, Newton did not explain how the energy transfer takes place. So later it was suggested that energy is transferred by transfer of virtual particles.

What I suggest is that 'for a force to act, no energy transfer is required between the bodies that interact. However, when a force acts, the internal energy of the body changes into speed and thus acceleration takes place. The acceleration will be proportional to the force only if the body has enough internal energy or it acquires enough energy from its surroundings.

The weak force is a dis-integrative force, and probably it is the potential energy (internal energy) or a pseudo force that causes the decay.

The strong force is attractive just like gravity. It can be the gravity at quantum level. The weak gravity we observe at the normal level is the spill over or residual force after the formation of atoms.

finiter #39534 08/16/11 08:55 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter
The basic assumption by Newton that force can create acceleration has led to the wrong notion that 'energy transfer takes place whenever a force acts'. However, Newton did not explain how the energy transfer takes place. So later it was suggested that energy is transferred by transfer of virtual particles.

What I suggest is that 'for a force to act, no energy transfer is required between the bodies that interact. However, when a force acts, the internal energy of the body changes into speed and thus acceleration takes place. The acceleration will be proportional to the force only if the body has enough internal energy or it acquires enough energy from its surroundings.

The weak force is a dis-integrative force, and probably it is the potential energy (internal energy) or a pseudo force that causes the decay.

The strong force is attractive just like gravity. It can be the gravity at quantum level. The weak gravity we observe at the normal level is the spill over or residual force after the formation of atoms.


You are educated enough to work this out yourself there is a HUGE gotcha in what you just suggest and I will give you a huge hint look at Newtons 3rd law and you should see the problem.

You don't really take that all seriously do you, or perhaps you believe in perpetual motion?

Last edited by Orac; 08/16/11 09:03 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39537 08/16/11 10:16 AM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

You don't really take that all seriously do you, or perhaps you believe in perpetual motion?

I do take it seriously. I propose that "Energy is a fundamental quality of matter". Every body should be moving at the speed of light. However, some energy is trapped inside and some energy may remain transferred. Thus in all cases, the speed would be greater than zero and less than 'c'.

Orac #39541 08/16/11 05:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
See the energy just jumps from one location to another


Granted, but something causes the energy to jump. What is that?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39542 08/16/11 06:35 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The can not destroy quantum information law .. we don't know what the mechanism is it just does it.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #39546 08/16/11 06:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Just as a point of reference: "The Black Hole War - My battle with Stephen Hawking to make the world safe for Quantum Mechanics" by Leonard Susskind. Basically Stephen Hawking said that information was lost in a black hole. This book outlines Susskind's search for a way to disprove that statement. His problem with the loss of information is that it would cause huge problems for QM.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Bill #39548 08/16/11 07:03 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
The can not destroy quantum information law...


Are you saying that the law causes a physical effect? I thought laws stated how things were. For example: the law of gravity tells us what to expect gravity to do, not what makes it do what it does.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #39560 08/17/11 03:30 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Yes Bill S .. we see this sort of response in a number of places

In you car you distributor cut the supply current to a coil to a magnetic field.

We have a law that says you can not destroy or create energy and the energy in the coil is mantained by the flow of current.

Cutting the current the energy response to this is immediate and brutal it creates a spark which we use as ignition for a petrol engine.

See what you are trying to do is destroy energy the system does everything to not allow that. We understand the effect in normal physics and even can write explainations lik di/dt in the coil where dt becomes very small if not infinite blah blah.

QM information appears to be exactly like energy it seems to obey the same rules you can't create it, you can't destroy it, you can't clone it.
(http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html)

We have been unable to think of any way in which to destroy it. Now think about that here is this effect which is suppose to be trival and minor only important at small scales and you can't stop it .. it will defy normal physics rules to maintain it's existance.

Hawkings being a logical person has come to accept the conclussion QM doesn't see space distance and normal gravity forces and will try and preserve itself how could it possibly be destroyed by a black hole. See for Hawking radiation QM is alive and well right up to the event horizon so the question becomes do you really think it will stop there. Penrose etc believe it does, Hawkings has joined the QM camp given it doesn't even see the event horizon it's not subject to space rules why would it?

Last edited by Orac; 08/17/11 04:52 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5