Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Energy

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

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)



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.

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

Give me an example of creating energy.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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 :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'.