Energy Explained

[arkain101]

So in your example, the entropy will continue to drop exponentially until the limit of zero. The temparature will drop expanentially until the limit of zero. But the overall energy will remain constant, but just spread out over more bars.

So I wonder, would we end up with infinite bars? or a number of bars so great it would require more than we could muster? The point of this question and sorry for placing it in this thread, is that, what this number comes to, would directly apply to explaining the universes size.

[Farsight]

I am wondering whether photons kind of "make" the space they travel through.

[arkain101]

I am wondering whether photons kind of "make" the space they travel through.

In relation to my theory of relativity popular, a photon does make space. Infact it is space. :)

 

As space contracts for a frame, let us use the frame of an electron, it must use up energy, that is because velocity nearing C requires energy and compresses space relative to the frames observation.

 

From an outside measurement we would observe the electron to expand dimensionally. When the electron is observed to fall back down, the reverse would occur. Its view is that its space has expanded, dimensionally. This requires just as much energy to do than it does to contract it. So, energy in the form of spacial contraction is released from the atom, via mechanics that I am not confident to presume. The energy or spacial contraction is in the form of a masseless wave-particle. Or let us say an observation of space changing. (however the logic might actually be in the reverse process, that is viewing expansion makes the energy...)

 

The more matter that does this action of spacial change, the greater the intensity it can create. Wwhen you observe space contracting relative to your oservation you are infact moving towards it. So the frequency of spacial contraction from a large body of mass goes out from the body sphere-like, and loses intesity as pulses outwards. Any observatoin frame that comes in the vacinity of these passing contractions of space, will keep on seeing space contract, bit by bit.. thus they keep on getting closer, or aka gravity.

 

So if we take earth for example and a person. The person emmits spacial contraction all the time, and infact the earth itself observes the person getting closer/time it is in the vacinity. However, the intesity of the persons contraction is so minimal to the earths that relative to eachother, the person observes MORE contraction, so their frame accelerates more quickly. This would be mass. The difference between frames, and how the accelerate relative to eachother in many forms of interaction.

 

To help with this concept;

 

 

All things are frames. All frames observe the present, they have no dimension. So everything is respectivly a frame of no dimension.

There is nowhere you can go where you are not a frame. Everything is a frame (and frame of observation). A) it must have constant speed of light :hyper: the laws of physics remain the same.

 

 

 

Try to think of all the places you could observe from; an electron, or an atom as a whole, or whatever.

In your frame as in all frames, all obseravations are inside your present moment. Thus you are frame of zero dimension. Distance is your future, your future is distance. What you see happen is what happens. Or that is, what happens, like spacial contraction, is what will effect that frame.

 

It is impossible to not be in a frame of observation. Everytime you see an object you are viewing from a frame. And if you imagine to view from that object you are becoming a new frame, and if you want to imagine observations from atoms with in that object you are only becoming another frame. It is the conclusion to all things, and everything a frame observes happen happens to its frame.

 

Regardless of what you want to lable or title something, such as; matter, or electron, or proton, or anything you can think of, in general you are refering to a frame. In that frame, is no dimension and the same laws of physics apply, C, and consistant physics.

 

Anything that is a dimension is what is observed and it is your present moment. By this, You can only conclude that everything you see is your present, which is zero distance.

 

If you fall to earth did you fall? Or did you observe the space shrinking between you and the earth.

If you said fall you claim there is real space.

If you said, you observed space to contract between you and earth you claim there is no space but only observations in zero dimension.

 

Adding dimension only adds new form of restrictions.

Removing dimension opens up infinity and boundlessness.

[arkain101]

Adding dimension only adds new form of restrictions.

Removing dimension opens up infinity and boundlessness

[sebbysteiny]

I'm not quite sure which last sentence you mean. It's quite hard to say what a photon is. We know it's an electromagnetic "wave" thingy, and we know it's got momentum and energy, but is it "made" out of the things its got?

 

I mean the last sentence of the paragraph I quoted.

 

As for the photon, I think it's just made out of electromagnetic waves (ie electric field waves coupled to magnetic field waves). However, electric fields and magnetic fields require energy.

 

I'm not aware of any alternative explanation.

 

They can be formed, for example, when an electron oscillates between energy states (electric charge moving in simple harmonic motion) as it emmits radiation.

 

Fair dinkum if you don't think the money helps. I understand what you mean about spacetime, perhaps we can discuss that elsewhere? And I do take your fossil fuel point about the energy becoming unavailable, I just wanted to stress that it's still there but dispersed. Hmmn, maybe I do need to talk about entropy. Noted.

 

And I will also note that there is a massive knowledge gap about what exactly energy is, particularly regarding squaring up the comment (the world is running out of energy) with the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed; only change it's form.

 

1) fundamental property. 2) statistical property. Why are the two mutually exclusive? My understanding is that it is both.

 

I take an ontological view, and say a fundamental property is something that a subatomic "particle" has got. It hasn't got colour ....

 

I wonder how much you know about quarks :).

 

But on your point, I understand your view. What I meant was that it was a function of state, which makes it a fundamental property of matter, at least on the macroscopic scale.

 

So I wonder, would we end up with infinite bars? or a number of bars so great it would require more than we could muster? The point of this question and sorry for placing it in this thread, is that, what this number comes to, would directly apply to explaining the universes size.

 

I'm not sure an entropy calculation like this is necessary. There is zero entropy when and only when everything in the universe is at absolute zero.

 

You also cannot forget the effect of lone photons, which do not contribute to entropy as far as I'm aware.

 

I am wondering whether photons kind of "make" the space they travel through.

 

In relation to my theory of relativity .....

 

Is this your own personal theory or the one established by Einstein?

 

I'm not sure they do. Space is the vacuum. And whiste many things do happen in a vacuum, I'm not sure the passage of electromagnetic waves actually do anything significant to that vacuum.

[arkain101]

Is this your own personal theory or the one established by Einstein?

It is my own theory.

 

It is based from SR understandings.

 

However I have not studied GRT at all so I am not so sure if its new or not.

 

This theory says all frames are zero dimension.

What a frame observes is 4D space-time.

However all things are likewise frames and all frames are observational.

[sebbysteiny]

It is my own theory.

 

It is based from SR understandings.

 

Very well, I'm not sure here is the right thread to discuss it, but I'll give it proper consideration nonetheless.

 

From an outside measurement we would observe the electron to expand dimensionally. When the electron is observed to fall back down, the reverse would occur. Its view is that its space has expanded, dimensionally. This requires just as much energy to do than it does to contract it. So, energy in the form of spacial contraction is released from the atom, via mechanics that I am not confident to presume. The energy or spacial contraction is in the form of a masseless wave-particle. Or let us say an observation of space changing. (however the logic might actually be in the reverse process, that is viewing expansion makes the energy...)

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying here that as the distance (and time) contracts as measured by one observer, energy is required in a similar way to the way energy is required to compress a string.

 

However, I do not think this is consistant with SR.

 

When a distance 'contracts' it does not, as far as I'm aware, actually contract. All it means is that measurements made by one frame on another will be smaller than measurments made from that other frame. So atoms would be measured smaller, etc.

 

This seems to me to be more of an optical illusion than a physical compression.

 

But my instinct alone is not sufficient to suggest that your idea is wrong. Instead, I'll propose a thought experiment.

 

Imagine an observer accellarating to a speed 0.99c relative to the Earth. According to you, energy is needed to compress the space-time of that observer. According to me, no such energy is needed other than that necessary to provide Kinetic energy. You might say that the Kinetic energy is linked to spacetime compressions. Okay, so far we can both be right.

 

But now, look at it from the observers point of view. He will not see his own frame compressed. Instead, he has compressed the frame of the entire Earth. So now, vastly more spacetime is compressed from his perspective than from the perspective of the Earth. Yet they have both used exactly the same amount of energy as measured in all frames. So if I'm right, this makes no difference. If you're right, you have created a paradox that I cannot see a way of resolving.

 

I must admit I found the rest of it harder to understand, but I understood this bit

 

If you fall to earth did you fall? Or did you observe the space shrinking between you and the earth.

If you said fall you claim there is real space.

If you said, you observed space to contract between you and earth you claim there is no space but only observations in zero dimension.

 

Okay, hypothesis 1, there is real space. When you fall, you actually travel through a clear spacetime.

 

Hypothesis 2 there is no real space. When you fall, it is the space between you and the Earth that contracts.

 

Experiment, A person falls from sky onto the ground.

Result: person collides with the ground and dies horribly. No relativistic effects are observed.

 

Conclusion. If there was no real space (Hypothesis 2), there is no reason to suppose that the Earth's ground will not shrink in the same proportions. The person should observe the Earth shrinking in the same way he observes the space between the Earth shrinking. If the air is observed to shrink by 100miles, so too should the ground. These relativistic effects should be clearly visable with the naked eye. However, according to hypothesis 1, no relativistic should be clearly visable with the naked eye.

 

No relativistic effects are visable with the naked eye. So hypothesis 1 wins.

 

According to hypothesis 2, the space between the leg (the lowermost part of the observers body) and the ground should continuously get smaller. But I find it difficult to see how there should actually be a collision. Hypothesis 1 expects a nasty collision with the ground resulting in death or hidious injuries.

 

There is a nasty collision with the ground resulting in death or hidious injuries. Conclusion, hypothesis 1 wins again :-(.

[arkain101]

note this is on topic with popular and his concepts. He had thoughts similar to my own that I thought would be benificial to discuss.

 

Very well, I'm not sure here is the right thread to discuss it, but I'll give it proper consideration nonetheless.

 

But my instinct alone is not sufficient to suggest that your idea is wrong. Instead, I'll propose a thought experiment.

 

Imagine an observer accellarating to a speed 0.99c relative to the Earth. According to you, energy is needed to compress the space-time of that observer. According to me, no such energy is needed other than that necessary to provide Kinetic energy. You might say that the Kinetic energy is linked to spacetime compressions. Okay, so far we can both be right.

 

But now, look at it from the observers point of view. He will not see his own frame compressed. Instead, he has compressed the frame of the entire Earth. So now, vastly more spacetime is compressed from his perspective than from the perspective of the Earth. Yet they have both used exactly the same amount of energy as measured in all frames. So if I'm right, this makes no difference. If you're right, you have created a paradox that I cannot see a way of resolving.

 

If a frame observes spacial contraction in the direction of motion, an outside frame will observe that speeding frame to expand in the direction of motion. I too am not fully sure if this is physical or optical.

 

If you're right, you have created a paradox that I cannot see a way of resolving.

The energy is equal but in opposite forms in each frame. Let us say all events have an equal and opposite counterpart event. Know of an event, be sure of an equal opposite reaction.

This however excludes force. Force is a product of this relationship. Force is only movement from outside the event. But, to be in the event the collaboration of the event is a physical force. Two equal and opposite events form every force. respect to this theory and its postulates

 

 

Okay, hypothesis 1, there is real space. When you fall, you actually travel through a clear spacetime.

 

Hypothesis 2 there is no real space. When you fall, it is the space between you and the Earth that contracts.

 

Experiment, A person falls from sky onto the ground.

Result: person collides with the ground and dies horribly. No relativistic effects are observed.

 

Conclusion. If there was no real space (Hypothesis 2), there is no reason to suppose that the Earth's ground will not shrink in the same proportions. The person should observe the Earth shrinking in the same way he observes the space between the Earth shrinking. If the air is observed to shrink by 100miles, so too should the ground. These relativistic effects should be clearly visable with the naked eye. However, according to hypothesis 1, no relativistic should be clearly visable with the naked eye.

 

No relativistic effects are visable with the naked eye. So hypothesis 1 wins.

 

According to hypothesis 2, the space between the leg (the lowermost part of the observers body) and the ground should continuously get smaller. But I find it difficult to see how there should actually be a collision. Hypothesis 1 expects a nasty collision with the ground resulting in death or hidious injuries.

 

There is a nasty collision with the ground resulting in death or hidious injuries. Conclusion, hypothesis 1 wins again

 

Call it a frequency. One frame sees distance contract, the other will see matter expand, only momentaraly, and only on a nuclear sized level.

 

An observation of gravity is, to move without feeling a force by means of this space-time distortion,, and it simply makes you observe space shrink, and the other frame sees objects grow, at the same moment and vice versa. When gravity appears to exert a force, that is when energy is being spent to prevent movement, and you feel acceleration, or experience your own mass.

 

frame1 +matterexpansion = frame2 -space contraction

>

m1 +matterexpansion = m2 frame2 -space contraction

m2 +matterexpansion = m1 frame2 -space contraction

>

back and forth by the frequency of atoms relativistic effects.

>

eventually into this where the constant G, relates to C. And the distance between centers of gravity is a squared relationship . Force is a product of the equal opposites.

 

 

 

we can claim there is space but, do you also agree all you can and have ever been able to observe is your present moment correct? A present moment is events occuring now, inside your frame, the physical actions of your atoms. Any distance, or let us say space outside this frame is your future.

So even though it makes perfect sense to claim there is space, none of us can technically leave our present to observe it. What one can do on the other hand is spend energy to have your observations measured distance to contract which at the same moment causes the observations to of objects physical size to expand.

 

So,

In the mathematics of general relativity, the Einstein field equations become a set of simultaneous differential equations which are solved to produce metric tensors of spacetime. These metric tensors describe the shape of the spacetime, and are used to obtain the predictions of general relativity.

To apply property to space-time is as if to apply property to your thoughts. You can not ever find a place to view space-time where you are not a present moment, observer. So however accurate the model works in predicting what occurs, it is still fundamently impossible to experience the property of space-time and hold it, alike thought. You can create a geometry system on paper to understand it. Although the only way you can experience it is to watch things get bigger untill wham!!, that actions equal and opposite reaction takes on many forms!

In respect to observations, we can take einsteins general relativity warped space-time geometry, and turn it into first hand observation.

 

Instead of our perception of a bowl around earth, we could use a meter stick.

Let us say that gravity is a shorter meter stick for C to travel through, a relative C-meter.

Far from earth the meter is larger in comparison to the surface. Events that occur in the larger relative C-meter travel into a condensed smaller C meter. The speed of light remains constant, however the events occur in a smaller C-meter, thus the time observed quickens. Like wise, events that occur in a smaller C-meter like deep in a dense star, travel outwards, and when they enter an observers relatively larger C-meter, the events are stretched out in time, slowing them down.

This is einsteins space-time geomety model converted to the proper first hand observation.

Furthermore, an observe who is in large C-meter will always travel to where a smaller C-meter is.

Like the commanly known image:

(keep in mind It is acceptable at this stage to speak about space and distance as real)

 

So to an observer, you invetiably find that a large body of mass will grow, and space will decrease when you happen to be in its vacinity. The smaller the C-meter the more energy you will contain before impact, and the more time you allow to accelerate, the less massive you will act, and the more energy you will contain (aka distance, or potential gravitation energy). Energy that will inflict work on impact.

[arkain101]

so I am curious on populars insight.

Popular: I am wondering whether photons kind of "make" the space they travel through.

Why do you wonder this.

[sebbysteiny]

Nice theory arkain101.

 

Before I read it in great detail (which takes time), there was a preliminary point that I wanted to discuss.

 

It seems to me that fundamental to your theory certainly to explain my 'energy' paradox, is that when one frame shrinks, it can be viewed as the other frame expanding. And both actions requires an equal amount of energy.

 

However, frames have never been seen to expand in this way, only shrink.

 

The observer in my expriment will observe the Earth to shrink. The observer on Earth will observe the rocket shrinking. Nowhere is there any evidence of any measurable 'expansion'.

 

Please explain this expansion in more detail and whether you think you are relying on special relativity or providing an alternative to it. And if you are providing an alternative, perhaps you can explain why no such 'expansion' has ever been observed by any observer anywhere.

[arkain101]

we should direct this discussion to my thread on this theory.

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/9110-special-relativity-7.html

 

Appologies for getting to far into it here.

[sebbysteiny]

we should direct this discussion to my thread on this theory.

http://hypography.com/forums/physics...ativity-7.html

 

Appologies for getting to far into it here.

 

Fair enough.

 

But popular, I think the erm Official version of what a photon consists of is simply electric and perpendicular magnetic fields in a wave. One does not even need to assign them the property of 'energy' since the fields almost by definition contain energy.

 

I still don't see how this is moot.

[Farsight]

sebby: yep, I think we've been talking at cross purposes here. Somebody said a photon is made out of energy. I prefer the view that it's an electromagnetic wave that is made using energy. It's arguably the closest thing we've got to "raw energy", but I don't think it is energy, I think it has energy. Hmmmn, quarks. I'm not sure what to say. Maybe the best thing I can say is "I don't get the picture", and it's one for another day and another thread.

 

arkain: I wonder whether photons kind of "make" the space they travel through because I have problems with the concept of nothing. Again it's one for another thread.

[sebbysteiny]

arkain: I wonder whether photons kind of "make" the space they travel through because I have problems with the concept of nothing. Again it's one for another thread.

 

It's your thread, and if you want to go at a slight tangent based on something else that came up, you are free to do so. And besides, the relationship between mass, freespace and energy is more than an acceptable topic in an 'energy explained' thread.

 

Free space is not entirely empty according to the accepted scientific view as I remember it. However, a photon does not create space.

 

Free space is a vacuum. But the vaccume is not empty.

 

Observe.

 

Smash 1 proton into another at very high speeds. What do you get?

 

20 hadrons and anti hadrons (protons etc), 40 leptons and anti leptons (electrons etc), 30 Barions and anti barions (wierd stuff); all kinds of other particles.

 

Where did these extra particles come from?

 

Hmmmn, quarks. I'm not sure what to say. Maybe the best thing I can say is "I don't get the picture"

 

This was a cheeky comment by me :hihi:. Quarks have a quantum number that scientists have labelled 'colour'. That does not mean a red up quark will look red in a super dooper quark - electron microscope.

[LJP07]

Energy Explained:

 

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Good-Old Wikipedia.

 

Popular as good as your piece of writing is, it's not applicable to school-students like myself. It starts off okay, then a sudden advanced burst of physics and mathematical equations that we don't know how to derive or understand yet. As I read through wikipedias energy being explained, I actually learned a lot more than your article.

 

Like I said I'm not knocking your article just basically telling you what school-students opinions would say considering that you did make reference at the start of your long article.

 

But for people in college, it's probably a masterpiece, I don't understand so I can't agree.

[sebbysteiny]

Popular as good as your piece of writing is, it's not applicable to school-students like myself. It starts off okay, then a sudden advanced burst of physics and mathematical equations that we don't know how to derive or understand yet.

 

With respect Prolu2007, I disagree.

 

The only equation in there seems to me to be KE=1/2 MV^2. This is basic GCSE (16 years of age) stuff from my memory.

 

The original post did talk about chemical energy and how that may be released and perhaps described more biology and nuclear fusion than necessary, but all it really said is that we get our energy from chemical energy within food, which in turn comes from the sun, which in turn comes from the atoms themselves in nuclear fusuion, which in turn .......

 

In other words, conservation of energy.

 

On the other hand, Wikipedia describes energy as the intergral of F [force] * ds [distance]. Understanding that is advanced A level (18 years of age).

 

So what is the particular bit you didn't understand?

[Farsight]

Noted, Prolu2007. I guess not everybody will appreciate it. I do my best. Maybe I could do a simpler version for a different audience. Any chance you could show it to somebody like a teacher, and see what they think of it?

 

Thanks sebby. Uh uh, I just had a vision of ENERGY EXPLAINED in a school textbook. B)