what is energy?

[Capiert]

If k has units of momentum, then kf will not be. It has the wrong units.

Please explain.

Can we not recalibrate,

starting with Hydrogen's light?

(E.g. Starting from scratch.)

If you want to relate photon momentum to frequency, E = pc = hv, so one can write p = hv/c

 

There's no need to make up new equations out of whole cloth.

Is the cloth so whole?

Didn't Leibnitz's vis viva (~KE)

do that with Newton's?

(m*v, momentum, confirms the 1st law:

constant speed v of a mass m;

mom=F*t, confirms the 2nd law: acted on by a force F, for a duration time t.)

 

Existing physics works quite well.

Does it really?

How then do you explain

dark (=unknown) energy

& dark mass?

(=(unexpected) Problems?)

 

Haven't you swapped

your priorities

biasing (=basing) everything (now)

on energy,

instead of (originally) momentum?

 

Relativity, Quantum mechanics, gyromagnetic ratio,

Higg's boson (was not predicted correctly), dark matter & dark energy.

(All had difficult births.)

What will be next? (Anti_energy? =my attitude.)

It looks like the cloth is bursting at the seems.

 

(Isn't the complexity increasing,

instead of decreasing (to unification)

for the patchwork cloth (you're mending, =trying to keep it sewed together, &)

which constantly receives more patches=fixes=repairs?)

Edited May 10, 2017 by Capiert

[swansont]

Please explain.

Can we not recalibrate,

starting with Hydrogen's light?

If k is some amount of momentum, as you propose, kf will have units of momentum/time, which cannot be momentum

 

Unit analysis is very basic stuff.

 

 

Haven't you swapped

your priorities

biasing (=basing) everything (now)

on energy,

instead of (originally) momentum?

Energy is the topic of this thread.

[Capiert]

If k is some amount of momentum, as you propose, kf will have units of momentum/time, which cannot be momentum.

Unit analysis is very basic stuff.

Very good, some (kind of an) amount of momentum,

so the unit must have time in it

as you said.

 

Energy is the topic of this thread.

Yes & it's useful to look at it's (strengths &) weakness,

with comparisons.

[Country Boy]

Finally, an answer:

"What is energy?"

 

"Energy is the topic of this thread"!

 

Personally, I think of "energy" as an accounting device- every time we encounter a situation in which energy does not seem to be conserved, we make up a new type of energy.

[Capiert]

Very good.

[swansont]

Personally, I think of "energy" as an accounting device- every time we encounter a situation in which energy does not seem to be conserved, we make up a new type of energy.

That's not entirely wrong.

[DrP]

"not entirely wrong"

 

I kind of liked that also.. "make up new types of energy"

 

Basically - if energy has disappeared... it has to have gone somewhere, so you need to work out where it has gone. If that means realising that some is lost in sound waves or as heat through friction/drag or whatever, it needs accounting for.

[Strange]

That is how we discovered neutrinos. Or, more accurately, why neutrinos were hypothesised. Other hypotheses considered at the time were that maybe energy isn't always conserved, or maybe it is only conserved on average.

[swansont]

Energy is an accounting device, because it's conserved. It might be interesting to discuss examples of what HallsofIvy is thinking of.

 

Though it's a good story, the neutrino example is not actually one that fits that description, because they didn't come up with a new type of energy. They came up with a new particle (and energy was not the only clue that there was another particle to be found)

[Capiert]

When I calculate neutron decay,

into proton & electron

using momentum

& starting with light speed c

instead of 0 m/s,

then I get a mass deficit

of 2 electron masses

instead 3/2=1.5 electrons,

e.g. what you call an anti_neutrino.

 

Please show me a neutrino "particle"

that you claim to have discovered,

I've never seen 1.

[Mordred]

Umm if the neutron had momentum of c it wouldn't be a neutron to start with.

[swansont]

When I calculate neutron decay,

into proton & electron

using momentum

& starting with light speed c

instead of 0 m/s,

then I get a mass deficit

of 2 electron masses

instead 3/2=1.5 electrons,

e.g. what you call an anti_neutrino.

Please show me a neutrino "particle"

that you claim to have discovered,

I've never seen 1.

You need to apply proper physics to the scenario, not something you've made up.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

As you've already noticed, mv doesn't work for massless objects Therefore it can't be used universally. Further, for massive objects traveling at speeds close to c, the equation is (gamma)mv, where gamma is the well-known relativistic correction term used for time dilation and length contraction.

If photons had mass they wouldn't travel at c, and that has other implications for how they would behave. Scientists have checked on this, and confirmed that within experimental bounds, the mass is zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

 

That's not a rho, it's a p (Roman/Latin alphabet, not Greek). Momentum.

 

mv is NOT used for photons.

But a compressed wave is possible !

How can that be possible? without a momentum.

[Capiert]

 

When I calculate neutron decay,

into proton & electron

using momentum

& starting (both) with light speed c

instead of (the neutron's) 0 m/s,

then I get a mass deficit

of 2 electron masses

instead 3/2=1.5 electrons,

e.g. what you call an anti_neutrino.

 

Please show me a neutrino "particle"

that you claim to have discovered,

I've never seen 1.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Capiert

[Strange]

Please show me a neutrino "particle"

that you claim to have discovered,

I've never seen 1.

 

 

You have never seen an electron or a neutron, either.

 

If you want to discuss neutrinos, you should start a new thread.

[swansont]

But a compressed wave is possible !

How can that be possible? without a momentum.

 

 

What do you mean without a momentum? Photons have momentum. p = E/c

[imatfaal]

When I calculate neutron decay,

into proton & electron

using momentum

& starting (both) with light speed c

instead of (the neutron's) 0 m/s,

then I get a mass deficit

of 2 electron masses

instead 3/2=1.5 electrons,

e.g. what you call an anti_neutrino.

 

Any calculation with a massive particle (ie proton or electron in this question - or neutron in the first) which has a speed of c is based on a false premise and can have no sound conclusion. One of your initial propositions is false - ie the massive particle travelling through space at light speed - anything that follows is unsound and of no worth.

 

You are correct in saying an anti-neutrino is produced in beta-decay - but what you have is also not what exactly we call an anti-neutrino it would be far too massive.

 

 

An anti-neutrino is almost exactly the same as a neutrino (there is obviously no change in charge) except for a flip of lepton number and the fact that anti-neutrinos have a right-handed helicity and neutrinos have a left-handed. In a Majorana analysis the neutrino and anti-neutrino are the same particle but just have different chirality. The mass of either particle / both chiralities is miniscule compared to electron or proton/neutron - much less than one eV/c^2

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

 

 

What do you mean without a momentum? Photons have momentum. p = E/c

 

 

 

What do you mean without a momentum? Photons have momentum. p = E/c

 

 

 

So !~for a possible momentum matter must be a part of the equation ,,so photon must contains particles with it's constituent ''matter''

[Mordred]

NO

 

 

So !~for a possible momentum matter must be a part of the equation ,,so photon must contains particles with it's constituent ''matter''

NO once again

[swansont]

So !~for a possible momentum matter must be a part of the equation ,,so photon must contains particles with it's constituent ''matter''

 

Bit it doesn't. And you have offered no evidence that it does.

[Phi for All]

So !~for a possible momentum matter must be a part of the equation ,,so photon must contains particles with it's constituent ''matter''

 

!

Moderator Note

This is a mainstream section you're posting in. Your unsupported notions aren't appreciated at all! Students expect to find mainstream discussion in the mainstream sections. This could be an opportunity for you to learn as well.

 

Can you please have some intellectual decency and keep your guesswork in the Speculation section we've set up for that purpose? No response to this note is necessary, just knock it off.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

 

!

Moderator Note

This is a mainstream section you're posting in. Your unsupported notions aren't appreciated at all! Students expect to find mainstream discussion in the mainstream sections. This could be an opportunity for you to learn as well.

 

Can you please have some intellectual decency and keep your guesswork in the Speculation section we've set up for that purpose? No response to this note is necessary, just knock it off.

 

 

 

In this case then ; the photons do not propagate trough space <<the particles present in the ether are the transporter ..like a chain reaction leading to the target aiming .The photons are only the agitators emitted from the source of light .

error. sorry

Edited May 14, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Strange]

In this case then ; the photons do not propagate trough space <<the particles present in the ether are the transporter

 

 

There is no ether.

 

 

 

error. sorry

 

That's OK. Don't do it again.

[hoola]

I don't suppose it is mainstream to say that various forms of energy are particular fixed descriptions expressible within the mathematical bulk...

[imatfaal]

I don't suppose it is mainstream to say that various forms of energy are particular fixed descriptions expressible within the mathematical bulk...

 

I don't think it makes enough sense to be mainstream or otherwise.

 

Energy is a tricky concept to nail down once the usual definitions have been dismissed (perhaps rightly perhaps wrongly) but no search for a clear definition is helped by deliberate obfuscation