What is energy, exactly?

[Aethelwulf]

Furthermore, the effect keeps the atom is a particular state; it has nothing to directly do with its motion.

 

I also said nothing about its motion, I said it freezes its evolution. ''Quantum Evolution'' if you like, so I think you have picked me up wrong on a number of things.

 

 

 

[swansont]

If you can show me where I said they are the same thing (weak measurements and the zeno effect) then it will be my turn to apologize.

 

 

An atom can be frozen by making weak measurements on the system

 

 

____

 

I also said nothing about its motion, I said it freezes its evolution. ''Quantum Evolution'' if you like, so I think you have picked me up wrong on a number of things.

 

''Its observable physical motions are of matter and/or EM radiation. ''

Yes, it is true that scientists often define time by radiating clocks, but you can essentially freeze an atom which is ready to give up all of its energy via the weak measurement theory. You can suspend an atom in time while ''time'' ticks on. So in a sense, I think its a mistake to think the two define each other.

 

You offered it up in response to a statement about motion.

[Aethelwulf]

____

 

 

 

 

 

You offered it up in response to a statement about motion.

 

You're going to need to read back. I said ''freezing a system due to observations made on a system'' when the poster took this to mean ''the zero point energy field.''

 

 

Indeed, I replied what I did explaining this has nothing to do with the zero point energy field, the type of freezing I was describing was something different altogether. This is the conversation in its entirity:

 

 

''''

Me: Yes, it is true that scientists often define time by radiating clocks, but you can essentially freeze an atom which is ready to give up all of its energy via the weak measurement theory. You can suspend an atom in time while ''time'' ticks on. So in a sense, I think its a mistake to think the two define each other.

Pantheory: To have a condition of no motion at all within matter generally would require a temperature of absolute zero, whereby this temperature may be theoretically unobtainable. Even at absolute zero matter still has spin to it, which involves measurable change. ''

Me: In my case, we are not talking about the absolute freezing of a system, we are talking about freezing the evolution of the system. An atom can be frozen by making weak measurements on the system, while we still expect time to truck on - so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise. You may think of my example as a priori. The name this goes by is the Zeno Effect of Quantum Mechanics. ''

 

 

Perhaps now you can see I was not talking about motion, they where - they where talking about motions when I was not.

 

They picked me up wrong, and now you have as well because you caught the tail end of a conversation.

 

Also, I've asked you to show me where I said ''the zeno effect and weak measurements'' where the same. You've not answered me, or offered an apology to this.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[pantheory]

Aethelwulf,

 

Pantheory: To have a condition of no motion at all within matter generally would require a temperature of absolute zero, whereby this temperature may be theoretically unobtainable. Even at absolute zero matter still has spin to it, which involves measurable change.

Me: In my case, we are not talking about the absolute freezing of a system, by making weak measurements on the system, while we still expect time to truck on - so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise. You may think of my example as a priori. The name this goes by is the Zeno Effect of Quantum Mechanics. ''

 

Perhaps now you can see I was not talking about motion, they were -- talking about motions when I was not.

They picked me up wrong, and now you have as well because you caught the tail end of a conversation.

Also, I've asked you to show me where I said ''the zeno effect and weak measurements'' where the same. You've not answered me, or offered an apology to this.

 

What is you native language my friend? It appears that you are using some words in English in an unfamiliar way. Your insights seem quite valuable, in my opinion, but based upon your use of some verbiage your meaning might be misinterpreted. Consider that possibility my friend

//

 

Now moving on:

 

(your quote) "..so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise...."

 

....the second has been defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

 

The validity of such a system does not stand alone. This system continues because of its seeming lack or variance compared to other time keeping systems before it and realize that some of the previous systems have not been dismantled. This system is thought to be the most consistent and accurate of such systems. If it were wrong by a septilionth of a second every thousand years, for instance, what difference would it make? Do you think that our accounting system of our man-made system of time-keeping has importance other than for science?

 

I like your enthusiastic inquiry into the possibilities of other science-based models, which I believe is generally lacking in most science educated people today. So keep up the inquiry, but first consider and study the mainstream model and try to understand it the best that you can before you logically try to consider alternative mainstream or other non-mainstream models/ hypotheses/ theories/ ideas, or develop your own ideas. When you have such knowledge I think your arguments will be more ineligible. what sayeth you?

 

//

Edited June 18, 2012 by pantheory

[pantheory]

Energy is a form of recursive causality with respect to systems of simple consequence.

 

QESdunn - Theory of Everything based upon foundation of support for relativity.

Sounds good to me! but provide a better and simpler interpretation as to the intent of your meaning? Try your best to put it into common language words so that I can better understand your intended meaning There seems to be many possible ambiguous or maybe wrong misinterpretations of your statement(s).

//

Edited June 18, 2012 by pantheory

[Aethelwulf]

Aethelwulf,

 

 

 

 

 

What is you native language my friend? It appears that you are using some words in English in an unfamiliar way. Your insights seem quite valuable, in my opinion, but based upon your use of some verbiage your meaning might be misinterpreted. Consider that possibility my friend

//

 

Now moving on:

 

(your quote) "..so using radiation to define time in my eyes, is a faulty premise...."

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

 

The validity of such a system does not stand alone. This system continues because of its seeming lack or variance compared to other time keeping systems before it and realize that some of the previous systems have not been dismantled. This system is thought to be the most consistent and accurate of such systems. If it were wrong by a septilionth of a second every thousand years, for instance, what difference would it make? Do you think that our accounting system of our man-made system of time-keeping has importance other than for science?

 

I like your enthusiastic inquiry into the possibilities of other science-based models, which I believe is generally lacking in most science educated people today. So keep up the inquiry, but first consider and study the mainstream model and try to understand it the best that you can before you logically try to consider alternative mainstream or other non-mainstream models/ hypotheses/ theories/ ideas, or develop your own ideas. When you have such knowledge I think your arguments will be more ineligible. what sayeth you?

 

//

 

 

I am an English native speaker, I was born in Yorkshire.

 

So I must ask, what is it about my speaking you can't understand? Was it the word ''freezing'' that threw you off?

 

I didn't just say ''freezing'' a system, I also said ''freezing the evolution of a system.'' If swansont had read it more carefully, the previous posts as well, he would have realized you had picked me up wrong and that I was not replying to you frivolously on the question of a motion of a system.

 

The word ''freezing'' in my terminology is simply the same word as ''suspending''.

 

''So keep up the inquiry, but first consider and study the mainstream model and try to understand it the best that you can before you logically try to consider alternative mainstream or other non-mainstream models/ hypotheses/ theories/ ideas, or develop your own ideas. When you have such knowledge I think your arguments will be more ineligible. what sayeth you?''

This is the problem, I do understand the current models - the use of time. I understand that Newtonian Time no longer has precedence when things like ''flows to time'' are considered. I also know that current quantum theory also does not see time have a flow, but rather is seen as a conglomeration of starts and stops. I probably have a very good grasp of relativity as well, both special and General theories, so I can certainly speak intelligently of time from its aspect.

So I am aware enough of time in current mainstream physics enough to know that the things I have said up to this point have been true.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[swansont]

Also, I've asked you to show me where I said ''the zeno effect and weak measurements'' where the same. You've not answered me, or offered an apology to this.

 

Yes, I did, in my previous post.

[Aethelwulf]

You made an apology on the radiation example. But you continued ''correcting'' me on saying that weak measurements and the zeno effect are not the same.

 

Let's drop it anyway, it's kind of deterring the OP.

 

Back to the question of energy, if matter is but a condensed form of energy, energy should be a diluted form of matter. But what does it mean when we say this? Sometimes it becomes like a chicken and egg question, is energy is a form of matter, or is matter a form of energy?

 

Indeed, are they just both forms of each other? The latter here makes more sense since we view this conventional question in the form of Einstein's equally conventional equation [math]E=Mc^2[/math].

 

Energy is somehow snared into some kind of transition which leads to mass - mass can be freed from this trapped form and brought back to energy again. If we where talking about antiparticles, it is reduced to gamma radiation every time.

 

I think the question of ''what is energy'' can not be fully understood with today's knowledge on physics. General Relativity attempts to answer parts of it, classical physics attempts to answer it in its own way, but it's one of those questions which still escapes a full answer.

[pantheory]

I am an English native speaker, I was born in Yorkshire.

 

So I must ask, what is it about my speaking you can't understand? Was it the word ''freezing'' that threw you off?

 

I didn't just say ''freezing'' a system, I also said ''freezing the evolution of a system.'' If swansont had read it more carefully, the previous posts as well, he would have realized you had picked me up wrong and that I was not replying to you frivolously on the question of a motion of a system.

 

The word ''freezing'' in my terminology is simply the same word as ''suspending''.

 

''So keep up the inquiry, but first consider and study the mainstream model and try to understand it the best that you can before you logically try to consider alternative mainstream or other non-mainstream models/ hypotheses/ theories/ ideas, or develop your own ideas. When you have such knowledge I think your arguments will be more ineligible. what sayeth you?''

 

This is the problem, I do understand the current models - the use of time. I understand that Newtonian Time no longer has precedence when things like ''flows to time'' are considered. I also know that current quantum theory also does not see time have a flow, but rather is seen as a conglomeration of starts and stops. I probably have a very good grasp of relativity as well, both special and General theories, so I can certainly speak intelligently of time from its aspect.

So I am aware enough of time in current mainstream physics enough to know that the things I have said up to this point have been true.

Sometimes intended meanings can be ambiguous when made by anyone. I just wrongly thought I could detect a foreign language influence.

 

Moving on: I don't think any such system can be stopped or suspended, only greatly slowed down close to absolute zero, or behavior modified by external influences and measurement. All systems and matter have a ground state of energy. Accordingly no lower state can be achieved. One of those ground states is particle spin which involves motion. Another ground state is Zero Point Energy.

 

There is no universally accepted theory of time. I expect that in the future some of the more complicated time concepts today will be greatly simplified. Time, with the absence of such convolutions, might be simply defined as an interval of change. All concepts and definitions of energy and motion involve an interval of time, usually the second.

//

Edited June 18, 2012 by pantheory

[Aethelwulf]

Sometimes intended meanings can be ambiguous when made by anyone. I just wrongly thought I could detect a foreign language influence.

 

Moving on: I don't think any such system can be stopped or suspended, only greatly slowed down close to absolute zero, or behavior modified by external influences and measurement. All systems and matter have a ground state of energy. Accordingly no lower state can be achieved. One of those ground states is particle spin which involves motion. Another ground state is Zero Point Energy.

 

There is no universally accepted theory of time. I expect that in the future some of the more complicated time concepts today will be greatly simplified. Time, with the absence of such convolutions, might be simply defined as an interval of change. All concepts and definitions of energy and motion involve an interval of time, usually the second.

//

 

When it comes to evolution, it could be stopped, till the end of time if you had a perfect type of measuring device capable of making periodic measurements on a system - such as the induced type I spoke about between myself and Swansont concerning weak measurements on a system. Basically, if you make slight observations in a duration of ''time'' you can stop an atom radiating away its energy - that halts any evolutionary processes involved with the changing of your system - the zeno effect was predicted and proven to be completely accurate within the bounds of quantum mechanical predictions. You may think of it as a success of quantum theory.

 

You keep going back to ''ground states'' - this is not applicable here. Yes it is true, you cannot ''freeze an object to absolute zero''. This is because absolute zero is a limit which can never be obtained - there is always a motion of [math]\frac{1}{2}\hbar \omega[/math] left over - the energy of a simple harmonic oscillator never diminishes.

 

But what I speak of, is something completely different, separate to so-called ''temperatures'' of system.

 

Now, there certainly is no universal accepted theory of time, but we certainly know a few things ---- things where Newtonian views of time simply do not hold, such as a flow to time. For instance, if time flows, what is it flowing relative to?

 

Naturally, consciousness is not a physical phenomenon per se, but rather a subjective experience. Some people then, might say that time flows relative to us, but this cannot be the right approach, rather it would be simpler saying that our experience of time passing is what gives us the ''sense of time'' flowing from one experience to another. Objects and events outside of our minds have no evidence whatsoever that time is a real objective feature of the world - we project our experiences of the world unto it. The world is scrutinized by our subjective sense of it, our attentively probing reality is scrutinized by our observations and measurements. Our observations only make sense therefore, because we have a sense of time. Remove time and we'd have no sense of ''passing events'' just as much as the objective world would care not less about a real existing time.

 

( Let me add a bit more about these observational properties you are hung up on to clear the water perhaps?)

 

An atom can remain it's ground state because you make observations on it over periods of time. This can keep the atom from reaching higher energy levels by suspending its quantum evolution.

 

A system cannot be frozen to absolute ground states, because it will always keep a measure of kinetic energy about it. Ground state and absolute ground states to me is the language I would use to solve this little problem.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[pantheory]

Aethelwulf,

 

When it comes to evolution, it could be stopped, till the end of time if you had a perfect type of measuring device capable of making periodic measurements on a system - such as the induced type I spoke about between myself and Swansont concerning weak measurements on a system. Basically, if you make slight observations in a duration of ''time'' you can stop an atom radiating away its energy - that halts any evolutionary processes involved with the changing of your system - the zeno effect was predicted and proven to be completely accurate within the bounds of quantum mechanical predictions. You may think of it as a success of quantum theory.

The zeno effect is interesting but understandable in that hitting something with a photon for measurement can either slow it down of speed up processes.

 

I'm unimpressed by quantum theory, but the predictive systems and equations of quantum mechanics is a indispensable mathematical system based upon over 80 years of observations. Like Einstein, I also consider most of it as solely a system of probabilities based upon mathematical statistics and the normal curve.

 

You keep going back to ''ground states'' - this is not applicable here. Yes it is true, you cannot ''freeze an object to absolute zero''. This is because absolute zero is a limit which can never be obtained - there is always a motion of left over - the energy of a simple harmonic oscillator never diminishes.

I think we are in agreement here.

 

Now, there certainly is no universal accepted theory of time, but we certainly know a few things ---- things where Newtonian views of time simply do not hold, such as a flow to time. For instance, if time flows, what is it flowing relative to?

In this way I think the meaning of "the flow of time" refers to the unimpeded singular direction of time -- that time cannot go backwards. This is where there can be disagreement in the theory of time. My view is that time is a very simple man-made concept which can be solely defined as: "an interval of change" and nothing more. But there are many others in quantum physics that would make the definition of time much more complicated. Bottom line is that there are different hypothesis both mainstream and otherwise, as to the essence of time.

 

Naturally, consciousness is not a physical phenomenon per se, but rather a subjective experience. Some people then, might say that time flows relative to us, but this cannot be the right approach, rather it would be simpler saying that our experience of time passing is what gives us the ''sense of time'' flowing from one experience to another. Objects and events outside of our minds have no evidence whatsoever that time is a real objective feature of the world - we project our experiences of the world unto it. The world is scrutinized by our subjective sense of it, our attentively probing reality is scrutinized by our observations and measurements. Our observations only make sense therefore, because we have a sense of time. Remove time and we'd have no sense of ''passing events'' just as much as the objective world would care not less about a real existing time.

Sounds right

 

( Let me add a bit more about these observational properties you are hung up on to clear the water perhaps?)

An atom can remain it's ground state because you make observations on it over periods of time. This can keep the atom from reaching higher energy levels by suspending its quantum evolution.

 

A system cannot be frozen to absolute ground states, because it will always keep a measure of kinetic energy about it. Ground state and absolute ground states to me is the language I would use to solve this little problem.

 

OK, I see no problem with this statement

 

We may have different perspectives of the nature of energy, but maybe no major disagreements either.

 

//

Edited June 18, 2012 by pantheory

[Aethelwulf]

I will reply with the statements at least you may think there is some objection to:

 

''In this way I think the meaning of "the flow of time" refers to the unimpeded singular direction of time -- that time cannot go backwards. This is where there can be disagreement in the theory of time. My view is that time is a very simple man-made concept which can be solely defined as: "an interval of change" and nothing more. But there are many others in quantum physics that would make the definition of time much more complicated. Bottom line is that there are different hypothesis both mainstream and otherwise, as to the essence of time. ''

This is right, the first part. (not that the rest must be wrong to mention) - that the flow of time means a certain directionality to time. To be honest, time-reversal is a much abused concept in physics - we have no evidence for it. The days when physicists argued whether there was an arrow in time (an omega point) is what brought about the idea that maybe when the universe gravitationally-collapses is what would induce a time symmetry when objects would ascend from the ground and reassemble on the table, like the cup you dropped but broke on the hard floor due to the gravitational force... (just read Hawking's a brief history of time for this example).

What is mainstream however is the view I have taken: The idea is that there is no flow, that is it rather a succession of beginnings and ends.

I don't even think you had a major disagreement with this, but was worth mentioning. The rest you seemed to agree on, which is good in my eyes

[pantheory]

I will reply with the statements at least you may think there is some objection to:

 

''In this way I think the meaning of "the flow of time" refers to the unimpeded singular direction of time -- that time cannot go backwards. This is where there can be disagreement in the theory of time. My view is that time is a very simple man-made concept which can be solely defined as: "an interval of change" and nothing more. But there are many others in quantum physics that would make the definition of time much more complicated. Bottom line is that there are different hypothesis both mainstream and otherwise, as to the essence of time. ''

 

This is right, the first part. (not that the rest must be wrong to mention) - that the flow of time means a certain directionality to time. To be honest, time-reversal is a much abused concept in physics - we have no evidence for it. The days when physicists argued whether there was an arrow in time (an omega point) is what brought about the idea that maybe when the universe gravitationally-collapses is what would induce a time symmetry when objects would ascend from the ground and reassemble on the table, like the cup you dropped but broke on the hard floor due to the gravitational force... (just read Hawking's a brief history of time for this example).

What is mainstream however is the view I have taken: The idea is that there is no flow, that is it rather a succession of beginnings and ends.

 

I don't even think you had a major disagreement with this, but was worth mentioning. The rest you seemed to agree on, which is good in my eyes

This also goes along with my simple concept of time.

 

Now back to energy and its essence. One of my main points was that energy, like time, I think is also a man-made concept which also comes in very handy to explain observed reality. It has physical characteristics like photons, and maybe physical waves in the form of a particulate background field waves. De Broglie, who discovered matter waves, believed in their having a physical existence. In the same way EM radiation was once proposed to have a carrier particle forming waves and having energy of motion like the old aether models -- or particulates like dark matter or some other modern proposed background field particulate(s) model, mostly non-mainstream.

 

//

Edited June 18, 2012 by pantheory

[Aethelwulf]

This also goes along with my simple concept of time.

 

Now back to energy and its essence. One of my main points was that energy, like time, I think is also a man-made concept which also comes in very handy to explain observed reality. It has physical characteristics like photons, and maybe physical waves in the form of a particulate background field waves. De Broglie, who discovered matter waves, believed in their having a physical existence. In the same way EM radiation was once proposed to have a carrier particle forming waves and having energy of motion like the old aether models -- or particulates like dark matter or some other modern proposed background field particulate(s) model, mostly non-mainstream.

 

//

 

 

Well... it's harder to say energy is a man made concept, because it is out ''there''. We can measure the spin of a photon for instance, which is generally considered one of the most basic units of ''energy.''

 

What might be invented is it's interpretation... energy itself however has been measured ----- the difference with time is that it truly hasn't outside of our subjective experience of it. This is why time is not truly an observable. It's not really something with anything ''physical with can be measured'' about it.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

Well... it's harder to say energy is a man made concept, because it is out ''there''. We can measure the spin of a photon for instance, which is generally considered one of the most basic units of ''energy.''

 

No, it isn't. A photon has energy. It is not a unit of energy.

 

Back to the question of energy, if matter is but a condensed form of energy, energy should be a diluted form of matter. But what does it mean when we say this? Sometimes it becomes like a chicken and egg question, is energy is a form of matter, or is matter a form of energy?

 

Indeed, are they just both forms of each other? The latter here makes more sense since we view this conventional question in the form of Einstein's equally conventional equation [math]E=Mc^2[/math].

 

Energy is somehow snared into some kind of transition which leads to mass - mass can be freed from this trapped form and brought back to energy again. If we where talking about antiparticles, it is reduced to gamma radiation every time.

 

Energy and mass are equivalent. But mass is not the same as matter. Mass, too, is a property. Is there such a thing as pure mass?

[pantheory]

 

Well... it's harder to say energy is a man made concept, because it is out ''there''. We can measure the spin of a photon for instance, which is generally considered one of the most basic units of ''energy.''

There is much evidence to support the idea that photons are corpuscular/ bundles/ particulates having a separate physical existence, and the energy of relative motion via the speed of light.

 

What might be invented is it's interpretation... energy itself however has been measured ----- the difference with time is that it truly hasn't outside of our subjective experience of it. This is why time is not truly an observable. It's not really something with anything ''physical with can be measured'' about it.

The energy of relative motion can be measured by velocity, but like velocity I don't think it is best described as something having a physical substantive existence.

 

/

Swansont,

 

Energy and mass are equivalent. But mass is not the same as matter. Mass, too, is a property. Is there such a thing as pure mass?

Mass, I think, is an interesting measurement being the same as weight adjusted by an Earth standard factor. It seems to me that mass can be equated to the exact count or quantity of the matter being weighed -- directly proportional to the quantity of nucleons and electrons being weighed. So in this way it also can be converted into a measurement of count. Does that sound right?

 

//

Edited June 18, 2012 by pantheory

[Aethelwulf]

No, it isn't. A photon has energy. It is not a unit of energy.

 

 

 

Energy and mass are equivalent. But mass is not the same as matter. Mass, too, is a property. Is there such a thing as pure mass?

 

A photon is the smallest amount of energy we know of...what better unit to measure energy by? If you know of a smaller energy I stand corrected.

 

A pure mass would be? What is a pure energy? Energy is energy, mass is mass. The purity of the two do not variate between particles.

 

I think I should make it clear, that Swansont's objection to ''a unit of energy'' may be related to the idea that a photon is not a unit of measure.

 

I disagree entirely.

 

Let us look at the definition of a ''unit'' - a terminology for a photon which is used much;

 

'' 1.

An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional constituent of a whole.''

Notice, it is a structure or elementary functional constituent of a whole. By unit, I mean such this. what Swansont means, he needs to learn to explain himself. For... you cannot get much more elementary than energy itself.

 

Even our most recent poster has noted that energy comes as corpuscular packs. The word ''packs'' here can be exchanged for ''units'' as they pretty much mean the same thing.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[swansont]

A photon is the smallest amount of energy we know of...what better unit to measure energy by? If you know of a smaller energy I stand corrected.

 

A pure mass would be? What is a pure energy? Energy is energy, mass is mass. The purity of the two do not variate between particles.

 

I think I should make it clear, that Swansont's objection to ''a unit of energy'' may be related to the idea that a photon is not a unit of measure.

 

I disagree entirely.

 

Let us look at the definition of a ''unit'' - a terminology for a photon which is used much;

 

'' 1.

An individual, group, structure, or other entity regarded as an elementary structural or functional constituent of a whole.''

Notice, it is a structure or elementary functional constituent of a whole. By unit, I mean such this. what Swansont means, he needs to learn to explain himself. For... you cannot get much more elementary than energy itself.

 

Even our most recent poster has noted that energy comes as corpuscular packs. The word ''packs'' here can be exchanged for ''units'' as they pretty much mean the same thing.

 

How many photons in a Joule?

[Aethelwulf]

How many photons in a Joule?

 

Not what I was talking about. ''Unit'' - an elementary fragment, a ''unit of energy'' as in a single particle of energy.

 

Your definition or use of the phrase was different to mine. I tried to explain this above.

 

 

Even an ''elementary unit'' as meaning an ''elementary particle''.

 

I don't have time either for quibbles on terminology differences of ''mass vs matter.'' I may from time-to-time freely exchange them. They are quibbles to an untrained eye and just a nuisance to talk about otherwise.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[swansont]

Not what I was talking about. ''Unit'' - an elementary fragment, a ''unit of energy'' as in a single particle of energy.

 

You also said "I think I should make it clear, that Swansont's objection to ''a unit of energy'' may be related to the idea that a photon is not a unit of measure. I disagree entirely." Unit of measure, not simply a unit. How much energy is in that single particle?

 

You also said it was the smallest unit of energy. I can't have an energy smaller than that of a photon? No, I don't think so.

[Aethelwulf]

Then you misunderstand what I am disagreeing with. I perhaps should have been clearer. I agree that there is such a thing as a ''unit of measure'' for a joule and even descriptions of other measures as well. What I was strongly disagreeing with was this description in my context of things - why do you think I started pulling out definitions and describing it as an elementary structure?

 

As for having an energy smaller than a photon, do you of an example?

Edited June 19, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[swansont]

As for having an energy smaller than a photon, do you of an example?

 

It's your conjecture, but if I have 1 GeV photon, I can think of particles that have less energy. The description of a photon as the "smallest amount of energy" is nonsensical, especially if you then take the position that you aren't going to quantify it.

[Aethelwulf]

It's your conjecture, but if I have 1 GeV photon, I can think of particles that have less energy. The description of a photon as the "smallest amount of energy" is nonsensical, especially if you then take the position that you aren't going to quantify it.

 

I think it's splitting hairs somewhat - the photon is the smallest unit (piece) of energy known. You can't get smaller than a photon. This is well known in physics - known among many scientists.

 

A photons size would vary according to the frequency. The lower the frequency, the smaller the size.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[swansont]

I think it's splitting hairs somewhat - the photon is the smallest unit (piece) of energy known. You can't get smaller than a photon. This is well known in physics - known among many scientists.

 

A photons size would vary according to the frequency. The lower the frequency, the smaller the size.

 

You don't see the contradiction between the statements. You can't get smaller than a photon, and yet a photon does not have a fixed size. A photon can be smaller than another photon which is the smallest. You can present a photon, the smallest piece of energy, and yet I can present another photon that's smaller. Makes "smallest" kinda meaningless, doesn't it?

[Aethelwulf]

You don't see the contradiction between the statements. You can't get smaller than a photon, and yet a photon does not have a fixed size. A photon can be smaller than another photon which is the smallest. You can present a photon, the smallest piece of energy, and yet I can present another photon that's smaller. Makes "smallest" kinda meaningless, doesn't it?

 

Yes, of course I realize that, which is why I said you need to adjust the frequency as I said. When you do, no particle of energy can adjust to ''its'' size. We are talking about a very simple photon.

 

All particles have sizes, but without the splitting of hairs, the photon can be the smallest and is the smallest.