Waves ~ of Creation and Energy

[rigney]

I've trudged along for almost 2 years now on this forum with a 5 year old mentality in science.. Reading is the one thing providing new questions to me. My latest Q: Is everything in the universe nothing more than energy waves? Having just found this particular item, I would like to share it. Perhaps you are already familiar with it and it is stale to you, but to me it is totally mysterious. I have no idea who wrote it, and only remotely understand what it means. But If you are into this type of thing please respond, or give me some different links to read or look at. These links are not the initial reference I was referring to, but they will have to do for now.

 

http://structureofexistence.com/Chapter01.html

 

http://swift.sonoma.edu/education/slinky_booklet/index.html

 

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

Edited May 9, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

What's an energy wave?

[rigney]

What's an energy wave?

 

I'm only asking questions because I don't know, and I thought you might have an answer to share with me. Edited May 9, 2012 by rigney

[timo]

It's the backup system when you run out of photon torpedoes, right?

[rigney]

It's the backup system when you run out of photon torpedoes, right?

 

See what I mean? If I was that smart there wouldn't be a need to ask such dumb assed questions. Right? Ok! Now I would like for you to explain your meaning. Edited May 9, 2012 by rigney

[timo]

I fully agree that your new modified post #3 is more appropriate than the original I responded to. Considering the intellectual honesty that you just demonstrated by deleting your statement but quoting my now-out-of-context reply to it, it's EOD for me at this point.

[swansont]

You can't ask "Is everything in the universe nothing more than energy waves?" if you don't know (and/or can't tell me) what an energy wave is.

[John Cuthber]

If you define energy waves to be everything in the universe then the answer is yes.

If you don't define it that way then the answer is no, and if you don't know then...

[rigney]

You can't ask "Is everything in the universe nothing more than energy waves?" if you don't know (and/or can't tell me) what an energy wave is.

 

If you actually looked at my initial thought , it wasn't an affidavit based on fact, only a question? And "YES", I don't know the answer, and thus the question.

 

If you define energy waves to be everything in the universe then the answer is yes.

If you don't define it that way then the answer is no, and if you don't know then...

 

Thank you. I will keep on looking.

[qsa]

let's say for the sake of arqument, yes everything is energy waves. Does that make you understand things better, do you feel satisfied , does that give any meaning to you and will you stop wondering about what reality is.

Edited May 10, 2012 by qsa

[swansont]

If you actually looked at my initial thought , it wasn't an affidavit based on fact, only a question?

 

My objection is that it is as meaningful as "Is the universe made up of flurfle?"

[md65536]

What's an energy wave?

I'd venture a guess that it's a wave consisting of energy.

I assume rigney's question is essentially asking "Is everything in the universe energy, and is everything in the universe a wave?"

 

My objection is that it is as meaningful as "Is the universe made up of flurfle?"

What's a flurfle? At least rigney was using real words.

 

If I asked, "Is everything in the universe made of gravy waves?" would you be able to answer?

Is the problem that there is both a reasonable answer for "yes" and for "no" depending on an interpretation of what "energy wave" might mean, or is it that there is no reasonable interpretation of what it might mean, or that "it could be something that sounds kinda like that but no one really knows", or none of the above?

 

 

If you define energy waves to be everything in the universe then the answer is yes.

If you don't define it that way then the answer is no,

Technically that's a false dichotomy and suggests that you can't determine what anything is unless you define it to be that thing.

 

Eg. Is all matter nothing more than particles? If you define particles to be all matter then the answer is yes. If you don't define it that way then the answer is no.

 

Well, not really...

[John Cuthber]

I'd venture a guess that it's a wave consisting of energy.

I assume rigney's question is essentially asking "Is everything in the universe energy, and is everything in the universe a wave?"

 

 

What's a flurfle? At least rigney was using real words.

 

If I asked, "Is everything in the universe made of gravy waves?" would you be able to answer?

Is the problem that there is both a reasonable answer for "yes" and for "no" depending on an interpretation of what "energy wave" might mean, or is it that there is no reasonable interpretation of what it might mean, or that "it could be something that sounds kinda like that but no one really knows", or none of the above?

 

 

 

Technically that's a false dichotomy and suggests that you can't determine what anything is unless you define it to be that thing.

 

Eg. Is all matter nothing more than particles? If you define particles to be all matter then the answer is yes. If you don't define it that way then the answer is no.

 

Well, not really...

What makes a word "real" is having a meaning.

One of the properties of gravity waves is that they are hard to detect. Because the universe is not difficult to detect it cannot be made of gravity waves.

What properties do "energy waves" have that would allow us to make predictions/ deductions like that?

Edited May 10, 2012 by John Cuthber

[ajb]

Waves have a property that we call energy. You should think of waves as carrying energy rather than being made of energy. The waves you see on the ocean do not in fact transport much water, the motion of majority of the water is up and down as the wave moves along the surface of the water. In this respect, people do think of waves as being energy; but this is misleading.

[md65536]

Waves have a property that we call energy. You should think of waves as carrying energy rather than being made of energy. The waves you see on the ocean do not in fact transport much water, the motion of majority of the water is up and down as the wave moves along the surface of the water. In this respect, people do think of waves as being energy; but this is misleading.

 

 

Then, I'm guessing the reason "energy wave" doesn't make sense is that energy is a property of things, not a thing itself. If you speak of a quantity of energy, it would have to be in the form of something else. Similarly "length wave" wouldn't make sense, or speaking of a length propagating.

 

So then, I'd interpret the meaning of the original question and rephrase it as: "Is there any physical thing in the universe that has no energy property, or can still meaningfully be said to exist with zero energy? And is there any physical thing which either has no movement or a movement that couldn't be described as a wave?"

 

 

 

... or perhaps, "Is there no property of things that can't be described in terms of energy or wave properties?" Eg. if a particle has a 'spin', is that something more than a form of energy/wave? If so the answer would be "no; there are things that are more than what can be described only in terms of energy and waves."

Edited May 10, 2012 by md65536

[ajb]

Then, I'm guessing the reason "energy wave" doesn't make sense is that energy is a property of things, not a thing itself.

 

Yes, energy is a property of physical configurations, i.e. "stuff".

 

So then, I'd interpret the meaning of the original question and rephrase it as: "Is there any physical thing in the universe that has no energy property, or can still meaningfully be said to exist with zero energy? And is there any physical thing which either has no movement or a movement that couldn't be described as a wave?"

 

One has to take care when talking about absolute energy. You typically have to take off the energy of the vacuum, or in other words you measure things relative to the vacuum energy, which may well be infinite.

 

The situation is different if you have global supersymmetry. Here we can have absolute zero energy of the vacuum.

 

 

... or perhaps, "Is there no property of things that can't be described in terms of energy or wave properties?" Eg. if a particle has a 'spin', is that something more than a form of energy/wave? If so the answer would be "no; there are things that are more than what can be described only in terms of energy and waves."

 

Spin is more like a kind of angular momentum that comes from special relativity. So again it is a property of a configuration. I don't see that you can fundamentally understand spin in terms of waves. There is the related spin-statistics theorem though.

[swansont]

Then, I'm guessing the reason "energy wave" doesn't make sense is that energy is a property of things, not a thing itself.

 

Bingo.

[rigney]

You can't ask "Is everything in the universe nothing more than energy waves?" if you don't know (and/or can't tell me) what an energy wave is.

 

Why not? I thought the three references I offered allowed me reason to think so. If "all things" share unifying wave-like and particle-like properties at the same time, what's the difference of calling them either energy waves or waves of energy? Photons are waves, but are they the energy itself, or simply carrying the energy? I can find no clear distinction.

 

All things can be seen as waves. All waves have fundamental similarities. All things can be seen as particles. All particles also have fundamental similarities. All things share unifying wave-like and particle-like properties and are thus comparable to all other things, no matter the case. Models of the nature of individual things are partial models of the collective nature of all things, and are all comparable to each other.

 

let's say for the sake of arqument, yes everything is energy waves. Does that make you understand things better, do you feel satisfied , does that give any meaning to you and will you stop wondering about what reality is.

 

I wasn't making an arguement for arguements sake and only stating what I had been reading. And yes, I am beginning to understand quite a bit more about the universe, but not satisfied. And I have no idea what the last part of your statement referred to?

 

does that give any meaning to you and will you stop wondering about what reality is

Edited May 10, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

Why not? I thought the three references I offered allowed me reason to think so. If "all things" share unifying wave-like and particle-like properties at the same time, what's the difference of calling them either energy waves or waves of energy? Photons are waves, but are they the energy itself, or simply carrying the energy? I can find no clear distinction.

 

Because it's indistinguishable from gibberish if you don't know what the words mean. If I don't know what it means, I can't answer the question. If you don't know, then any answer will be meaningless.

 

None of the links use the terminology "energy wave" so they are not particularly helpful in narrowing that down. Energy is a property, not a substance. It's like asking if the universe is made of short, or waves of tall.

[rigney]

Waves have a property that we call energy. You should think of waves as carrying energy rather than being made of energy. The waves you see on the ocean do not in fact transport much water, the motion of majority of the water is up and down as the wave moves along the surface of the water. In this respect, people do think of waves as being energy; but this is misleading.

 

I like to think of waves on water as shapes of energy created by a disturbance of the water. That is, until it comes to Tidal Waves and Tsunamis. Dust Devils are another good example of wave shapes caused by a disturbance in the wind. That is, until it comes to Hurricanes, Monsoons and Tornadoes.

 

What's an energy wave?

 

If one is to believe the double slit experinent with photons, waves can either be energy itself; or the carriers of energy. Waves at all frequencies fit into one of these two categories. Edited May 10, 2012 by rigney

[md65536]

Why not? I thought the three references I offered allowed me reason to think so. If "all things" share unifying wave-like and particle-like properties at the same time, what's the difference of calling them either energy waves or waves of energy? Photons are waves, but are they the energy itself, or simply carrying the energy? I can find no clear distinction.

 

As an analogy, let's say that all cars have a color (even pure black matter radiates frequencies in non-visible light), and are hollowed out as a shell to allow a driver. It would not make sense to speak of a car without color, so it is tempting to mistakenly think that the car is made of color. Then I can ask "Are cars nothing more than color shells?"

 

Just like a car is not made of color, things aren't "made of energy". Yes, you could not remove all color from a car and still have it exist on its own, but it still has other properties which cannot be described in terms of color. Matter etc too has other properties that cannot be described as energy (I think). I assume there are some properties that can be zero or non-existent and others that can't. Eg. you might remove all "horsepower" from a car and still have it exist, but if you remove all "shape" it no longer has a meaningful existence.

 

 

I think the following questions might make sense:

- Is there any physically measurable thing that doesn't have energy as a property? (No?)

- Is there any physical thing that is homogeneous with 0 total energy and still has a physical existence? (No?)

- Is there any physical thing that only has properties which can be equated to some form of energy? Ie. is there such a thing as can be described as "pure energy"? (No?)

- Is there any physical thing that exists with absolutely no movement? (No?)

- Is there anything whose movement can't be described in terms of waves? (No?)

Edited May 10, 2012 by md65536

[rigney]

As an analogy, let's say that all cars have a color (even pure black matter radiates frequencies in non-visible light), and are hollowed out as a shell to allow a driver. It would not make sense to speak of a car without color, so it is tempting to mistakenly think that the car is made of color. Then I can ask "Are cars nothing more than color shells?"

 

Just like a car is not made of color, things aren't "made of energy". Yes, you could not remove all color from a car and still have it exist on its own, but it still has other properties which cannot be described in terms of color. Matter etc too has other properties that cannot be described as energy (I think). I assume there are some properties that can be zero or non-existent and others that can't. Eg. you might remove all "horsepower" from a car and still have it exist, but if you remove all "shape" it no longer has a meaningful existence.

 

 

I think the following questions might make sense:

- Is there any physically measurable thing that doesn't have energy as a property? (No?)

- Is there any physical thing that is homogeneous with 0 total energy and still has a physical existence? (No?)

- Is there any physical thing that only has properties which can be equated to some form of energy? Ie. is there such a thing as can be described as "pure energy"? (No?)

- Is there any physical thing that exists with absolutely no movement? (No?)

- Is there anything whose movement can't be described in terms of waves? (No?)

 

I can't fault you making those statements since they make perfect sense to me. But having just a wee understand of quantum physics or its mechanics, I can only visualize on a larger scale. Say I have a truck capable of carring x amount of tomatoes. I go to the farm, load up the tomatoes and take them to market, and do this several times. Are not both the truck and tomatoes equal parts of this process? Sort of like being team players? Without tomatoes the truck is worthless. Without a truck the tomatoes are worthless.

Both items are physical entities unto themselves and yet, together form something entirely different. When I decided to use, "Waves ~ of Creation and Energy" as the title to this thread, perhaps I should have punctuated with a ? All I was saying is, it's like the truck and tomatoes. Without waves, energy would likely not have a function as we know it. Without energy there would be no need for the waves. Both are real and a part of the equation.

[md65536]

All I was saying is, it's like the truck and tomatoes. Without waves, energy would likely not have a function as we know it. Without energy there would be no need for the waves. Both are real and a part of the equation.

I think that your original question might be like asking "Is a truck full of tomatoes nothing more than the weight of a load of tomatoes and the motion of a truck?" I would say "no" to this question and your original question, because there are additional properties that I think are essential.

 

For example, what makes a tomato a tomato is the sum of its mass (yes, which can be expressed as a quantity of energy) but also the arrangement of its matter, and maybe additional properties like charge, etc.

 

I think that a tomato is nothing without its quantity of energy, but is probably also nothing with all other non-energy properties removed. All this means is that the properties of a tomato can't be separated and exist independently. (You can't separate the tomatoes into a pile of mass and a pile of red, for example.)

 

 

 

[rigney]

I think that your original question might be like asking "Is a truck full of tomatoes nothing more than the weight of a load of tomatoes and the motion of a truck?" I would say "no" to this question and your original question, because there are additional properties that I think are essential.

 

For example, what makes a tomato a tomato is the sum of its mass (yes, which can be expressed as a quantity of energy) but also the arrangement of its matter, and maybe additional properties like charge, etc.

 

I think that a tomato is nothing without its quantity of energy, but is probably also nothing with all other non-energy properties removed. All this means is that the properties of a tomato can't be separated and exist independently. (You can't separate the tomatoes into a pile of mass and a pile of red, for example.)

 

I was using that only as an analagy of my take on what energy and waves are. Energy to me in any form is a real and a viable thing. Waves on the other hand, to me should be seen as nothing less. Put it this way. Are waves themselves a physical entity or merely an expression used to link energy with a source?, and its destination? I hope that I'm making sense?

[swansont]

If one is to believe the double slit experinent with photons, waves can either be energy itself; or the carriers of energy. Waves at all frequencies fit into one of these two categories.

 

That would make "energy wave" redundant, would it not?