The Way I-try Views Energy [Split from The Essence of Energy]

[I-try]

Mitch Bass.

The way I view energy indicates that you are correct to believe that motion requires the presence of energy. Even so, the magnitude of energy intrinsic with the motion you are referring to depends on whether the motion is of matter or to that of a photon. In either case, if you were to do an analysis of energy that extends to the fundamental level of reality, you would be compelled to invoke the concept motion however slight, and the magnitude of potential force intrinsic with that motion. In that case, a unit of mass consists of energy amassed to a density of C² .

[Strange]

Mitch Bass.

The way I view energy indicates that you are correct to believe that motion requires the presence of energy.

 

Only changes in motion require energy.

[I-try]

 

Only changes in motion require energy.

Changing of momentum of a particle of mass in motion require input of energy from an external source. Please provide an example where motion, uniform or otherwise, is possible without proportional intrinsic energy essentially associated with that motion. The referred to energy only becomes evident when an attempt is made to change velocity.

[Strange]

Changing of momentum of a particle of mass in motion require input of energy from an external source.

 

That's what I meant. I didn't want anyone to think that just continuing in a unchanging state of motion consumed energy.

[imatfaal]

Changing of momentum of a particle of mass in motion require input of energy from an external source. Please provide an example where motion, uniform or otherwise, is possible without proportional intrinsic energy essentially associated with that motion. The referred to energy only becomes evident when an attempt is made to change velocity.

 

Take a hydrogen atom in the interstellar void and a lost spaceman - the closing velocity is x m/s. In the frame of the spaceman the atom has kinetic energy, in its own frame the hydrogen atom has none, and in the CofM frame it has almost none. What is this intrinsic energy you talk of which varies depending on your frame? There is no absolute frame - all velocities of unaccelerated massive bodies are relative so there is no need and no possibility of an intrinsic energy required for constant movement - change of momentum of the CofM requires an external force and that is the crux of the matter.

[I-try]

Imatfaal.

I must direct your attention to the title of this thread, it states: Essence of Energy. Also, it would be of assistance if you were to examine my statement at post 12

Mitch Bass opening post stated,

Unless I have totally misunderstood the idea of energy...which is very possible...energy IS matter in motion?

My post number 12.

Mitch Bass.

The way I view energy indicates that you are correct to believe that motion requires the presence of energy. Even so, the magnitude of energy intrinsic with the motion you are referring to depends on whether the motion is of matter or to that of a photon. In either case, if you were to do an analysis of energy that extends to the fundamental level of reality, you would be compelled to invoke the concept motion however slight, and the magnitude of potential force intrinsic with that motion. In that case, a unit of mass consists of energy amassed to a density of C² .

By referring to an essence, I understood he was starting a conversation involving What actually is energy, and he gave motion as an example.

 

The intrinsic (meaning encompassed within) energy I referred to, is the essential energy that ensures the reality of all motion however minute the motion.

I have no quarrel regarding your example. However, with regards to an existence of any type, intrinsic energy must accompany the motion that enables said existence. Einstein provided us with the equation E=MC²; I attempted to reduce that equation to unit mass, and by so doing implied that mass is energy amassed to the density of C² . How energy is amassed to that density is not presently known by mainstream science, or so I believe.

[Strange]

mass is energy amassed to the density of C² .

 

C² is not a density.

[swansont]

Further, mc^2 is defined at rest. No motion.

[imatfaal]

...snip

The intrinsic (meaning encompassed within) energy I referred to, is the essential energy that ensures the reality of all motion however minute the motion.

I have no quarrel regarding your example. However, with regards to an existence of any type, intrinsic energy must accompany the motion that enables said existence. Einstein provided us with the equation E=MC²; I attempted to reduce that equation to unit mass, and by so doing implied that mass is energy amassed to the density of C² . How energy is amassed to that density is not presently known by mainstream science, or so I believe.

 

But your reality is frame dependent. There is an energy equivalent to the mass - calculated via Einstein's equation; but there is no absolute energy intrinsic to linear uniform motion.

[hoola]

but there is an internal motion, regardless of external motion..wouldn't that be the storage facility of c^2 within mass? And isn't most of that mass accounted for by the virtual particle field lying in the area between the nucleus and the orbiting electrons?

Edited July 29, 2014 by hoola

[swansont]

but there is an internal motion, regardless of external motion..wouldn't that be the storage facility of c^2 within mass? And isn't most of that mass accounted for by the virtual particle field lying in the area between the nucleus and the orbiting electrons?

Inside the nucleons, for the quarks, that's true. Not for electrons in an atom, AFAIK.

[I-try]

C² is not a density.

Strange: In post 19, you provided the unsupported bland statement above in reply to the mathematical logic of my statement regarding the amassing of energy. Perhaps you may be prepare to provide further clarification, and provide us with the logical thinking supporting your statement.

With regards to the transition to that of a unit of matter mass, derived from C² units of the force intrinsic with a quantity of that we refer to as energy, why is that not an intensification of the density of energy? The force referred to is synonymous with the sensation we experience upon being hit with an object, and not a measurement such as force = mass times acceleration.

[Strange]

 

C² is not a density.

Strange: In post 19, you provided the unsupported bland statement above in reply to the mathematical logic of my statement regarding the amassing of energy. Perhaps you may be prepare to provide further clarification, and provide us with the logical thinking supporting your statement.

 

 

I thought it was pretty obvious:

 

density = kg / m³

c² = m² / s²

 

Similarly force is not energy.

[altsci]

Double time component of Energy-Momentum Tensor indicates energy density in space. The integral of it over the space is called energy. It represents the time component of the Linear-Momentum 4-vector. The norm of this vector is mass (divided by c^2)

[I-try]

imatfaal.

Your statements of post number 21 are all correct relative to Einstein and our level of reality. However, to gain an idea of Essence of Energy, we are compelled to abandoned the physical concepts known to be correct at our level of reality, and descend down at least three levels to the fundamental domain of dynamic physical reality, where the ability to move is essentially accompanied by a proportional intrinsic amount of the concept we know as energy. At the referred to level of physical reality, the ability to move would result only because of the speed of light propagation of basic energy. Einstein referred to the warping of the Fabric of Space-Time.

Relative to QM, the concept of a portion of energy providing reality to a quantum wave would approach the reality of that referred to immediate above. In my work on the subject that in this thread is now being referred to as Essence of Energy, the fundamental dynamic nature of motion and energy serves as a base for all physical reality that elevates to the parameters that allow the photon mainly to exist as a wave, and periodically, fleetingly exhibit a particle nature. All physical concepts belonging at our level of reality are necessarily derived as a results of parameters and precursors formed from the basic fundamental dynamic level of physical reality referred to above.

 

Strange.

It is your prerogative to deal with the subject of this thread Essence Of Energy by evoking concepts belonging to our level of reality. I prefer to attempt to provide an answer that is more relevant to the present unknown physic implied by those three words.

[Strange]

Strange.

It is your prerogative to deal with the subject of this thread Essence Of Energy by evoking concepts belonging to our level of reality.

 

I was just pointing out a couple of basic mathematical facts, which should be independent of "level of reality"; maths is universally true.

[I-try]

 

I was just pointing out a couple of basic mathematical facts, which should be independent of "level of reality"; maths is universally true.

 

I would agree that mathematical analysis of physical phenomena should be independent of the level of reality in which it is applied. Even so, maths is not always true at our level of existence when wrongly applied, and requires re-normalisation due to predicting infinities, or when requiring the existence of gravitational energy in the form of recurring gravity waves.

Edited August 2, 2014 by I-try

[Strange]

But c² is still not a density, and force is not energy!

[I-try]

Further, mc^2 is defined at rest. No motion.

I agree that which is referred to as the invariant mass implies a relative stationary state. However, the title of that thread indicated that an explanation of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy was being sought.

 

Inside the nucleons, for the quarks, that's true. Not for electrons in an atom, AFAIK.

The fact that we are aware of the existence of an electron and of its physical attributes such as charge and electric field, requires that its existence and continued existence requires a magnitude of intrinsic energy if only to account for its apparent mass.

[swansont]

I agree that which is referred to as the invariant mass implies a relative stationary state. However, the title of that thread indicated that an explanation of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy was being sought.

 

The fact that we are aware of the existence of an electron and of its physical attributes such as charge and electric field, requires that its existence and continued existence requires a magnitude of intrinsic energy if only to account for its apparent mass.

 

You seem to be trying to apply my answers to questions different from the ones I was answering.

[I-try]

Swansont.

 

I was not intentionally attempting to do as you state in post 20, because that would be contrary to the reason I contribute to this forum; It is my hope that theoretical or other physicists may be interested in a concept that extends from the fundamental dynamic level of reality, to attempt to explain anomalies found in mainstream concepts of physics, and on to conditions at the center of our galaxy.

 

My post number 19 was an attempt to provide an answer to your correct statement on post 8 which was and I will now quote: Further, mc^2 is defined at rest. No motion.

 

My reply was: I agree that which is referred to as the invariant mass implies a relative stationary state. However, the title of that thread indicated that an explanation of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy was being sought.

 

Also on post number 19, I was also attempting to supply an answer to your reply to hoola's statements on post number 10 where he stated:

but there is an internal motion, regardless of external motion..wouldn't that be the storage facility of c^2 within mass?

From then on, posts 11 to 14 inclusive continued the debate and as a result, Imatfaal's post number 8 remained unanswered

[swansont]

Swansont.

 

I was not intentionally attempting to do as you state in post 20, because that would be contrary to the reason I contribute to this forum; It is my hope that theoretical or other physicists may be interested in a concept that extends from the fundamental dynamic level of reality, to attempt to explain anomalies found in mainstream concepts of physics, and on to conditions at the center of our galaxy.

 

My post number 19 was an attempt to provide an answer to your correct statement on post 8 which was and I will now quote: Further, mc^2 is defined at rest. No motion.

 

My reply was: I agree that which is referred to as the invariant mass implies a relative stationary state. However, the title of that thread indicated that an explanation of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy was being sought.

 

Also on post number 19, I was also attempting to supply an answer to your reply to hoola's statements on post number 10 where he stated:

but there is an internal motion, regardless of external motion..wouldn't that be the storage facility of c^2 within mass?

From then on, posts 11 to 14 inclusive continued the debate and as a result, Imatfaal's post number 8 remained unanswered

 

The OP of the thread from which this was split stated that "energy IS matter in motion", and we discussed the mass-energy relationship. My response is entirely on-topic in that context.

 

For the other response: the binding energy of electrons in an atoms is measured in eV or keV, and it's from an attractive potential, i.e. the bare particles are more massive than the atom. That's not the source of an atom's mass. The question of the mass of nucleons coming from quarks is a separate issue, AFAIK having to do with the nature of the interactions involving the quarks and gluons.

 

[Strange]

What is "the storage facility of c^2 within mass"?

 

Is there a storage facility for (42 MPH)^2 somewhere?

[I-try]

.

 

I-try, on 39 July2014, said:

Snip

Imatfaal.

The intrinsic (meaning encompassed within) energy I referred to, is the essential energy that ensures the reality of all motion. I have no quarrel regarding your example. However,with regards to any type of existence, intrinsic energy must accompany the motion that enables said existence.

Einstein provided us with the equation E = MC² ; I attempted to reduce that equation to unit mass, and by so doing implied that mass is energy amassed to the density of C² . How energy is amassed to that density is not known by mainstream science, or so I believe.

 

You stated in reply,

But your reality if frame dependent. There is an energy equivalent to the mass – calculated via Einstein's equation; but there is no absolute energy intrinsic to linear uniform motion.

 

Imatfaal.

Thanks for your reasonable and very accurate reply to my post number 6. However, the accuracy referred to requires that we stay strictly confined to the reality in which we exist. I will attempt to provide you with an answer to each portion of your reply.

Your first statement was; But your reality is frame dependent.

My answer;

Yes, providing we stay strictly confined to the reality in which we exist. Even so, if we desire to achieve a knowledge of the fundamental dynamic nature of energy, we of necessity must project our thinking down two levels of reality to the fundamental level. At that level of reality, there is no need or physical requirement to compare different frames of references. At the referred to level of reality, I find that the ability to move and intrinsic energy accompanying that motion, is the fundamental dynamic reality that through the amassing of energy to a density of C² , provides us with a unit of mass as referred to at our level of reality.

At the level of reality referred to, I am unable to imagine any reality other than an ability to move and the energy that essentially accompanies the motion.

If others can provide an example for a unit of fundamental reality that did not include motion and intrinsic energy, I would appreciate being informed. Einstein made a short reference to the Warping of the Fabric of space-time.

Your statement: There is an energy equivalent to the mass - calculated via Einstein's equation.

My answer; That is a correct statement as is now understood with regards to energy and mass. However, we refer to the mass of matter, the gravitational mass, the inertial mass, the rest or invariant mass, and relativistic mass. The precise meaning of the word Mass is not made clear in mainstream physics except for Einstein's statement that E = MC². Even so, no reason is given as to how C influences the magnitude of energy providing the mass of matter, or why C requires to be squared. In post number 1 of this page I stated: a unit of mass consists of energy amassed to a density of C² . I am prepared to post the reason I made that statement, if there is sufficient genuine interest at an understanding of the fundamental dynamics underpinning of our concepts pertaining to energy and mass at our level of reality.

The remainder of your statement is as follows: There is an energy equivalent to the mass - calculated via Einstein's equation; but there is no absolute energy intrinsic to linear uniform motion.

My reply.

Quite correct regarding phenomenon at our level of reality and only requiring to make measurements of matter in motion. But inadequate if we seek further into the realities of the fundamental dynamic nature of the energy involved, and constituting that we refer to as a unit of mass. The sum total of such units of mass constituting a given amount of mass forming a particular body of matter.

As stated above, I am prepared to invest the time if there is an interest to understand my work. That interest should include comments of agreement if any, besides posts expressing disagreement. With regards to providing further posts pertaining to the fundamental dynamic nature of energy and so to the formation of matter at our level of reality, there is no sense extending the discussion, if the concept of motion, energy and time is not understood to be the fundamental dynamic foundation of physics.

I find that the physics pertaining to the nature of gravity automatically extends to an explanation of the charge and electric field of an electron, and so on to an explanation of other phenomena.

[I-try]

To Imatfaal and others who posted to this thread.

To stay accurate with the use of words to describe a physical phenomenon, I should have been preceding the words intrinsic energy with the word Potential. Therefore , the potential intrinsic energy that accompanies a movement in any form and however slight that movement, only exhibits the characteristic of that we refer to as energy when the direction of motion is opposed. Consequently, the basic fundamental dynamic reality we refer to as energy requires impact derived from opposing the speed C of a unit quantity of a universal ability of movement. An attempt to provide the fundamental nature of that which is in motion, and provides the reality of movement, would be attempting to explain the creation of the physical universe. In my work on the subject, reference is made to the motion of primeval energy in wave form; QM refers to a quantum wave, and GR refers to the warping of the fabric of space-time.