Hi Mr. Nobody, as you state the problems of understanding boil down to interpretations. The largest problem I see in these interpretations is the fact that physics still has far too many metaphysical interpretations existing in its own use of words and principles. I could state it like this; The problem with metaphysics is too much metaphysics in physics, itself. Now, what do I mean? The two words matter and energy___what do they truly mean? Now David and I both agree matter can be defined as the absolute fundamental substance, because we require an initial substance, to have something instead of nothing. But, what of energy? This is one of the areas where I see the greatest mis-interpretations of both physics and metaphysics coming from. Take E=MC^2, and what does it actually mean and say? Let me try to re-interpret Einstein's relativity based theory into pure classical meaning. First is E, and second is M. C we know as classical meaning, yet E and M are of relative abstract metaphysical meaning, IMO. Let me first just write a straight classical formula for E=MC^2. The formula would be TTMM=SC^2. This formula has the same exact meaning as Einsteins more subjective abstract metaphysical formula, yet is a straight classical physical formula:
T=Total S=Substance
T=Thermal C=Light
M=Matter And of course we know what 2 is; squared
M=Motion
This classical formula reads; Total thermal matter motion equals substance times the speed of light squared. By this reinterpretation of Einstein's formula, I have removed the questionalble words, energy and mass, as they are just as abstract in meaning as is our definitions of time. By removing these abstract metaphysical definitions of our understanding, we can clearly see the real physical movements and momentums of real substance/matter. Science already accepts the total thermodynamic motions of a closed system is equivalent to its total kinetic energy___The equivalence principle of thermodynamic [heat/cold] motions and kinetic energy___the trouble is, here again we run into that troubling word, energy, which actually has to large an ontic meaning to be truly useful in defining the actual motions of all matter. It may work fine for motions after the big-bang, but it fails miserably when applied to any motions before the big-bang, and herein lies the problems of relative and quantum physics being relagated to such ridiculous theories starting at point, or zpe. Again we find that ontic word E[energy]. It must be removed from all of physics interpretations, and replaced with its real meaning counterpart___true thermal matter motions, iff physics and reality are to achieve an absolute scientific meaning. It must be further understood that the S in the formula stands for total substance motion[internal quantum as well as external classical], of the substance being applied to the formula.
If you recognize what I've done with this interpretation, is relagate energy, mass and time to the abstract scrapheap. True, we can still use these original formulas and words to work fine in all our gauge theories, as they work fine. It's just as words having meaning, they are too large to be truly meaningful. Just take this example; The h-bomb___explode it___what substance motions actually take place? The substance inside the bomb starts to extremely increase in motion, splitting and splitting, in the great known chain reaction, to the point of absolute entropy, when it finally breakes the case. Now, at this point, most simply consider the explosion energy[the word problem]. What substance motions actually take place in this great entropy radiation of substance motions? Since it's nearly impossible to follow them all, we long ago accepted that abstract word energy, to replace these very complex radiations of real thermal substance motions. But, the physicists at Los-Alamos actually calculated everyone of them before the bomb was ever exploded. They calculated in real thermal substance motions, as a group of physicists and mathematicians, and called their results energy, to simplify the real thermal mathematical substance motions' truth into abstract definition.
When we recognize all these abstractions of deffinitions in our interpretations, we may have a chance of seeing the true underlying physical realities of thermal substance motions. So, what it comes down to is energy, mass, and time are our personal abstractions of thinking about real thermal substance motions___the fundamental absolutes of our truest understandings, possible. This means, there is really no energy, mass or time, in the sense we all too often think of them as real. There's only their underlying fundamental thermal substance motions. Abstract mass is just thermal motions, at radiation entropy state changes, of phase spaces, and velocities of. Time is our abstract measurement abilities of substance in motion from point a to point b. The fundamental substance, S, is being shown in three independent experiments, low temperature physics, high temperature physics, and high magnetism physics, to be a non-viscous fluid, of extremely thin density. It may extend all the way down to 10^-69^3, as David has suggested___we still need more physical evidence, in these areas. Thousands of physicists, world wide, are already at work on the results, of these recent experimental tests, to find the truest interpretations, of the facts possible___time will tell...
If I haven't removed the metaphysical alligators of physical interpretations, well enough, let me know...
Regards,
Lloyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody  I too keep wrestling with the concept of matter/ energy. Without diverging from the original thread too much, I wanted to mention that I used to ask similar questions.
However, if we coin the fundamental entity to be matter, we need to flush out false definitions. The term matter, still conjures up images of spinning nuggets of something solid, which has been proven as false. Still not being characterized as tangible (since even quantum mechanics shows particles to be nothing more than force relationships), matter is looking for a new description be coined in everyday language?
Matter is what?
As I traveled the boundaries of language I came full circle again. I realized the this obfuscated substance, that represents the starting point of all interactions and energy, a representation of a given potential are the same in the fundamental realm. Under the microscope or when supercooled, space and matter melt away to disappear into the background field of existence. This field undulates within time. Undulations are represented as quantas. Quantas are the smallest change perceptible.
Everything we see, feel and touch are representations of ripples within the fundamental cloth of reality. Life than becomes not an absolute principle but another form of transmitting information within this cloth. Evolution and Anthropy explains the rest |