if a could see b now

[AntonioLao]

Through the looking glass, not then or when, how does a wavicle says to antiwavicles? That is before they touch and turn into pure energy. When a wavicle raises a right arm, the antiwavicle raises a left arm. When a wavicle laughs, antiwavicle cries. A wavicle lives, antiwavicle dies. Wavicle is born, antiwavicle is dead. Wavicle says peace, antiwavicle says war. Wavicle moves left, antiwavicle moves right. Wavicle’s time axis declines, antiwavicle’s incline. When there is Shakespearian tragedy in the real world, there is Shakespearian comedy in the anti-world. All these hold only if the CPT theorem is true and that the looking glass is just a plane mirror not concave or convex. Its mean curvature is zero implying the additive inverses of the principal curvatures.

When a wavicle stores positive potential energy, antiwavicle stores negative potential energy or equivalently spends positive kinetic energy. When a wavicle spends positive kinetic energy, antiwavicle spends negative kinetic energy or equivalently stores positive potential energy such that the product of kinetic energy, T, and potential energy, V is equal to their difference: TV = T – V. If TV has units of square of energy then T – V must be multiplied by a factor of a unit scalar of energy, ë=1 that is TV = (T – V)ë satisfies dimensional analysis.

[Guille]

Antonio,

When you say TV is a sqaure of energy (which is obvious) and it equals T-V, then shouldn't this mean that the amount of energy in (or which is) the quanta of space-time be the amount of energy difference between Kinetic and potential, sort of the inverse of the amount of energy conserved, (but not the amount of energy released, that's another concept)?

[baudrunner]

Which all tends to prove a lot of points I could bring up now. For one, an anti-particle is not a pure opposite of a particle, otherwise their absolute phase opposites would cancel with a net disappearance of the energy that they represent, unless of course, unless yes, they would never be totally phase opposite would they because that would be as impossible as infinity or the speed of light or zero because that would be so coincidental as to be improbable, so their phase relationships would not completely coincide, so the remainder is what we experience as the release of energy, that's it!. I'm brilliant! When matter particle and an anti-matter particle meet their remainder is what we have to contend with and what that is is totally unpredictable!

[mkirkpatrick]

Through the looking glass, not then or when, how does a wavicle says to antiwavicles? That is before they touch and turn into pure energy. When a wavicle raises a right arm, the antiwavicle raises a left arm. When a wavicle laughs, antiwavicle cries. A wavicle lives, antiwavicle dies. Wavicle is born, antiwavicle is dead. Wavicle says peace, antiwavicle says war. Wavicle moves left, antiwavicle moves right. Wavicle’s time axis declines, antiwavicle’s incline. When there is Shakespearian tragedy in the real world, there is Shakespearian comedy in the anti-world. All these hold only if the CPT theorem is true and that the looking glass is just a plane mirror not concave or convex. Its mean curvature is zero implying the additive inverses of the principal curvatures.

When a wavicle stores positive potential energy, antiwavicle stores negative potential energy or equivalently spends positive kinetic energy. When a wavicle spends positive kinetic energy, antiwavicle spends negative kinetic energy or equivalently stores positive potential energy such that the product of kinetic energy, T, and potential energy, V is equal to their difference: TV = T – V. If TV has units of square of energy then T – V must be multiplied by a factor of a unit scalar of energy, ë=1 that is TV = (T – V)ë satisfies dimensional analysis.

Does that then mean what I think it means then!
kind regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

the quanta of space-time be the amount of energy difference between Kinetic and potential, sort of the inverse of the amount of energy conserved

Energy conservation is valid only in isolated thermodynamic systems. In open system, for example, the vacuum field or space-time domain, the systems are all open systems, that is mass and energy are constantly being exchanged through the system boundaries and moreover, there are no such things as control volumes but there are control surfaces in order to define incremental pressure.

[Guille]

Energy conservation is valid only in isolated thermodynamic systems. In open system, for example, the vacuum field or space-time domain, the systems are all open systems, that is mass and energy are constantly being exchanged through the system boundaries and moreover, there are no such things as control volumes but there are control surfaces in order to define incremental pressure.

I meant energy conserved not as in conservation of energy (law), but as in the amoutn of energy not used up (lost) by a body when it (ex) radiates light, produces heat, looses mass, bonds, moves.... the potential energy minus the kinetic energy should be equal to the sqaure of energy, the quanta of space-time. Therefore the existence of energy in matter is not in matter itself but in the space-time it occupies. This I had thought (but not proved until know) for a long time.

[AntonioLao]

the amoutn of energy not used up (lost) by a body when it (ex) radiates light, produces heat, looses mass, bonds, moves

The proper definition of this lost energy is called entropy. The energy of the vacuum or spacetime can't be extracted by conventional means.

existence of energy in matter is not in matter itself but in the space-time it occupies

Matter and energy are both made from spacetime quanta (squares of energy). Odd multiples for matter and even multiples for energy.

[Guille]

To extract the energy from space-time would be probably the ultimate achievable practice taken from the theoretic physics domain, is there any proposal that you have?

What impplies that odds is for matter and evens for energy? Does this mean that the amount of matter in the universe is equal to the amount of energy?

[AntonioLao]

is there any proposal that you have?

I'm proposing a mean of extracting vacuum energy in multiples of the zero-point energy.

What impplies that odds is for matter and evens for energy?

These are similar to the symmetric and antisymmetric wave functions of QM.

Does this mean that the amount of matter in the universe is equal to the amount of energy?

This can only be true if and only if the speed of light is equal to 1 such that E=mc² becomes E=m since c²=1.