An Idea

[Mikal]

Hi Prof….I wondered if you had heard of Erik Verlinde’s recent paper on Gravity. Verlinde is a string theorist and Professor of Physics at the University of Amsterdam.

His PDF link is:
arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785

I read his paper. It is about 29 pages or so but well worth the read. Some of the science equations threw me..Lol…but I am sure you guys would understand.
Myself I caught the gist of his discussion because he talks about entropic force and inertia…things like that.

Regards Mikal

[Profpat]

Thanks Mikal;

I'll look into it.

Best,

Pat

[AntonioLao]

Too bad Jane didn't see Dr. Jack before she went to Hanoi.

As we know people can die a thousand death in the movie and come back the next scene to die again and again, for example cartoon characters whose voices are from real-life actors.

[Mikal]

Thanks Mikal;

I'll look into it.

Best,

Pat

Thanks Prof...if you read this and catch anything interesting could you possibly discuss it as I found it quite interesting but have to agree the typical science lingo was over my head....smiles....
I will keep an eye out here for any discussion from you guys....

Regards Mikal

[Felix Schrodinger]

Hi Prof….I wondered if you had heard of Erik Verlinde’s recent paper on Gravity. Verlinde is a string theorist and Professor of Physics at the University of Amsterdam. His PDF link is:arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785

Hi Mikal

Thanks for the link.

"If you can't explain something in simple terms then it probably isn't right"

Verlinde certainly doesn't explain anything in simple terms but then, it's seen as dumbing down by the scientific community if you do. Why use a simple diagram to illustrate your key points when a page of equations will do? He appears to be trying to link holography with a whole series of things and refers to criticism of Newton for producing his equations without understanding the underlying principles. "Hoist on his own petard" as my fiend WS said!

If the existence of an aether is accepted then simpler explanations than his drop out naturally.

regards
Felix

[Mikal]

Thanks for considering the paper Felix and sharing your thoughts.

As you can see I am still hung up on Gravity and so of course my questing mind always finds these new papers. I consider all but do need some guidance in the scientific realm. I trust you guys because I see you all so empassioned in your pursuits. I keep hoping someone will grab an insight and run with the ball so to speak in their own direction and with their own theory.

Regards Mikal

[Profpat]

Thanks Prof...if you read this and catch anything interesting could you possibly discuss it as I found it quite interesting but have to agree the typical science lingo was over my head....smiles....
I will keep an eye out here for any discussion from you guys....

Regards Mikal

I'm having difficulty accessing the link. I now have background information.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Mikal

Thanks for the link.

"If you can't explain something in simple terms then it probably isn't right"

Verlinde certainly doesn't explain anything in simple terms but then, it's seen as dumbing down by the scientific community if you do. Why use a simple diagram to illustrate your key points when a page of equations will do? ...............

If the existence of an aether is accepted then simpler explanations than his drop out naturally.

regards
Felix

Hi Felix;

I agree, Feynman's diagrams were far more understandable than the pages of equations it would take to describe the same process of QED.

In my model of the proton/neutron, I use diagrams and images to represent the dynamics of the innerworking of a three dimensional particle. I really don't know the formula for a Venn Diagram or Borromean's Rings.

I agree with you Felix, if the theory is correct it should be understandable and be able to be imaged (imagined) for it to be correct.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

I believe the theory to a TOE should start with energy and it's counterpart mass.

I'm posting some thoughts and definitions I found on the internet regarding energy. Sometimes a brief look back as to what we are trying to describe in our TOE can prove helpful.

Source: Richard Feynman (very famous & smart physicist), "Lectures on Physics"

Quote: "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."Source: Quoted in a book called Energies, by Vaclav Smil, attributed to David Rose:

Quote: Energy, "is an abstract concept invented by physical scientists in the nineteenth century to describe quantitatively a wide variety of natural phenomena." Source: Thermodynamics, by Virgil Moring Faires, and Clifford Max Simmang, MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. (a college text book)

Quote: "Energy is inherent in all matter. Energy is something that appears in many different forms which are related to each other by the fact that conversion can be made from one form of energy to another (comment from DW - see my pages on Energy Changes and the First Law of Thermodynamics). Although no simple definition can be given to the general term energy, E, except that it is the capacity to produce an effect (comment from DW - "Hey that's like my definition!"), the various forms in which it appears can be defined with precision." Source: (A good ol' Schaum's Outline for gosh sakes!) Theory and Problems of Thermodynamics, by M.M. Abbott, H.C. Van Ness, Schaum's Outline Series in Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company

Quote: "Energy is a mathematical abstraction that has no existence apart from its functional relationship to other variables or coordinates that do have a physical interpretation and which can be measured. For example, the kinetic energy of a given mass of material is a function of its velocity, and it has no other reality."
(comment from DW - Phew! I guess that's kind of a mystic thing going there. And that's the first paragraph! How many people would keep reading after that? Well, me for one. I couldn't resist, here's the next paragraph
More Quote (2nd paragraph in book): "The first law of thermodynamics is merely a formal statement asserting that energy is conserved. Thus it represents a primitive statement about a primitive concept. Moreover, energy and the first law are coupled: The first law depends on the concept of energy, but it is equally true that energy is an essential thermodynamic function precisely because it allows formulation of the first law."
(comment from DW - Get out of town! My appologies to the folks at Schaum's for poking fun, but come on, that's just plain ridiculous, not to mention unbearably pompous.)Source: Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, 3rd Edition, by Gordon J. Van Wylen, Richard E. Sonntag, John Wiley & Sons,
(comment from DW - Years ago I taught a semester of Engineering Thermodynamics at Penn State Behrend while also working full time as an Engineer at GE - what an ordeal! This was the book we used.)

Quote: "One very excellent definition of thermodynamics is that it is the science of energy and entropy. However, since we have not yet defined those terms, an alternate definition in terms with which we are already familiar is: thermodynamics is the science that deals with heat and work and those properties of substances that bear a relation to heat and work."
(comment from DW - Okay, the authors say they haven't yet defined energy, implying they are going to define it. Well I looked all through the book finding no such definition of energy. It's not even mentioned in the index. Sneaky, huh?)Source: Theory and Practice of Heat Engines, by Virgil Moring Faires, The MacMillan Company.
(comment by DW - this is an old one, copyright 1948. Apparently the laws of energy haven't changed since then.)

Quote: "While it is difficult to define energy in a general sense, it is simple to explain particular manifestations of energy. The forms of energy to be considered here are: mechanical potential energy, mechanical kinetic energy, internal energy, flow work, shaft work, transferred heat, and, occasionally, chemical and electrical energy. Other manifestations of energy, such as atomic energy, subatomic energy, will not be discussed."
(comment by DW - It was not my experience that the average first year thermo student felt it was "simple to explain particular manifestations of energy". Also, note that neither work nor heat are described as a form of energy, but he does have that process thing in there "transferred heat". )

Okay, that's enough fun for one page. Those few fellow nerds that are still with me, must be real die-hards. So, to repeat myself again, most of the books I looked at did not even mention a definition for energy, they just started talking about it. From now on, that's what I'll do.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

So I would like to start a discussion regarding the subject of energy.

I would like to bring up the fact that energy is broken down into its key components of; POTENTIAL (Energy of position); and KINETIC (Energy of movement).

Thus we have our Sun representing both Potential Energy (Gravitational mass), and Kinetic Energy (Electro/magnetic radiation).

So perhaps, back to duality, The Tao (Position and movement).

Best,

Pat