infinite divisibility of energy

[AntonioLao]

Late in the 19th century when thermodynamics as a branch of physics studying various concepts of energy was nearing full completion, the scientific community views energy as an infinitely divisible quantity into smaller and smaller chunks. Two key persons were responsible for changing this view. The 1st was
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biog...Boltzmann.html
and the 2nd was http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Planck.html

Now, the early years of this 21st century has witnessed the full quantization of energy but the quantization of mass as started by Boltzmann remains incomplete. The reason for this is the need for a quantization of spacetime as square of energy. If energy is quantizable in its 1st power, it is more so for it to be quantizable in the 2nd power. The hint is undeniably hidden in the relativistic form of the energy wave equation, which were independently discovered by Schroedinger and later rediscovered by Klein and Gordon as noted by Dirac.

Schroedinger's relativistic wave equation was for a 'Lorentz electron' of mass [math]m[/math] and charge [math]e[/math] in an external vector potential [math]\mathbf{A}[/math] and Coulomb scalar potential [math]\phi[/math], the Hamiltonian [math]H[/math] and linear momentum [math]\mathbf{p}[/math] are related by

[math](H+e \phi )^2 - c^2( \mathbf{p}+e \mathbf{A} / c)^2 - m^2c^4=0[/math]

Reference: Steven Weinberg's 'The Quantum Theory of Fields,' Volume I, Foundations, Page 4, Cambridge, 1995.

[Guille]

It's interesting how Plank, who is known from his works on QM, thought that energy didn't had smallest quanta.


By saying that energy was infinitelly divisible, did they think/believe that energy wa made of particles, which were infinatelly divisible, or just of energy as itself? if it is the second one, what did they mean by infinite divisible energy? (this creates much confusion, because of the current definition of energy).

[AntonioLao]

did they think/believe that energy wa made of particles

Pre-Planck era, energy is a field of a continuum analogous to the fluidity of water. Stick your hand into it, you can never catch it and the few drops that linger in your hand can be infinitely small.

[AntonioLao]

what did they mean by infinite divisible energy?

It cannot be catched by the human hands nor be seen by the naked eye but we all know it's must be there just like the aether and space.

[Guille]

It cannot be catched by the human hands nor be seen by the naked eye but we all know it's must be there just like the aether and space.

Yes, but energy is the ability to do work, so how can ability be divided?

[AntonioLao]

but energy is the ability to do work, so how can ability be divided?

the physics definition of work is given at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Work.html

work is really the difference of energy. If this difference is zero then work is not done and the two energies are equal.

Division implies differences exist.

[mkirkpatrick]

I agree on the infinite divisibilty of energy,but I consider it needs a field in order to be able to play?
That field to me is the ether,or etheric field,now I maintain that this field is slightly out
of phase with the relative universal continuum,now I also see that this etheric field is
also energy,albeit not detectable within our physical continuum,so it would seem that
we have energy that we are reasonably aquainted with and is infinitely divisible,and
it somehow interreacting with an undetectable etheric field!

Now what if energy which is forever in motion swirls around the universe fluxing here
and there.enabled by this invisible,indivisible,infinite,etheric field,was Motionless?

One outer energy in constant motion,one inner etheric energy,motionlessness.The still
providing the field,to allow expression to occur.

regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

I agree on the infinite divisibilty of energy

It still does not make any sense why zero mass exists but zero energy does not.

[mkirkpatrick]

It still does not make any sense why zero mass exists but zero energy does not.

Maybe there is a need to include the irrational in the equation,then the non-sensibly
becomes when understood,sense?



regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

It still does not make any sense why zero mass exists but zero energy does not.

Antonio, I think the puzzle is solved by the uncertainty principle. Since motion and position can't be measured simultaneously, how could anyone have truly measured true zero mass___common sense would dictate, it has never been done___the uncertainty principle would dictate any outcomes approaching zero sizes or masses are impossible of true measurement___they are possibly sub-h, or even true c, yet still contain a very small mass value. Without this smallest mass value___these smallest entities wouldn't exist___but they do...

Regards,
Lloyd