Welcome to the ToeQuest.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158

    infinite divisibility of energy

    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.
    Last edited by AntonioLao; 06-03-2005 at 12:00 PM.

  2. #2
    The Thinker
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,278
    Blog Entries
    7
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 12x in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    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).

  3. #3
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by GUILLE
    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.

  4. #4
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by GUILLE
    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.

  5. #5
    The Thinker
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,278
    Blog Entries
    7
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 12x in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao
    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?

  6. #6
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by GUILLE
    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.

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    11,627
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks Given
    296
    Thanked 896x in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    154

    Smile Re: infinite divisibility of energy

    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.
    Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
    reveal herself?

  8. #8
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158

    Re: infinite divisibility of energy

    Quote Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
    I agree on the infinite divisibilty of energy
    It still does not make any sense why zero mass exists but zero energy does not.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    11,627
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks Given
    296
    Thanked 896x in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    154

    Smile Re: infinite divisibility of energy

    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao View Post
    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.
    Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
    reveal herself?

  10. #10
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,807
    Blog Entries
    62
    Thanks Given
    3,838
    Thanked 3,462x in 2,168 Posts
    Rep Power
    89

    Re: infinite divisibility of energy

    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao View Post
    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
    "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
    "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein
    "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.
    "The tick-tick-tick of the caesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Time
    By DHiMac in forum Time Travel
    Replies: 430
    Last Post: 03-25-2009, 10:59 PM
  2. Rearrangement of physic's foundation
    By Duane Ertle in forum Cosmology
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 02-17-2006, 02:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top