A theory for all the energy.

  • #1
The_Thinker
146
2
Hello,
you see, i have had this one theory for quite some time and don't quite know what to do with it. Because i don't know if it is crap or if it well..., not crap. I just wanted the opinion of other people. Now, don't just ignore it because of it's simplicity, but the fact remains that in a complex issue, it is often the simplest answer that is the right answer right. Anyways i have attempted to combine all energies and forces into one simple theory. Anyways, tell me whatever you think about it, and i appreciate the fact if you would take the pains to read the whole thing.

The Theory Of Energy Attractivity

Introduction:

If one were to examine all the theories concerning the Universe and all that is contained within it, one would expect to find a similarity that would be shared by all of them, such that one simple theory could be derived from it, that would hold true for all forces that is curtailed in our Universe. It would have to be simple enough to hold a stark uniformity even in chaos and in the absence of any regulation and yet have enough uniqueness to support the variety that is contained within our Universe. This theory could then have developed new dimensions to support the complex mechanisms that exist in our present day.

But such a theory has not been suggested so far. In context of this I suggest my theory, which is found to substantiate all forces and forms of energy in day-to-day existence as per my knowledge in the field of physics is concerned. And I hope that if some force can be proved not to be supported by this theory, it would be brought to my immediate attention, whereupon I would either further purify my statement to either accommodate this or I would draw back the statement so as not to mislead anybody else towards a false sense of acceptance of the same.

Theory:

In regard to the above context, I suggest my theory, which is based on the perception of a simple logical assumption; that all events seek to attain a sort of neutrality with it’s surroundings. Or Rather, in this context, simply stated,

“All forms of force and energy seek to attain neutrality”.

Based upon this assumption, one can conclude the following statement.
That “there exists a force between two bodies of different energy states, which seeks to bring upon a point of neutrality between the energy possessed within these two bodies.” If this statement were to be true the inverse should also hold true. That “there also exists a force of repulsion between two bodies of similar energies that seeks to eliminate the accumulation of energy that would occur if these bodies were to come within a certain distance between each other. Based upon this hypothesis, one would arrive at the following two mathematical equations.

F = - ( E2 – E1 ) M1/M2 … 1 And F = ( E2 + E1) M1/M2 … 2

Wherein,

F – Is the force that would be present between these two bodies
E1 – The energy possessed by the first body
E2 - The energy possessed by the second body
M1 - The mass of the first body
M2 – The mass of the second body

Equation 1 would hold true in the case in which the bodies contained dissimilar energies. Equation 2 would hold true in the case in which the bodies have similar energies.
However, the fact remains that energy, is a very vague term. In context of this I have suggested the equation that contains the most fundamental forms of energy; pressure, electrical and thermal energy. It must be understood that electrical energy is basically the energy possesed between the atoms of a substance by virtue of their bond. Therefore,

E = Pr + Ev + He = Constant

Wherein,
E – The energy possessed by the body.
Pr – Pressure possessed by the body.
Ev – Electrical energy.
He – heat energy possessed.

They are said to be equal to a constant as by nature, since they are proportional to each other. For example, if one were to increase the thermal energy of a substance, its electrical energy would decrease as in the bonds between the atoms would become looser ( Conversely, its suggestive that heat energy is basically the energy released from the bonds between the atoms, but that is another theory all together ) and if one were to decrease the thermal energy, the electrical energy would increase, as in the bonds between the atoms would become stronger. And a known theory about this concept, works in a heat pump, where upon an increase in pressure, brings up a subsequent decrease in temperature.

Although, it is also known, that these energies could never attain negative values. Therefore, if one specific energy for a body were to be made to exceed over the value of the constant, the other energies would achieve a zero value and upon further increase of the specific energy for the body, the energy state of the body would be solely measured by that specific energy and the constant would break down. Also this rule would be applicable to bodies that possesses these energies only. Otherwise the constant wouldn’t hold and the energies of the bodies would be measured solely by the singular energies they possess.

An aspect of the equation, worthy of mention is the massial significance. It is the relevance of the mass of one body towards the other. Greater the massial significance, greater is the force between them. Basically, for a body whose size and mass were to be insignificant towards the size and mass of the other body taken into context, the force between them would also be very small. This is denoted in the equation by M1 / M2

The final aspect of the theory to be considered is the distance between the two bodies taken into context. The closer they are the more force there will be between them, the farther they are, the lesser force they would experience between each other. In reference of this, one arrives at the following mathematical equation, for the energy between them.

EyR = Constant

Wherein,
E – The energy possessed by the body
Y - The energy constant that depends on the medium and the
Density of the energy taken into consideration
R - The distance between the two bodies

Here it must be noted that, this equation should be applied to both the bodies separately, this energy only should then be substituted in the final equation. Also, this equation gives the energy of the body with relevance to the distance between the two bodies taken into consideration. The energy would become zero, if the distance between them became too large and here again the constant would break down. The previous equation, gave the energy of the body when the distance between them is zero, it is the absolute energy.


It’s Implications:

The above theory seems to be suited for all the forces that are considered in the present day. Example, gravity, electrostatic force, strong force and so on and so forth but I am not going to get into all the aspects because to explain their relevance in each of the forces would take up a considerable amount of time. This also answers why the acceleration due to gravity is a constant, since the energy decreases and increases at a constant rate with distance the force between them also increases and decreases at a constant rate with distance, therefore there is a constant acceleration irrespective of the mass.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,874
10
THe first thing that I will point out is that your definitions of energy force and mass are not the same as the definitions used by physicists.

This is clear through the formulas that you use.

"F = - ( E2 – E1 ) M1"

The product of mass and energy difference does not result in a Force, as is suggested by this formula.

E = Pr * Ev * He

Energy can not be the product of pressure times energy times energy.

You say:
"It must be understood that electrical energy is basically the force between the atoms of a substance. "
Energy is energy, force is force. Energy is not force. The two words are not interchangable.


If you want physicists to understand what you are trying to say, you have to use the same definitions as the physicists.
 
  • #3
AWolf
177
0
The_Thinker said:
The Theory Of Energy Attractivity

The title of your topic had me intrigued.

You started by mentioning energy and forces, which got my attention, even down as far as your quote “All forms of force and energy seek to attain neutrality”.

But then started referring to mass and the forces between bodies.

If a simple solution to the mechanics of the universe is to be found, then it must deal solely with energy and build from there.
 
  • #4
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
Energy is a scalar. In some circles of physics, it is defined as the scalar product of vectors of force and distance. Since there are basically four fundamental forces of nature, it is logical to conclude that there should be four distinct forms of energy. But this is not the case in physics. There are only two major forms and these are the potential energy and the kinetic energy. Potential energy is the energy stored in a field configuration. Kinetic energy is energy arising from motion of particles in the field.
 
  • #5
AWolf
177
0
Antonio Lao said:
Energy is a scalar. In some circles of physics, it is defined as the scalar product of vectors of force and distance. Since there are basically four fundamental forces of nature, it is logical to conclude that there should be four distinct forms of energy. But this is not the case in physics. There are only two major forms and these are the potential energy and the kinetic energy. Potential energy is the energy stored in a field configuration. Kinetic energy is energy arising from motion of particles in the field.

Potential energy is a macro convention.

At the very lowest level all you have is energy, and all that energy is traveling at the speed of light.
So whether the energy exists in a field or makes up a particle, it is still the same kind of energy.
 
  • #6
The_Thinker
146
2
First of all, i thank all of you for taking your time to read the article in the first place.
And,

The actual formula is f = (root of (e2-e1)m1/m2) and f = root of((e2-e1)m1/m2). Let's look at E = m*c*c. Now c =(root of (e /m)). C is the velocity of light. F=mv. Substitute the velocity with the velocity of light. we get F = m * (root of e/m). Now square this we get, F*F = m * m * e /m. Cancel that out and we get F = (root of m*e).

Now for the other question u put up. And again the energy + energy + pressure was the constant . Mistake in the text. I've corrected it now.

And basically, the energy between the atoms was the electrical energy. You are right i have changed that too, i meant energy but i noted it down as force.

And to wolf. I have considered the m2/m1 as the massial significance. Basically something to be taken up only when the energies are in groups. But in terms of free energy i think i have mentioned that the mass should be considered as 1. I have taken the massial significance for the forces of gravity, strong force and every other force where the mass of a body plays a part. For example, let's take an electron and a body of considerable mass, now gravity will not have much of an effect on the atom, nor will the electrostatic pull of the electron on the proton's of the nearby atoms have much of an effect on the displacement of the body. Now let's take bodies of considerable mass which are pretty much equal. Gravity will also play a huge role. And if the total mass was only because of electrons. It would also play a role on the disposition of a body. So, if you think about it, massial significance does play a role on the forces between the bodies.

And i doubt, energy and mass can ever be seperated. Because of the simple reason that if there is energy then by m = e / c * c. There is mass.
 
  • #7
AWolf
177
0
The_Thinker said:
F=mv. Substitute the velocity with the velocity of light.

And i doubt, energy and mass can ever be seperated. Because of the simple reason that if there is energy then by m = e / c * c. There is mass.

The only thing proven to travel at the speed of light is the photon, which is massless. Your assumption should be reversed : where you have mass there is energy, but not necessarily the other way round.

Your whole concept is based around the presence of mass, not energy.
 
  • #8
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,874
10
The_Thinker said:
The actual formula is f = (root of (e2-e1)m1/m2) and f = root of((e2-e1)m1/m2).

Which one is it? It can't be both.

The_Thinker said:
F=mv.
No, F= ma . Quite different
The_Thinker said:
energy + energy + pressure was the constant .
You can't add energy to pressure. You can only add quantities with equivalent units. Pressure times volume would have equivalent unit as energy, try that.
 
  • #9
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
Physicists found 4 fundamental forces. They found two forms of energy (energy of rest and energy of motion), potential and kinetic. But they only have one form of mass since the inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass. Both are mass of rest. So there can be a mass of motion which is still not conceptualize completely at this point. This mass of motion can be related to the relativistic mass of SR and GR.
 
  • #10
AWolf
177
0
Antonio Lao said:
So there can be a mass of motion which is still not conceptualize completely at this point. This mass of motion can be related to the relativistic mass of SR and GR.

Relativistic Mass.

Real or Virtual ?​
 
  • #11
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
The relativistic mass is given by

[tex] m_r = \frac {m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

where [itex] m_r [/itex] is the relativistic mass. [itex] m_0 [/itex] is the rest mass. v is the velocity of the object and c is the speed of light in vacuum.

For small velocity this mass is real but as the velocity approaches c, the mass becomes more and more unreal and at v=c, the mass becomes virtual.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
AWolf
177
0
Antonio Lao said:
The relativistic mass is given by

[tex] m_r = \frac {m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/tex]

where [itex] m_r [/itex] is the relativistic mass. [itex] m_0 [/itex] is the rest mass. v is the velocity of the object and c is the speed of light in vacuum.

For small velocity this mass is real but as the velocity approaches c, the mass becomes more and more unreal and at v=c, the mass becomes virtual.

What do you define as small ?

This seems to imply that there are two sets of rules. 1 set that allows for a real increase in mass and another that doesn't.

Example

At 163,000 miles per second, mass has doubled. Relativistic Mass = Original Mass.

Is this Relativistic Mass real or virtual ?
Or, with a foot in each camp, what is the percentage real to unreal ?
 
  • #13
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
V is consider as small when it is less than or equal 1 percent of light speed.

AWolf said:
This seems to imply that there are two sets of rules. 1 set that allows for a real increase in mass and another that doesn't.

That's why there must be two kinds of mass: potential and kinetic.

When v=c, the mass is infinite. To me infinite mass is not real hence it is virtual. For v approaching c, the acquisition of mass shorten the lifetime of the heavier mass. Acquiring mass makes the particle unstable (unreal). By analogy, a person gains weight thus affecting health and possibly reducing life expectancy.
 
  • #14
AWolf
177
0
Antonio Lao said:
V is consider as small when it is less than or equal 1 percent of light speed.
That's why there must be two kinds of mass: potential and kinetic.

Why 1 percent ? What is significant about 1860 miles per second ?

Antonio Lao said:
When v=c, the mass is infinite. To me infinite mass is not real hence it is virtual. For v approaching c, the acquisition of mass shorten the lifetime of the heavier mass. Acquiring mass makes the particle unstable (unreal). By analogy, a person gains weight thus affecting health and possibly reducing life expectancy.

Fat atoms have a reduced half life ............. ?


My view is that a particle consists of an arrangement of energy. All the energy is traveling at the speed of light.
When the arrangement is in equilibrium, energy movement is equal in all directions, the particle will be stationary.
Now add some more energy.
This disturbs the equilibrium causing the energy in the particle to move more in one direction than all the others - motion.
By the addition of the eneryg the mass of the particle has now increased. The additional energy is equivalent to its relativistic mass.

The more energy you add, in the same direction, the larger the mass and the faster the particle will move.

There does come a point where the forward motion of the particle exceeds the movement within the particle. At this point the structural integrity of the particle will be compromised and it will break up.

This would mean that the concept of infinite mass at C is a physical impossibility, and that the maximum velocity of a particle is somewhat less than C.
 
  • #15
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
AWolf said:
Why 1 percent ? What is significant about 1860 miles per second ?
Inserting into the equation the mass increase is 1.00005 of starting mass.

AWolf said:
Fat atoms have a reduced half life ............. ?
If we look at the periodic table of elements, radioactivity becomes prominence as the atomic mass increase. Also atom cannot form beyond atomic number of 115.

The directional property of natural processes cannot be controlled. For example, the spin property of elementary particles is conserved. The linear momentum is conserved, the angular momentum is conserved, and the total energy in time is also conserved. In fact, all symmetry laws imply conservation of some directional property of nature. And the global view of the universe is isotropic (no preferred direction) and homogeneous. The center of universal expansion cannot be located.
 
  • #16
AWolf
177
0
Antonio Lao said:
Inserting into the equation the mass increase is 1.00005 of starting mass.
And..........?
Why is 1.00005 of starting mass the point at which the rules change ?

Antonio Lao said:
If we look at the periodic table of elements, radioactivity becomes prominence as the atomic mass increase. Also atom cannot form beyond atomic number of 115.
All those elements decay and become lead - still a fairly fat atom in the scale of things.
 
  • #17
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
A new physical principle, which from now on, I call it "Principle of Directional Invariance" will be applied to the quantization of one dimensional space. With this idea, the local infinitesimal spacetime can be structured into two distinct topologies that each represents a distinct mass concept. One potential and one kinetic and because of the distinct topologies, two kinds of space charge can also be postulated.

If these space charges possesses all the directional properties, the result is the formation of electric charge as found in electricity and magnetism and electromagnetic theory. if one of the directional properties is missing the result is color charge of QCD.
 
  • #18
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
Experimentally, 1 and 1.00005 are within the error allowed although QED can give more accurate number.

The element, lead might be the fattest stable atom there is in nature. Maybe its electronic configuration can give us a clue for its stability. The proton is the lightest among the baryons hence the most stable. The electron is the lightest among charged leptons hence its stability. Without the stability of proton and electron, atoms cannot formed hence we cannot exist.
 
  • #19
AWolf
177
0
Antonio Lao said:
A new physical principle, which from now on, I call it "Principle of Directional Invariance" will be applied to the quantization of one dimensional space. With this idea, the local infinitesimal spacetime can be structured into two distinct topologies that each represents a distinct mass concept. One potential and one kinetic and because of the distinct topologies, two kinds of space charge can also be postulated.

If these space charges possesses all the directional properties, the result is the formation of electric charge as found in electricity and magnetism and electromagnetic theory. if one of the directional properties is missing the result is color charge of QCD.

QED describes electro-magnetism in terms of exchange of photons.

If photons are what you are describing in terms of space charges, why is it that photons are chargless...
 
  • #20
AWolf
177
0
Antonio Lao said:
One potential and one kinetic and because of the distinct topologies, two kinds of space charge can also be postulated.

The main problem I have with what seems to be a common theme is your posts, is that there always seems to be a requirement to have 2 components. Be it 2 charges or two waves.

If the universe is made from the most fundamental of all components, it would make sense that there be a single component.

For the universe to be simple it must be based on a binary system. This implies that the basic component exists as On or Off, energised or not energised.
As we know, extremely complex systems can be derived from 1s and 0s. You're looking at one as you read this.

If we take the Big Bang, all we started with was energy - single component - and from this everything was constructed.

Any theory that requires more than one component, must be seen as being too complex. Even if the theory is correct, it must rely on a simpler theory explaining the relationship between the components.
 
  • #21
baffledMatt
153
0
Interesting theory. I'll give my two pennies worth:
Theory:

In regard to the above context, I suggest my theory, which is based on the perception of a simple logical assumption; that all events seek to attain a sort of neutrality with it’s surroundings. Or Rather, in this context, simply stated, All forms of force and energy seek to attain neutrality
Close. Are you aware that a great many theories in physics are based on some kind of maximisation/minimisation principle? That includes GR and QED - and even less 'correct' theories like classical mechanics can be expressed in this way. These theories can all be described perfectly well without forces even. So if I'm correct in thinking that you feel everything in the universe is trying to find some 'minimal point' of somethingthen you might actually be correct.
That there exists a force between two bodies of different energy states, which seeks to bring upon a point of neutrality between the energy possessed within these two bodies.
This is not so good. What do you mean by 'seeks to bring neutrality'?
If this statement were to be true the inverse should also hold true.
why?

The maths I won't comment on as the equations are completely out-of-the-blue I'm afraid.
They are said to be equal to a constant as by nature, since they are proportional to each other. For example, if one were to increase the thermal energy of a substance, its electrical energy would decrease as in the bonds between the atoms would become looser.
what is 'electrical energy'?
Although, it is also known, that these energies could never attain negative values.
Really? The energy of an orbiting body in Newtonian mechanics is negative.
An aspect of the equation, worthy of mention is the massial significance. It is the relevance of the mass of one body towards the other. Greater the massial significance, greater is the force between them. Basically, for a body whose size and mass were to be insignificant towards the size and mass of the other body taken into context, the force between them would also be very small. This is denoted in the equation by M1 / M2
This cannot be correct as the acceleration caused by gravitation has a different dependence on the mass as in electrodynamics.
It’s Implications:

The above theory seems to be suited for all the forces that are considered in the present day. Example, gravity, electrostatic force, strong force and so
on and so forth but I am not going to get into all the aspects because to
explain their relevance in each of the forces would take up a considerable amount of time. This also answers why the acceleration due to gravity is a constant, since the energy decreases and increases at a constant rate with distance the force between them also increases and decreases at a constant rate with distance, therefore there is a constant acceleration >irrespective of the mass.
The acceleration due to gravity is not constant for either mass or distance. Otherwise my pencil would be accelerated towards my coffee cup at the same rate as I am towards the Earth.

Sorry for shooting your theory down like this, but I'm afraid you are simply wrong. However, you seem to have the right feel for things, which is really very good! This might sound really dull, but I suggest getting a good book on mechanics and reading it. Something which starts from the basics of symmetry and minimisation principles. That way you will see that you are not wrong in being unsatisfied with the picture of equating forces for everything which seem to be put together in an ad-hoc way. An excellent example is "Mechanics" by Landau and lifsh-itz (there shouldn't be a hyphen but if I don't put it there the word will get censored), although it is a bit advanced. Feynman also has a wonderful introduction to the ideas of minimising principles in his lectures (I don't remember which volume). I think you will feel satisfied with what he has to say.

Matt
 
Last edited:
  • #22
The_Thinker
146
2
Quite frankly, i believe that all of u are going about this the wrong way. What Einstein meant was that as the velocity of mass increases, one would need more and more energy to increase its velocity, so relatively, the mass seems to increase. But the actual mass is unaffected.

In order to increase the velocity of a body more than it's present velocity, you would need a minimum of equal energy that the body already possess's, in order to accelrate it further. Thereby increasing the force required to increase the velocity, but as the body approches the speed of light, this force required becomes infinte.

Therefore, the mass is said to be relatively increasing, since the mass is the one that actually possess's the force. That's all.

Logically, doesn't the increase of mass due to the increase of velocity seem absurd? It's like a hypothetical in which, if u were to be standing on a weighing machine and both ur velocities were increased at the same level, then the machine would show an increase in your weight, as u went faster and faster as your mass increases. This is quite absurd don't u think? :confused:
 
Last edited:
  • #23
baffledMatt
153
0
In order to increase the velocity of a body more than it's present velocity, you would need a minimum of equal energy that the body already possess's, in order to accelrate it further. Thereby increasing the force required to increase the velocity, but as the body approches the speed of light, this force required becomes infinte.

No, it's actually possible to achieve light speed by very small forces - say those produced by your average astin martin. The thing is that it will take you an infinite amount of time (and energy) to do so.

Matt
 
  • #24
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
AWolf said:
The main problem I have with what seems to be a common theme is your posts, is that there always seems to be a requirement to have 2 components. Be it 2 charges or two waves.

If the universe is made from the most fundamental of all components, it would make sense that there be a single component.

Actually, I am working on a three components theory: matter, energy and space. But in the final analysis, you are right, there is only one component and this is the square of energy. But again this square of energy is the interaction of two unique components of force. I call them the spacelike force and the timelike force. In physics, these forces are similar to the electric force and the magnetic force. In the vacuum, these two forces cannot be separated hence they are combinatorially called the electromagnetic force of the vacuum. So, in the vacuum, there is only one force, the Lorentz force where the charge is zero but still electric field and magnetic field exist as electromagnetic field of the vacuum.
 
  • #25
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
AWolf,

Going in metaphysics, the two components of duality is widespread in the universe. Good and evil. Ying and yang. Big and small. light and dark. Right and left. Forward and backward. Top and bottom.

The last three (Right and left. Forward and backward. Top and bottom) are the directional invariant properties of space.
 
  • #26
AWolf
177
0
The_Thinker said:
Logically, doesn't the increase of mass due to the increase of velocity seem absurd? It's like a hypothetical in which, if u were to be standing on a weighing machine and both ur velocities were increased at the same level, then the machine would show an increase in your weight, as u went faster and faster as your mass increases. This is quite absurd don't u think? :confused:

What you seemed to have missed is that the mass of the spring in the weighing machine would also have increased in mass in exactly the same proportion.
The result would be no change in the reading of the scales.

Antonio Lao said:
Going in metaphysics, the two components of duality is widespread in the universe. Good and evil. Ying and yang. Big and small. light and dark. Right and left. Forward and backward. Top and bottom.

The last three (Right and left. Forward and backward. Top and bottom) are the directional invariant properties of space.

The last three you mention are based on prospective, so I'm sure they really qualify as universal dualities.

As for the three components. What type of matter is not constructed from energy ?
 
  • #27
baffledMatt
153
0
AWolf said:
As for the three components. What type of matter is not constructed from energy ?

Wow, matter is constructed from energy? Doesn't Einstein tell us that matter and energy are equivalent?
 
  • #28
AWolf
177
0
baffledMatt said:
Wow, matter is constructed from energy? Doesn't Einstein tell us that matter and energy are equivalent?

He said that matter is equivalent to energy at the atomic level.
 
  • #29
baffledMatt
153
0
AWolf said:
He said that matter is equivalent to energy at the atomic level.
No, and for two reasons:
1. The theory of relativity does not assume any scale, so I am curious to know at which point he is supposed to have said 'at the atomic level'.
2. If it is true at the atomic level then why not at the macroscopic level? You and I are just very large bunches of atoms so the same rules should apply.

Matt
 
  • #30
AWolf
177
0
baffledMatt said:
No, and for two reasons:
1. The theory of relativity does not assume any scale, so I am curious to know at which point he is supposed to have said 'at the atomic level'.
2. If it is true at the atomic level then why not at the macroscopic level? You and I are just very large bunches of atoms so the same rules should apply.

Matt

Definition of matter : that which has mass and occupies space.

Energy does not have mass so does not qualify as matter.
 
  • #31
baffledMatt
153
0
AWolf said:
Definition of matter : that which has mass and occupies space.

Ok then, let's backtrack a second and be a little more precise. Perhaps I should have said that mass and energy are equivalent, so given your definition of matter it is true that energy is not matter.

But then does matter (by this definition) really exist at a fundamental level? How do you define 'occupies space'? In the standard model particles are points - they do not 'occupy space'. So apparently matter will not exist by this definition. Also, as a point of interest, in the standard model all the particles are massless. The masses only come in due to couplings to the Higgs boson and so again we have to think carefully about how we choose to define matter.

We can of course try to appeal to something like string theory which gives a real 'size' to fundamental particles, but since I'm not familiar at all with what this theory says about mass and energy I can't comment on it.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that you should think very carefully before you try and make comments about what is mass and what is energy.

Matt
 
  • #32
AWolf
177
0
baffledMatt said:
Ok then, let's backtrack a second and be a little more precise. Perhaps I should have said that mass and energy are equivalent, so given your definition of matter it is true that energy is not matter.

But mass and energy are not equivalent.

Definition of mass : the property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field

Doesn't really work for energy as well.

baffledMatt said:
I think the point I'm trying to make is that you should think very carefully before you try and make comments about what is mass and what is energy.


Prior to the Big Bang, assuming it happened, there was no matter or mass, just energy. If it all started from a singularity, then all that energy was contained in a pythagorian point - dimensionless.

Lets go forward a few years and here we are, a complex structure of atoms (and beer).

The point I was making was that if, in the beginning, there was only energy, then everything that makes up our universe must have come from that initial energy.

Any theory that requires energy and matter to be the primary components of how the universe works is mixing a basic component with a more complex one.
Not so much mixing apples and oranges, but mixing apples with bunches of apples.

It is true that when referring to an objects mass you can as easily be referring to its energy, but not the other way round.
 
  • #33
baffledMatt
153
0
AWolf said:
Definition of mass : the property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field
What do you mean by this? What is 'weight'? A photon's path appears to be deflected by a gravitational field in a similar way to a massive particle. So does a photon have mass by your definition?

Prior to the Big Bang, assuming it happened, there was no matter or mass, just energy.
Wow, how do you know this?

The point I was making was that if, in the beginning, there was only energy, then everything that makes up our universe must have come from that initial energy.

This is true, but it still allows me to argue that due to the equivalence of mass and energy we can't really say that 'one is the building block for the other'.

Matt
 
  • #34
The_Thinker
146
2
Correct me if i am wrong but, i believe all of u are going about this the wrong way.

What Einstien meant was that relativily the mass of the body increases, but actually the mass does not change at all. Basically, it's like this, when a body already possess's some amount of force due to its present mass and velocity, in order to increase the velocity of the object, one would need to apply force atleast equal to the force already possessed by the body, only then can the body attain any extra accleration.

Therefore, when the velocity of the body nears light speed, the force required to accelerate it to light speed would be infinte. Therefore it would be like the mass of the body has become infinte, since the mass is actually the one that is being accelrated. But that actually is not the case.

It's quite unreal for a body to gain mass just because it is being accelrated, don't u think. Let's take a hypothetical situation, if u were acclerated to a comporehensible speed, would your mass be any different from your mass, when you did not have any velocity at all?

But for my theory, which is why this topic was for actually, here's a solid proof for the equation. Tell me if you guys find anything wrong with it and if or not the whole theory itself seems logical or illogical.

E = m*c*c
c = v*k ; where v is the velocity of the object, k is the variable which changes to keep the constant true and c is the velocity of light.
 
  • #35
The_Thinker
146
2
Correct me if i am wrong but, i believe all of u are going about this the wrong way.

What Einstien meant was that relativily the mass of the body increases, but actually the mass does not change at all. Basically, it's like this, when a body already possess's some amount of force due to its present mass and velocity, in order to increase the velocity of the object, one would need to apply force atleast equal to the force already possessed by the body, only then can the body attain any extra accleration.

Therefore, when the velocity of the body nears light speed, the force required to accelerate it to light speed would be infinte. Therefore it would be like the mass of the body has become infinte, since the mass is actually the one that is being accelrated. But that actually is not the case.

It's quite unreal for a body to gain mass just because it is being accelrated, don't u think. Let's take a hypothetical situation, if u were acclerated to a comporehensible speed, would your mass be any different from your mass, when you did not have any velocity at all?

But now for my theory, which is why this topic was for actually, here's a solid proof for the equation. Tell me if you guys find anything wrong with it and if or not the whole theory itself seems logical or illogical.

E = m*c*c
c = v*k ; where v is the velocity of the object, k is the variable which changes to
keep the constant true and c is the velocity of light.
Now,

v = root of ( E / M ) / k

Now,
F = mv

F = m * (root of E / M) / k

Now, F*F.

So, as stated before

F = root of ( m * E) / k

Where, k is the constant, which is now present.

There you go.

Also, like i said earlier when the mass of a body is insignificant, the massial significance is taken to be 1.

Now, i leave it up to you guys. Have i found the equation that integrates all forces together or not. Logically, it makes sense for all the forces. And I'm waiting for u critique.
 

Suggested for: A theory for all the energy.

Replies
2
Views
404
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
332
Replies
1
Views
399
Replies
12
Views
517
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
124
Replies
2
Views
818
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
546
Replies
2
Views
910
Top