Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A theory for all the energy.

  1. May 11, 2004 #1
    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 appriciate 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 possess 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: May 12, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. May 11, 2004 #2

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  4. May 11, 2004 #3
    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.
     
  5. May 11, 2004 #4
    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.
     
  6. May 11, 2004 #5
    Potential energy is a macro convention.

    At the very lowest level all you have is energy, and all that energy is travelling 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.
     
  7. May 12, 2004 #6
    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, lets 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 lets 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.
     
  8. May 12, 2004 #7
    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.
     
  9. May 12, 2004 #8

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

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

    No, F= ma . Quite different
    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.
     
  10. May 12, 2004 #9
    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.
     
  11. May 12, 2004 #10
    Relativistic Mass.

    Real or Virtual ?​
     
  12. May 12, 2004 #11
    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: May 12, 2004
  13. May 12, 2004 #12
    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 ?
     
  14. May 13, 2004 #13
    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.

    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.
     
  15. May 13, 2004 #14
    Why 1 percent ? What is significant about 1860 miles per second ?

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


    My view is that a particle consists of an arrangement of energy. All the energy is travelling 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.
     
  16. May 13, 2004 #15
    Inserting into the equation the mass increase is 1.00005 of starting mass.

    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.
     
  17. May 13, 2004 #16
    And..........?
    Why is 1.00005 of starting mass the point at which the rules change ?

    All those elements decay and become lead - still a fairly fat atom in the scale of things.
     
  18. May 13, 2004 #17
    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 possess 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.
     
  19. May 13, 2004 #18
    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.
     
  20. May 13, 2004 #19
    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...
     
  21. May 13, 2004 #20
    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 fundemental 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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A theory for all the energy.
  1. Energy is all ? (Replies: 3)

  2. All about energy! (Replies: 13)

Loading...