Can the energy of movement be altered by another energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether the energy of movement, or velocity, can be altered by another form of energy or force. Participants explore this idea within the contexts of quantum mechanics, relativity, and the nature of reality, questioning the relationships between forces, gravity, and movement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that quantum mechanics relates to movement and questions if energy can alter velocity, seeking clarification on this topic.
  • Another participant challenges the assertion that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about movement and emphasizes that E=mc² is a principle of relativity, not quantum mechanics.
  • There is a proposal that forces can alter movement, but a distinction is made that forces do not alter gravity itself.
  • Some participants argue about the nature of reality and whether forces can change it, with one asserting that physics does not typically engage with the concept of reality.
  • A claim is made that the stress tensor is the source of gravity, suggesting that adding force to a system can create more gravity.
  • Another participant questions the clarity of the claim that exerting force on an object can alter the gravitational field, leading to further debate on the nature of gravity and forces.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of altering forces on gravity and reality, with one suggesting that if the force on a body is reduced, it could change the experience of gravity and thus alter reality.
  • There is a mention of quantum mechanics suggesting that all forces have a movement pattern, raising questions about what would happen if that pattern were changed.
  • A philosophical perspective is introduced, questioning the nature of reality and existence, and suggesting that human perception may not capture the true nature of reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the relationship between forces, gravity, and reality. There is no consensus on whether forces can alter gravity or the nature of reality itself, leading to an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various concepts from physics, including quantum mechanics, relativity, and the stress-energy tensor, but the discussion contains ambiguities and lacks clarity on definitions and assumptions regarding reality and forces.

  • #31
My theory

my theories are diferent from the normal if people could shut their filter off for a litle bit people would see what i am saying makes sense you just have to ignore the 'rules of logic' to see them once you shut that filter off for a minute you start to see what it means
once that hapens then you can bring normal logic back into the situation
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Wolf Pay No Attention To the Other Posters

my theories are diferent from the normal if people could shut their filter off for a litle bit people would see what i am saying makes sense you just have to ignore the 'rules of logic' to see them once you shut that filter off for a minute you start to see what it means

Your theories, although a bit confusing, are no more or less valid than others on this forum.

Please keep in mind that there was a time when the scientists and people of a distant past time believed that if you were to walk far enough you would fall off this flat earth.

The current theories of quantum physics, cosmology, mass, energy, gravity, time, space and all that goes along it are nothing but today’s thinkers and shakers trying to cope with observation and mental experiments and reality. In a hundred years, if Earth people remain in place, advances will have put all current theories in the category of the same 'flat Earth society.' In other words, no one knows anything for certain.

So any concepts or ideas that you have are just as valid as anyone on Earth today.

"We see reality as we assume it exists."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
I think that this thread has lingered here quite long enough. Wolf, this Forum is for threads that have direct relevance to quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. The Forum for personal speculation is the Theory Development Forum, which is where I am sending this.
 
  • #34
I think that this thread has lingered here quite long enough. Wolf, this Forum is for threads that have direct relevance to quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. The Forum for personal speculation is the Theory Development Forum, which is where I am sending this.

Tom you have every right to move posts wherever you like as you are the master mentor.

But please allow me to mention the fact that Quantum Mechanics is just fuzzy enough enough to have had personal observaton and speculation more or less with a very direct relevance to our understanding of QM.

One of the most astonishing features of quantum mechanics: the 'autonomous' role of the observation, as a subjective event which cannot be reduced to a physical one. The very existence of a qualitatively different formalization for the observation process is something unthinkable in classic physics, where the observer can be both completely ignored and completely amalgamated, pure soul or another piece of matter as you like, in the physical representation of the event, without affecting the natural laws.

In quantum mechanics, on the contrary, we have two qualitatively different evolution laws for the system: the first continuous, in absence of observation events, and the second discontinuous, accomplishing a sudden ''reduction'' of the wave-packet to one of the possible values/pure states (eigenvalues/eigenvectors) of the observable, during a measurement event. Such a behavior must be confronted with the classic description of the physical knowledge. In fact, in classic mechanics the 'knowledge' event is something not reducible to a mechanical description, as the whole history of the body/mind dualistic philosophies has shown."

Without personal speculation like Einstein or Newton, where would our current concepts of the laws of nature and relativeity be today.

Just a thought...
 
  • #35
..quantem mechanics in a way is movement and how movemnt and reality..
This is sort've what Einstein was getting at with his general and special theories of relativity. Movement in the space-time continuum is always done at the speed of light. This may seem like an arbitrary way of looking at the situation, but by theorists it has been somewhat proven that the addition of the 4 dimensions that we move through will produce the sum of the speed of light. So, the more massive an object is, the more of it's energy is expended in the three spatial dimensions (It's gravitational energy), thus the slower it moves through time. This can be observed as you approach the event horizion of a black hole. The closer you get to the event horizion, the stronger the gravitation field you encounter, and the more slowly you move through time (Though technically the person within the gravitational field could say he's moving at a normal rate, and the person outside of the field is moving faster then they are, for simplicity's sake we shall assume that they think that they are moving slowly as a result of the gravitational field). This is because more of your energy is being expended on the spatial dimensions, so less is avaliable to move through time.

The reason that this matters is because massless objects like photons can travel through time and not need to expend any other energy in the spatial dimensions, because it has no mass to be effected by these dimensions. This means that a photon doesn't age, so a photon that you encounter today might be as old as the universe is.

..but is it posible that the energy of movement or the velocity if you wish could be altered by another..
This is exactly what happens. As someone has previously mentioned, this is called a force, and the application of a force on an object can cause it to speed up, slow down, stop or start, depending on the magnitude and direction of the force applied. This is the basis for most Newtonian physics applications. Again, this is non-quantum physics.

I think you need to read more about the application of quantum physics. It seems that you have the ideas of quantum and classical physics mixed up. In the future there may come a time when the perfect union of quantum and classical physics is accomplished (The T.o.E., as it were), but until that time they for the most part are thought of as separate entities.

I hope this helps.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K