Is Energy Really Flat? Understanding the Dimensions of e=mc²

[bp_psy]

Strictly Robert is correct.
A Sphere refers to the surface of a multidimensional closed ball. So in 3 space a sphere is a 2dimensional surface.

I have already stated that I can't follow Robert's unconventional flow of thought, so I am trying to bridge the gap by repeating my question about time.

That is correct.I was being silly.

 

[Matterwave]

So...uh, mass which is measured in kg...is somehow a line in space?

When I say my mass is: m=60kg, am I implying a line in space? Are you really saying that equations such as F=ma should be interpreted as geometry? Like F=ma with F measured in kgm/s^2 is some kind of geometric object? When I push on a wall, the force I apply is some geometric shape that exists in space? I have never seen such a shape...

 

[Sreep]

So...uh, mass which is measured in kg...is somehow a line in space?

When I say my mass is: m=60kg, am I implying a line in space? Are you really saying that equations such as F=ma should be interpreted as geometry? Like F=ma with F measured in kgm/s^2 is some kind of geometric object? When I push on a wall, the force I apply is some geometric shape that exists in space? I have never seen such a shape...

I see nothing wrong with interpretations with geometry. SR and GR relied heavily on weird geometry(I still find it difficult to comprehend). I myself have never seen such a shape, but I do not think it is 'right' to say that such is impossible. Perhaps with N spatial dimensions, Energy has (N-1) spatial dimensions? Of course, since we cannot change our dimensions at will, it is unlikely we will ever find out. Still, a hypothesis or theory is always helpful, unless it is proven wrong, which in this case I guess cannot be done.

PS. Feynman Diagrams and virtual particles, did you think they existed? (or superluminal virtual particles... etc... They are ideas which help with understanding.)

 

[robert135]

So...uh, mass which is measured in kg...is somehow a line in space?

When I say my mass is: m=60kg, am I implying a line in space? Are you really saying that equations such as F=ma should be interpreted as geometry? Like F=ma with F measured in kgm/s^2 is some kind of geometric object? When I push on a wall, the force I apply is some geometric shape that exists in space? I have never seen such a shape...

Of course you have seen the shape of a force. The wall does not deform, it heats up... and the shape of the heating up would be related to your force but to the naked eye... you would see nothing...

You want to see a shape... push on the side of your car door... it deforms as a response to the shape of your force... if you use a linear head like on a chisel, and wack your door (not recommended) you would see that the distortion of the metal would match the shape of the force applied to it, in this case a linear force along the head of the chisel. In the case of point sources against a plane, they always deform as some almost parabolic shape.

That of course is if the object just deforms and does not break.

But look at an assembly line or watch the show something like "How stuff is made." and all you see is the shape of forces.

A force is some acceleration applied to a mass. The geometry of the interaction of the 2 is supremely important to understanding what is going on.

 

[bp_psy]

Of course you have seen the shape of a force. The wall does not deform, it heats up... and the shape of the heating up would be related to your force but to the naked eye... you would see nothing...

You want to see a shape... push on the side of your car door... it deforms as a response to the shape of your force... if you use a linear head like on a chisel, and wack your door (not recommended) you would see that the distortion of the metal would match the shape of the force applied to it, in this case a linear force along the head of the chisel. In the case of point sources against a plane, they always deform as some almost parabolic shape.

That of course is if the object just deforms and does not break.

But look at an assembly line or watch the show something like "How stuff is made." and all you see is the shape of forces.

A force is some acceleration applied to a mass. The geometry of the interaction of the 2 is supremely important to understanding what is going on.

No.Forces have no shapes. What you are doing in your quest to visualize stuff is basically create meaningless models and disregard useful models that work and help understand how things actually work. And I am using "how it actually works" in the same way as you do and not that it gives results. The shape that an object takes when forces are applied to it is the object of study in continuum mechanics which has a very solid basis and does explain quite well "how stuff works". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(mechanics)
I see that in the end you are not interested in a discussion or to address to any of the points me and others have raised. So I see no point in this thread any more.

 

[Char. Limit]

You can't compare force and energy.

Force is a vector, and has a direction, while energy is a scalar.

Robert, in your first post, you say that acceleration is the component of s^-2. this is not true. Acceleration has a unit of m/s^2. Which would take one of the meters of your area out.

So... even if you are correct, energy would be 1-dimensional, not two.

 

[robert135]

No.Forces have no shapes. That you are doing in your quest to visualize stuff is basically create meaningless models and disregard useful models that work and help understand how things actually work. And I am using "how it actually works" in the same way as you do and not that it gives results. The shape that an object takes when forces are applied to it is the object of study in continuum mechanics which has a very solid basis and does explain quite well "how stuff works". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(mechanics)
I see that in the end you are not interested in a discussion or to address to any of the points me and others have raised. So I see no point in this thread any more.

Actually what I realized is that you speak one language. To describe a concept, you have to use that one language or everything gets confusing. I have seen this countless times when 2 computer guys describe the same concept but cannot come to agreements.

I am having trouble understanding what language a physicist speaks if it is not mathematics. But when attempting to use mathematical concepts I was warned to be very cautious in using math to describe a concept, since physical reality and math do not jive...

So really what you want to hear to understand what I am saying, is the exact physics equations and basically quotes from physicists that fully understood these things or at least could use the equations you are familiar with effectively. Unfortunately, if I knew all of these things already... I would have never made this post, because it would have been irrelevant.

I come from a computer science background, and it appears very difficult to try to bridge that gap in a discussion here. So instead of continuing a path that is doomed to fail, I have instead turned my energies to getting familiar with the language that you guys speak. So I can describe the same concepts you are describing in a manner you will understand.