The Metaphysical and the Physical

[quantumdude]

Boy, are you guys confused.

Rather than address all the posts in this thread, I am going to speak in some generalities and then comment on the one post that lies at the root of the conceptual problem.

Energy is a defined mathematical quantity[/color]. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality. Physicists make use of the concept because the dynamical behavior of physical systems is such that this mathematical function is conserved.

Some examples of energy forms and the state variables that determine them:

KE of a particle: K=(1/2)mv² State variable: v
PE of a particle in a gravitational field: V=-GMm/r State variable: r
Energy of a photon: E_γ=hf State variable: f

et cetera...

In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Energy may be physical, but why do you think it is particles? Take light/EM for example. If light is energy, then why does the loss of energy result in a longer wavelength and a slower oscillatory rate?

Because that is how energy is defined.

All we should see is less energy and no other characteristics remaining behind. Are you saying energy is wave-ness and oscillitory rate-ness?

Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.

And then, what is the "particle" of heat? Heat isn't a particle as far as I know.

Heat is not quantized, but a macroscopic phenomenon. The state variable in this case is the temperature, and that is what is measured.

Personally, I don't think light/EM is energy, but rather is something that can be energized. Light appears to be something unique to itself -- luminescence plus vibrancy -- which remains present whether you increase or decrease its energy.

It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has[/color] an energy that can be calculated.

I don't think you are anybody else knows what energy actually "is." That is why in physics energy is only described in terms of what it does -- work. Energy is a mystery, and if you have the secret of it, please share so we can all know.

Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

 

[Iacchus32]

Ahh, "wisdom" is the interior of what knowledge is the exterior. Knowledge is the physical, of which wisdom is the metaphysical. This is why science doesn't get it.

Science "follows" the path of knowledge, while the mystic "searches" the path of wisdom.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tom
Boy, are you guys confused.

Actually I was hoping someone would step in who can speak with authority. I’ve been trying to pick a fight to test my understanding of something. If you will tolerate it, let me challenge you a bit to see what comes out of it.

You say, "Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality."

At the old PF, Integral said this too, basically saying that energy is a means of measurement. So when you say “state variables that do have reality,” aren’t you meaning by the term “reality,” that which can be observed, measured, and quantified? Does energy fail to qualify for that (i.e., reality) because only energy’s effects can be seen (work), while energy itself (whatever that is) is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable?

Originally posted by Tom In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.

Got it. But building on my previous point, is it that energy is “nothing,” or is it that energy is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable? You know it is “real” because you can see its effect on things, but for the sake of predicting and working in physics you have to find a way to observe, measure, and quantify. Since energy is contrary to that, you observe, measure, and quantify its effects on things.

Originally posted by Tom
Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.

That seems to agree with my line of reasoning.

Originally posted by Tom
It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has[/color] an energy that can be calculated.

This is why I picked the fight. A number of people have been saying that energy is light. I used to think so too, until I realized light can be more, or less, energized. To me it is illogical that light can gain or lose energy without losing base characteristics, like c or oscillation. In every other instance where energy is required to move something, energy is expended. But light travels at c no matter what its energy. Therefore, energy is not responsible for c; c must be related to something else altogether.

It is harder to make the case with oscillation (as a base characteristic of light) because it does slow and elongate in lower energy states. My argument there is that maybe light has a “base state” of vibrancy which energy is exaggerating. Since oscillation frequency increases as the wavelength shortens, then possibly “energy” is potentialized by compression of the base state of light, and made available for work when it decompresses.

Originally posted by Tom
Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

That’s the only thing you said I can’t see. If you assign a definition or a number to something, that is just its representative. You may understand the representative system you’ve set up, but it doesn’t mean you understand that which it represents.

 

[Eh]

What exactly are you imagining light is? Do a thought experiment here. Take a photon, and then list the various properties it has. Can you find a property that isn't related to energy?

 

[MavinMI6Agent009]

I think that there's a psychophysical dualism construct that acquires two basic powers of the human mind and brain: the cognitive and the conative. Both are cooperative and interactive. Whatever exists physically exists as an individual thus each individuality has materialism in existence. Regardless of what an object may be such as a building, car, or tree, their is always some physical embodiment material. Just my 0.5 cents.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tiberius

There are many things in our vocabulary and in the world that are not "physical" per se, yet not spiritual or mystical. For example, "democracy", "capitalism", "socialism", "mind", "Windows 2000", "party", and so on.

These are nouns, but they are not words that represent physical objects. Rather, they represent activity, patterns, and situations. These things are REAL and, as you said, part of this universe, but not physical.

The Mind is the name we give to the pattern of electrochemical activity in the brain. This pattern codes for information - memories, attitudes, and active thought (a form of computation or information processing). So, the "mind" is not an object, but a description of activity - a PATTERN.

I am perfectly willing to entertain notions such as these. If you wish to refer to all patterns of activity as "metaphysical" just because they, like democracy, cannot be held in the hand or put on a scale, then I suppose that's ok with me, but there's the whole other class of "metaphysics" that DOES involve alleged things outside the natural universe, which this must be distinguished from.

What could there be "outside the natural Universe"?

What phenomena would you classify as "metaphysical"?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tom
Boy, are you guys confused.

Rather than address all the posts in this thread, I am going to speak in some generalities and then comment on the one post that lies at the root of the conceptual problem.

Energy is a defined mathematical quantity[/color]. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality. Physicists make use of the concept because the dynamical behavior of physical systems is such that this mathematical function is conserved.

Some examples of energy forms and the state variables that determine them:

In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.

Because that is how energy is defined.

Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.

Heat is not quantized, but a macroscopic phenomenon. The state variable in this case is the temperature, and that is what is measured.

It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has[/color] an energy that can be calculated.

Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

So "energy" is not "independently real" but is a "function" of that which is "real"? This is a serious inquiry...so don't hurt.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
Les, my point was that, simply stated, the metaphysical mind can interact with the physical universe, which addresses one of the original questions of this thread. I thought this was obvious but now the mind and will is even being denied existence.
I thought that once the point made that the meta does interact with the physical on the mind and will level, which I thought would be accepted as obvious, then by extention, we could speculate that spirit or soul exists then the case had already been made that they too could interact with the physical reality.

That is a pretty good argument . . . if (IMO) you are talking to people who already suspect something metaphysical is in charge.

But I have found that in debating with those who doubt that, they won't allow such a long inferential leap. Someone whose mind is already made up is hopeless, but the open-minded skeptic, who is so because he needs evidence and for things to make sense, might listen if you can make your case each and every step along the way.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I think we could develop a description of the "meta" part of metaphysical which most anyone might agree. I doubt few would disagree that mind wills the body. If we look at the behavior of matter not under the control of consciousness, it just sits there for the most part, or if inanimate matter does have dynamics, they are quite predictable.

Actually, "metaphysics" -- according to Webster -- is quite respectable...NOT the "woo-woo" thinking we have come to associate with the word.

METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) ad, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (cosmology).

METAPHYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning; too abstract; excessively subtle; SUPERNATURAL...and here's where the problems begin!

Actually, anything that "happens" in the Universe should be thought of, by definition, as NATURAL. Yet even "consciousness" is not worthy of discussion -- let alone INCLUSION -- within cosmological theory ...as if consciousness is not a PART of the Universe at all.

I purposely didn't include one word that Webster did (actually, I'm using 'The American Heritage Dictionary"); the word is "immaterial". I would assume they mean "without substance" and not "without function".

Thus, it would seem, that when a materialists cannot detect, measure or test a "substance" then...it (whatever the "it" may be ) doesn't exist.

Some things can only be "measured" by their EFFECTS...yet, again, consciousness is left out in the cold because its effects can't be definitively demonstrated or predicted.

Of course you know there have been experiments on "intention's" effect on "random events"...but even these are inconclusive.

I, too, would like to "unite" -- via persuasive logic, if nothing else -- that which is UNITED ALREADY: the natural forces/processes/ingredients of the physical and non-physical Universe.

Good luck with that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, "metaphysics" -- according to Webster -- is quite respectable...NOT the "woo-woo" thinking we have come to associate with the word.

METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) ad, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (cosmology).

METAPHYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning; too abstract; excessively subtle; SUPERNATURAL...and here's where the problems begin!

Actually, anything that "happens" in the Universe should be thought of, by definition, as NATURAL. Yet even "consciousness" is not worthy of discussion -- let alone INCLUSION -- within cosmological theory ...as if consciousness is not a PART of the Universe at all.

I purposely didn't include one word that Webster did (actually, I'm using 'The American Heritage Dictionary"); the word is "immaterial". I would assume they mean "without substance" and not "without function".

Thus, it would seem, that when a materialists cannot detect, measure or test a "substance" then...it (whatever the "it" may be ) doesn't exist.

Some things can only be "measured" by their EFFECTS...yet, again, consciousness is left out in the cold because its effects can't be definitively demonstrated or predicted.

Of course you know there have been experiments on "intention's" effect on "random events"...but even these are inconclusive.

I, too, would like to "unite" -- via persuasive logic, if nothing else -- that which is UNITED ALREADY: the natural forces/processes/ingredients of the physical and non-physical Universe.

Good luck with that.

Good post.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What could there be "outside the natural Universe"?

I have no idea, nor have I ever heard of any reliable way that such a thing could ever be determined.

What phenomena would you classify as "metaphysical"? [/QUOTE]

Nothing, in the supernatural sense - I doubt the supernatural exists. However, if one is thinking of the metaphysical as being those things which relate to "ultimate meaning and truth" then there's lots of matters of ethics, living, values, and such that one could consider as metaphysical. I have no problem with these, but these would all be a part of and explanable within the context of the natural universe.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Data? What does that have to do with this discussion? Gathering data is very relevant to studying physics, but utterly irrelevant to the deeper sort of metaphysics I have been trying to get you to consider. Those people who want to gather data using metaphysics I say are wasting time; and those people who want to understand metaphysics by gathering data are also spinning their wheels. For understanding metaphysics, check out samadhi meditation. It enlighened the Buddha, and many others as well.

We are using different ideas of "data" here. EVERYTHING is data. If you learn something about yourself from meditation or prayer, then you have gathered or processed data. If you watch a movie you gather data. If no data is gathered or processed by a mental activity, then it is meaningless and useless because the brain would be in the identical state it was before the event as after. If the brain has changed at all due to an experience (and it always does in SOME way), then data has been gathered.

What I was saying is that the type of data gathered through metaphysical means has never been shown to be data that the mind could not have gained through normal natural means. But if you are not referring to the supernatural then I still would like you to sum up what it is you ARe referring to exactly. It's easy to mention book titles and names of specific practices - I could do the same. But we're not all going to go read a book and then come back to the discussion. Please try to offer something more substantial and practical for an internet chat or else stop being so offended that people don't know what you're talking about (so you claim).

I am not going to argue Socrates with you, it will take years. Let's agree to disagree (radically!).

Ok. But I'd still recommend you read Phaedo again.

This is too sloppy for words. Which writers are you referring to? There are far too many writers contributing to the Bible to generalize about. And what part of the Bible do you mean? The whole thing, or just the NT? In the NT, quote me one writer, just one saying that.

It is pretty common knowledge that this was the general conception of the time. So, just about ALL of the writers in both books thought of the universe in this way - as did most people. No one in ancient times thought about "other dimensions" or planes of existence - that is a strictly modern reinterpretation. That is the very reason why, when science came along they tried measuring and weighing souls. That's why the structure of the cosmos was of such interest to religious people. That's why when Jesus was said to have "ascended" to heaven, he rose up into the sky. Because they actually believed heaven could be seen by looking up at night.

I haven't read every book. But it is my area of expertise and where I am formally educated, and something I've been trying to understand for 30 years. I don't expect someone who isn't interested in metaphysics to be an expert, but if not, then I do expect you to make sure what you say is accurate when you are fault-finding, which is what you have been doing.

Fault-finding? I don't know what you're talking about. I am merely saying that no one has ever been able to prove reliably that a supernatural or paranormal event has ever taken place - and that is true. I have read a lot about these things as well and could rattle off book titles and I'm sure I'd hit a few important ones you haven't read. The point is, if you have some exception to it, then give us the overview of it and state your point instead of expecting us to go to the bookstore and read the thing and get back to you. There's far too many people with their own views and favorite books for that to be practical. As of now all you've provided is a name such as "union prayer" - this doesn't inspire me to read about it. I know you can't retype the book but providing recaps of points I've read in books is pretty much the majority of what we do here.

My objection is to you not specifically singling out the bogus practices of mind readers, pet psychics, etc., and infering from them a general criticism of all metaphysics. That is sloppy scholarship.

This isn't scholarship - it's informal conversation. If I'm going to be doing scholarship I'll put a lot more effort into it than a chat board. Yes, those are specifically the people I'm referring to. Again, if you have some other example, please give us a more than a name.

The reason I find that objectionable is because I am a big fan of science. And I am a big fan of metaphysics. I don't see why the two need to be at odds. If I ever run across some metaphysical assertion that contradicts a known physical fact, I wouldn't accept it -- supernatural phenomenon, for instance.

That's wonderful :) No problem with that.

My experience has been that metaphysical understanding is an inner thing, and physical understanding is an outer thing. In terms of acquiring knowledge in each other's domain, they don't seem very compatible, and I am perfectly happy with that.

Ok, but what do you mean about "inner understanding?" (a form of data by the way) Give me an example of the sort of understanding you've gotten, how you got it, and how you propose that worked? Without these bare minimums it's impossible to discuss.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Thoughts on light and energy

Originally posted by Eh
What exactly are you imagining light is? Do a thought experiment here. Take a photon, and then list the various properties it has. Can you find a property that isn't related to energy?

I am not sure I can do a thought experiment now, but let me tell you how I've been thinking about it.

It seems that in every model of "reality," there arises this problem of what was first. Many times an infinite regression type of debate happens, or someone just sticks something in the theoretical hole and decides to defend it with or without facts

I started thinking about it and it seemed to me that if there were some base state of things, it should be reflected in every single aspect of reality because everything would be a manifestation of that.

Looking at our universe, what is like that? What is common to everything? At first I thought energy, but then I realized energy was more like an effect than something "real," as Tom said.

What about light? Well, light is very constant in certain ways. It always oscillates for one, and so does everything else. Hmmmmm, could even the mighty oscillator, an atom, somehow be a form of light? If so, what would make light take such a form?

How about compression? If light were naturally vibrant, then if you compressed it that would accentuate vibrancy to produce oscillation. And if light existed in some base state (i.e., non-compressed), then light would try to return to that if the compressional force (whatever that is) were to release/switch directions.

Some facts support this model. The wavelength of light shrinks with increasing energy, which is what we should expect with compression. The universe is expanding, apparently driven by some pressure, and as the universe expands, old light yields a bit of its energy.

Anyway, I was thinking that light might be uncreated and destructible stuff, which possibly in its base state is something like “luminescent vibrancy,” and which everything that exists is a form of. And energy is compression, compressed light to be exact, and so light is a "carrier" of energy (i.e., compression). Energy can be taken advantage of when light decompresses by allowing it to drive processes, etc. Logically, when the various “forms” of light lose their structure and energy, all of it would return to the base state of light.

 

[Eh]

I think the main point is that light cannot exist without energy. It can't be at rest, and will always have momentum. As I mentioned with a thought experiement, take away the energy, and what do you have left?

Though I think I know where you're going with this. While light by definition cannot exist at rest, maybe light itself is really just a different form of something more fundemental. This would be along the lines of asking what spacetime ultimately is, and you might find it worthwhile to read what potential TOE's have to say. In string theory, every particle (photons included) is nothing but a string with a different vibration. The same string vibrating 3 different ways at different times, will produce what we view as 3 different fundamental particles. So in this case the string is fundemental, but I don't think it can be separated from it's energy state either.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eh
I think the main point is that light cannot exist without energy. It can't be at rest, and will always have momentum. As I mentioned with a thought experiement, take away the energy, and what do you have left?

Well, I am proposing that light is not energy, so it could exist. Energy is something expended to do work. If no energy is expended, and something is still moving, then it might mean the movement is perpetual. That is what I am suggesting about light, that its perpetual oscillation cannot be stopped, but only slowed until it reaches the "base state."

Originally posted by Eh
Though I think I know where you're going with this. While light by definition cannot exist at rest, maybe light itself is really just a different form of something more fundemental. . . . In string theory, every particle (photons included) is nothing but a string with a different vibration. The same string vibrating 3 different ways at different times, will produce what we view as 3 different fundamental particles. So in this case the string is fundemental, but I don't think it can be separated from it's energy state either.

I am saying the "more fundamental" is a super relaxed state of light. Its long wave could be seen as a string. Start compressing that wave, and one might get some interesting oscillatory effects.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
This isn't a “chat board,” it is a forum. Moreover, it is a science forum with a philosophy area.

Heh, different form of the same thing - point is, it's a casual conversation. Don't think too highly of yourself because you're on a "forum" - I don't remember there being any standards to post here (obviously).

I think a lot of us shoot for high standards of accuracy because what we are posting is public. Also, there are quite a few young people who participate at PF, and there is some commitment to wanting the information they see to be trustworthy. Obviously opinions will differ, but the facts used to support an opinion should be right.

And they are. I've based my beliefs on things I've seen and read just like you. But I will not be held to standards of "scholarship" and posting official references for what is essentially entertainment. That is, until they pay me to post here. I don't expect the same from you - just that if you've got some examples you'd like to discuss then spill it or drop it.

Metaphyiscs is one of three formal areas of philosophy (with epistimology and ethics being the other two). In discussions at PF in the past where we’ve contemplated what philosophy is, a simple definition I’ve liked is that it’s thinking about thinking. Using that defintion, then one might say metaphysics is productive ways to reason about the ultimate nature of reality or what really exists (to use a tidy characterization).

Yep.

One tiny area of metaphysics might be the mystical-magical thing, but it does not typify what the philosophical metaphysics is about. So when you post an opinion based on your assumption that metaphysics refers only to new age nonsense, it shows you haven’t done your home work.

I have never claimed that metaphysics refers "ONLY to new age nonsense." - You assumed that when I chose to talk about those things. In fact, quite a lot of my posts on this very thread to others have suggested otherwise (other types of what may be called metaphysics that I'm ok with). Please see those.

Let me quote excerpts from two of your posts, one from your QM thread, and one from here:

Yes that's a good quote. I was referring to QM so I asked for accuracy. You're not happy about me discussing certain things so you're calling it inaccuracy about things I'm not even talking about. Again, if you want to discuss those thing then do so and stop complaining that I'm not.

Part of my objection to your attitude has been that while you are stickler for correct science, you don’t show the same conscientiousness with other areas of thought. I see this all the time here where people only study what they believe in, and form opinions on other stuff carelessly. The worst offenders present their beliefs like they have the “right” view already, and anyone who doesn’t conform intellectually to their beliefs is stupid.

Are you describing yourself here? Anyway, I have studied the things I am talking about. I'm sorry if I'm not discussing "union prayer" but please feel free to do so if you like.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You say, "Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality."

At the old PF, Integral said this too, basically saying that energy is a means of measurement. So when you say “state variables that do have reality,” aren’t you meaning by the term “reality,” that which can be observed, measured, and quantified?

Yes. Look at the examples I gave. One does not measure kinetic energy, one measures speed (the state variable for KE). Similarly for the others.

Does energy fail to qualify for that (i.e., reality) because only energy’s effects can be seen (work), while energy itself (whatever that is) is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable?

As I said, energy is not measured, but it is a function of measured quantities. That does not mean that it is "unquantifiable". Indeed, when I say that it a mathematical function, that means that it is manifestly quantifiable!

Got it. But building on my previous point, is it that energy is “nothing,” or is it that energy is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable? You know it is “real” because you can see its effect on things, but for the sake of predicting and working in physics you have to find a way to observe, measure, and quantify. Since energy is contrary to that, you observe, measure, and quantify its effects on things.

Energy does not have "effects on things". How can it? It's an abstract object! No, as I said in my first post, the dynamical laws of nature as codified by physics are endowed with, among other constraints, the constraint of conservation of energy. It is defined because it is useful.

This is why I picked the fight. A number of people have been saying that energy is light. I used to think so too, until I realized light can be more, or less, energized. To me it is illogical that light can gain or lose energy without losing base characteristics, like c or oscillation. In every other instance where energy is required to move something, energy is expended. But light travels at c no matter what its energy. Therefore, energy is not responsible for c; c must be related to something else altogether.

Indeed, the energy of a photon has nothing to do with the speed of light. The state variable for the energy of a photon is the frequency (E=hf).

It is harder to make the case with oscillation (as a base characteristic of light) because it does slow and elongate in lower energy states. My argument there is that maybe light has a “base state” of vibrancy which energy is exaggerating. Since oscillation frequency increases as the wavelength shortens, then possibly “energy” is potentialized by compression of the base state of light, and made available for work when it decompresses.

There is no evidence that photons have a ground state energy. The frequency of photons seems to be a continuous variable starting from zero.

That’s the only thing you said I can’t see. If you assign a definition or a number to something, that is just its representative. You may understand the representative system you’ve set up, but it doesn’t mean you understand that which it represents.

This reminds me of when Lifegazer used to ask about the "essence of energy", as opposed to just the numerical value. To that, Ahrkron responded with "that's like asking about the 'essence' of your age".

It's just a number, not something with physical presence. However, all conservation laws do come from underlying symmetries in nature. In the case of energy, that law comes from the invariance of physical systems under time translations, an idea that is well understood.

 

[quantumdude]

Sorry, but when a pitcher serves up a meatball like this, I can't resist knocking it out of the park.

Originally posted by Eh
What exactly are you imagining light is? Do a thought experiment here. Take a photon, and then list the various properties it has. Can you find a property that isn't related to energy?

Photon Properties Not Related To Energy
1. Spin (J=1)
2. Isospin (I=0,1)
3. Parity (Π=-)
4. Charge Conjugation Parity (C=-)

There you go, 4 for the price of 1. What a bargain!

 

[Eh]

Isn't spin along the same lines (although not exactly the same as) of angular momentum? I guess the other examples should shut me up about that one.

But another question:

Indeed, the energy of a photon has nothing to do with the speed of light. The state variable for the energy of a photon is the frequency (E=hf).

Isn't there an associated momentum with light traveling at c?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, I am proposing that light is not energy, so it could exist. Energy is something expended to do work.

Aside from the confusion about c, I don't think you can define light as light without energy. That is, there doesn't seem to be such a thing as a photon that doesn't have an associated energy level. Something more fundamental may be the cause of light, but I think in a ground state in would no longer fit the definition of light.

If no energy is expended, and something is still moving, then it might mean the movement is perpetual.

Maybe you're looking for Newton's laws of motion. Something will move at a constant speed unless changed by a force. So if you throw something into a perfect vacuum, it will keep traveling at a constant rate until something else interferes. You don't need to be applying a constant push, ignoring friction.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Eh
Isn't spin along the same lines (although not exactly the same as) of angular momentum?

It is exactly the same as angular momentum, which is also not related to energy.

But another question:

Indeed, the energy of a photon has nothing to do with the speed of light. The state variable for the energy of a photon is the frequency (E=hf).

Isn't there an associated momentum with light traveling at c?

Yes: p=h/λ. Photon momentum has nothing to do with the speed of light, either.

edit: quote bracket

 

[Eh]

But is the momentum unrelated to the frequency?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Eh
But is the momentum unrelated to the frequency?

With light, you can always turn a wavelength dependence into a frequency dependence via c=fλ. So yes, you can write (edit: typo) p=hf/c[/color]. Please note that this does not imply that momentum depends on the speed of light. It is still a constant, no matter what value p takes on.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet your argument works only if it's "unknowable." Which I and many others have suggested to the contrary. If it exists then it "has" to be knowable, at least in some form.

This is nonsensical, as may people proport to "know" that metaphysics does not exist. You can't make this sort of proof by faith.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
This is nonsensical, as may people proport to "know" that metaphysics does not exist. You can't make this sort of proof by faith.

No, I can't prove it by your faith, but I can prove it by what I "know," at least to myself anyway. And, just because I may not be able to prove it to anybody else, does not invalidate it. If it exists, it exists, period. Granted, it can be very difficult and frustrating tyring to explain it to other people, but maybe that's the way it was meant to be? How else would one be able to see it for oneself then?

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by FZ+
This is nonsensical, as may people proport to "know" that metaphysics does not exist. You can't make this sort of proof by faith.

Nope. It's not a mirror position (you say tomayto, I say tomaato). Most of us materialists don't claim to "know" that the immaterial (your use of the word metaphysical) does not exist.

What we claim is that we know the material exists. We also know that in thousands of years no one has even been able to show that the immaterial exists. That doesn't mean it DOESN'T, but it does mean that it's not rational to hold a belief in such. That is, until or unless it's proven.

By the same token, it would be irrational for me to BELIEVE that there is life on Europa. That is, until a probe goes there or we by some other reliable means determine it's there.

NOT believing X is not equal to believing it's opposite.

p.s.
The above can also be used to sum up the atheist position, contrary to the common misperception of all atheists as "anti-theists".

 

[quantumdude]

Good job, Tiberius. I can't tell you how many times I have tried to explain the difference between atheism and antitheism.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Intresting discussion you guys have here...

Originally posted by Tiberius
What we claim is that we know the material exists.

What does it mean - "exist" ? Define it, please.
What does it mean - "material" ? Define it, please.
Oh and, upon what do you base that claim (that is, if after
the previous 2 questions you got any claim left) ?

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[Eh]

Jesus Drag, you've just opened a whole new can of worms.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Eh
Jesus Drag, you've just opened a whole new can of worms.

Well, sometimes I get to these parties a bit late,
but I sure like to make up for all the fun I missed...