Is it possible the quantum nature of energy and space are related to the resonate properties that Einstein associated with mass and energy by his equation E=mc^2. Chapter two http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter2.htm below of Shadows attempts to answer this question by defining the resonate properties Shadows associates with mass and energy I terms of the law of mass / energy conservation. We would appreciate a discussion on the validity and the usefulness of the arguments presented in Chapter two and shadows.
Jeff
“Relativity defines the equivalence between energy and mass in terms of the equation of E=mc^2. Since the law of conservation of mass / energy implies or states that the sum of the mass and energy components of space in a closed system must remain constant, a dynamic balance exists between the mass and energy components of space in any given system. If you increase the total energy component of a given system by increasing its temperature you must also be decreasing the total mass component of that system by the amount dictated by the equation E=mc^2. Therefore, there must be a dynamic balance between mass and energy components of space in all systems. Chapter three derives the energy of a photon or the equivalent temperature of a black body in terms of the frequency or oscillatory patterns of the energy and mass components of space. Therefore the oscillations of the mass and energy components of space around the equilibrium or balance point associated with a given energy or equivalent temperature of a system defines the resonate structure of the mattercule or quantum unit of space. Later Chapter three will show “c” or the velocity of light must be factored out of the equation E=mc^2 when defining the “static” or “non moving” dynamic resonate relationships between mass and energy component of space. Therefore, resonate properties of the mass and energy components of space and the physical volume of the mattercule or quantum unit of space would be defined by the equation E=mc.”
Surely you realize that resonance is a loaded term in physics. When you say that mass and energy have some sort of resonant relation, are you referring in any way to classical resonance? If not, maybe you could offer a different word that gets the idea you mean across?
I’m fairly sure that this is not a definition of Relativity per se. That is, it is not fundamental.
Ring
We specified that the system be closed with respect to the total sum of the mass and energy components of that system. .
“Since the law of conservation of mass / energy implies or states that the sum of the mass and energy components of space in a closed system must remain constant, a dynamic balance exists between the mass and energy components of space in any given system.”
Therefore if one increases the energy component of a closed system the mass component of that system must decrease. The law of conservation of mass energy does not allow for any other interpretation.
Aha! I think I see a stumbling block. You’re thinkng of mass and energy as being two separate things, and their total is a constant. However, it’s better to think of mass and energy as being two different ways of looking at the same thing.
How do you plan to increase the temperature of a closed system?
The only time E[sup]2[/sup] = m[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]4[/sup]
or E = mc[sup]2[/sup] is when the net momentum of the system equals zero and in this case the energy is fixed and so is the mass.
Do a google search on the energy momentum four vector.
Ring is dead on the money here. I think you should maybe learn a little bit of physics before trying to come up with your own new theories. This is as good a place to start as any on the internet.
Even if one does look at mass and energy as being two different ways of looking at the same thing to maintain the validity of the law of conservation of mass energy when one of the same thing is increased the other of the same thing must decrease. As I said earlier there can be no other interpretation if the law of conservation of mass energy is valid.
I agree with you that you cannot increase the temperature of a closed system and my apologizes for the misstatement I made in my previous article. What I should have said is changing the temperature of a system will change the point at which the resonance between the mass and energy components of space occur. Therefore it generates a new closed system, which will resonate at different spatial volume and frequency. This is responsible for resonate energies observed in black box radiation being related to the volume of the black box. Again my apologies of any confusion my statement may have caused.
jeff
Ah, I should point out that it’s probably best to ignore everything I’ve said so far. It’s taking me far too long to divorce myself from the idea that relativistic mass is a physically useful concept.
What exactly do you mean by resonance? What is the resonance between the mass and energy components of space? And what does it mean for it to occur at a certain point?
In the closed resonate system that Shadows defines for the resonate properties of the mattercule or quantum unit of space the quantity of energy is fixed because the system is closed. Therefore because the closed system containing the quantum unit of space is not moving with respect to space and its energy is constant the equation E=mc^2 is a valid way of interpreting the mass and energy relationships for the quantum unit of space defined by shadows
You gentlemen who have wasted your time studying standard physics might want to take a look at this thread before deciding how much additional time you want to spend on this.
The term resonate refers the dynamic nature of the oscillation shadows associates with the mass and energy components of space. Shadows defines the physical structure of space in terms a dynamic relationship between mass and energy defined by the equation E=mc^2. By resonate we are referring the dynamic interaction of mass and energy that is characteristic of all classical resonate systems. The resonate point occurs at the point where the frequency of the oscillations between the mass and energy components of space equals the frequency associated with the equivalent temperature of the black body radiation associated with that temperature.
We believe that a given volume of space is composed of a dynamic composite of mass and energy. We also believe that based on the law of conservation of mass energy the total sum of the mass and energy components of a quantum unit of space is constant. We define point were this resonance occurs between the mass and energy components of space to be related to energy or temperature of a given system. Increasing the temperature of a system will result in a larger quantity of the mass component of space in that system to be in the form of energy defined by the equation E=mc^2. This will result in the point at which resonance occurs to be shifted towards the energy component of the quantum unit of space.
Okay, this seems like something that can be easily addressed without getting into resonance. So let me get straight what you’re saying by just this one statement. If you have a point in space, it has a mass “component” and an energy “component”. So, for instance, it might have m = 3 and E = 3, for a conserved total of 6. Then, if you move a particle with a mass of 2 into this point in space, the mass component will go up to 5, and so the energy component will have to go down to 1 to compensate. Is this the kind of thing you’re picturing?
Yes in a way however it is very important that you understand that a quantum particle of space with a mass of two cannot exist. Shadows http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm in chapter two defines each specific quantum particle of space to be composed of a dynamic relationship between the mass and energy components of space in which the sum of the mass and energy component is constant and the same for all quantum unit of space . A quantum unit of space as defined in Chapter two below cannot have a mass of 2 because the total sum of the mass and energy components of all quantum units of space is the same. Therefore a quantum particle of space with a mass of 2 cannot exist because it would have mass greater than the sum of the mass and energy component of the quantum unit of space. Shadows does not derive the quantum unit of space in terms of mass or energy by themselves but in terms of a dynamic interaction between the mass or matterfield and the energy or energyfield component of space.
As was mentioned in an earlier article increasing the temperature will cause the equilibrium point between the mass and energy components to shift towards the energy component of the quantum unit of space. This will result in increasing the relative magnitude of energy component with respect to the mass component of the quantum unit of space by the amount defined by the equation E=mc^2. This will also result in the volume occupied by that quantum unit of space to have relatively greater energy density with respect to the mass component of space and therefore more energy and a higher temperature than the adjacent quantum units of space.
The resonate nature of the mass and energy relationships define by Shadows can be best understood by the fact that all energy is transmitted by photon who energy is quantized by their frequency. In Chapter three http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter3.htm Shadows defines the quantized energy associated with a photon of a given frequency to be the result of a dynamic interaction between the mass and energy components of the quantum unit of space at that frequency. It is the oscillations of the mass and energy components of the quantum unit of space that we believe support our hypotheses of the resonate nature mass and energy components of space shadows associates with the quantum unit of space.
Particle with a mass of greater than the sum of the mass and energy components of a single quantum unit of space such as the one with a mass of 2 mentioned in your article are the result of an aggregation of quantum particle of space in which the sum of their individual amass component add up to two.
“The mattercule (molecule of space) is defined as the quantum unit or “particle” of space. It is composed of matterenergy fields. The sum of the internal forces of the matterfields and energyfields is the same and constant for all mattercules.”
Okay, it sounds like Shadows is making a lot of definitions, and that one of the big assumptions is that space is quantized. That seems like a really big assumption, don’t you think?
Also, do you have values (in SI or cgs) for the size of this mattercule, or for this proposed universal amount of mass + energy per mattercule? Is it 1?
The fact that space is quantized is based more on the logical extrapolation of geometry defined by shadows and relativity than on a definition. Shadows derives the physical geometry of space in terms of mass and energy and relativity derives physical geometry of the relationship between mass and energy in terms of the equation E=mc^2. As mention in an earlier article shadows geometrically derives the quantized energy of a photon in terms of the interaction between the mass and energy component of space defined by the equation E=mc^2. Therefore we believe that it is a logical to extrapolate the quantum nature of the energy of a photon to the phsycial structure of space.
We also feel that the total mass energy of a quantum unit of space as derived in following section of chapter three may be approximately equal to plank’s constant expressed in grams.
Jeff
“These equations E=hc/Lambda and E=mc(Mr-Mc) define the mass “m” of the matterfield component of the mattercule to be numerically equivalent to Planck’s constant or 6.547 X 10^-27 grams despite the discontinuity of units of measurement. Because “h” is a dynamic volume of energy on the quantum level and according to Relativity the geometry of space-time is curved in presence of mass (matter), mass is a measurement of the curvature of a region in the space. Therefore, energy or “h” cannot generate curved space however “h” can be “equivalent” to “m”, but not physically equal.”
Please try not to let the concepts and the geometry contained in Shadows <http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm intimidate you. They may be easier to understand if you remember that the geometry defined by Shadows for the physical universe is derived from the experimental observations of the observable physical world. Therefore we believe that it should be more understandable than concepts and geometry of relativity, which are based primarily on the abstract, non-observable dimension time.
For example the geometry Shadows has derived for the quantum nature of space is based on the physical existence of the mass component of space. If space has, as shadows postulates, mass with no subatomic entitles present then the inertial properties associated with the mass component of space should be and are physical observable and measurable. In Chapter Twenty three < http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter23.htm > Shadows postulates the mass component of space is contributing the anomalous accelerations NASA has observed on it deep space probes. It also defines an experimental technique for verifying the mass component of space is indeed contributing to these anomalous accelerations.
The resonance nature of the mass and energy components of space that we have been referring to in these article is very similar to all classical resonate mass energy systems. If you have a violin string with a given mass and impart a given energy to it it will resonate at a given frequency. If you shorten or lengthen the string the frequency of the oscillations will change. This is Shadows perceives is what is happening between the mass energy components of space. When one imparts a specific quantity of energy to the mass component of space it will resonate at a specific frequency that is directly related to that frequency. Therefore these oscillations between mass and energy components of space that shadows postulates if responsible of the quantum nature of space can be understood in classical or every day terms that most of us are familiar with.
Also please try not to let the physical length of the shadows paper intimidate you. Because this theory attempts to explain and predict all aspects of the physical world we felt a need to include discussions relating to all of them. If we had not then some would dismissed the ideas outright because they would have said that it cannot explain a specific aspect of the physical world.
If you have visited the shadows site you will notice that each subject area is broken up into individual chapters, which are individually linked to the Shadows home page. Instead of attempting to review the entire shadows site from the beginning go directly the subject area that you a most familiar with. We put considerable effort to presenting the concepts in each subject area as independently as possible to minimize the need to refer to other sections. Reviewing only the subject areas you have knowledge of may make it easier for you to understand the shadows model.
The best advice we can give to help you understand the concepts contained in Shadows is to try to relate them to your every day experiences and common sense. All of the mechanisms and geometries defined by Shadows have their origins in classical common sense world of Newtonian physics.
Our apologize for our poor grammar in the following section of our previous article. The corrections are capitalized.
The resonance nature of the mass and energy components of space that we have been referring to in these articles is very similar to all classical resonate mass energy systems. If you have a violin string with a given mass and impart a given energy to it it will resonate at a given frequency. If you shorten or lengthen the string the frequency of the oscillations will change. This is WHAT Shadows perceives is happening between the mass energy components of space. When one imparts a specific quantity of energy to the mass component of space it will resonate at a specific frequency that is directly related to that ENERGY. Therefore these oscillations between mass and energy components of space that shadows postulates is responsible of the quantum nature of space can be understood in classical or every day terms that most of us are familiar with.
“THE MECHANISM THAT DEFINE THE OPERATION OF A PHYSCIAL WORLD SHOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE IN TERMS OF THE EVERYDAY EXPERIENCES OF THE RESIDENTS OF THAT WORLD.”
You postulate four spatial dimensions. Oops. In four spatial dimensions the number of gravitational field lines per unit area at a distance of r would go as 1/r^3 instead of the 1/r^2 we see in our three dimensional space.
But 1/r^3 orbits are unstable.
You see the problem? No stable orbits means no solar systems means no Earths means no intelligent life means no us. The fact that we exist to have an observable physical world requires us to exist in three spatial dimensions.
Your geometry is wrong on first principles. Your attempt to transform QM and SR means nothing because you don’t even understand what it means to extend basic Newtonian physics to four dimensions.
Oh, and BTW,
This is cute as a justification for your inability to understand existing physics, but, you know, there is no reason whatsoever that the underlying principles of the universe should relate to the everyday experiences of humanity. Or do you believe that the world is flat and that the sun circles the earth?
And what’s with the royal We? How many voices are there in your head?