PDA

View Full Version : Motion of energy or matter?

KhashayarShatti
2012-May-16, 03:16 PM
When motion of matter is speculated, it seems to me that energy moves and carries matter with it. I haven't been able to find a single case that scientifically proves that matter moves and carries energy with it, for example in case of K.E.
Is this true? If yes, how is it possible to prove it? In all cases is it possible to prove that energy is the carrier of matter?
So if it is said that matter can not move at or faster than the SOL, in fact it is the enegy that cannot move so fast to carry matter with it.
Could there be another kind of matter carrier?

ShinAce
2012-May-16, 03:48 PM
I haven't been able to find a single case that scientifically proves that matter moves and carries energy with it, for example in case of K.E.

Have you looked at any of the particle accelerators built in the last 50 years? How can we say they move energy and that energy drags matter along?
Matter can never reach light speed. Light, which is not matter, always travels at light speed.

It's hard to see where you're coming from, or rather, what ideas you're holding on to. As such, it becomes difficult to figure out if you're asking a question or laying down a foundation to build a pet theory upon.

KhashayarShatti
2012-May-16, 04:41 PM
Have you looked at any of the particle accelerators built in the last 50 years? How can we say they move energy and that energy drags matter along?
......
You know that neutral matter(not magnets or electric dipoles) don't accelerate in an electric field or magnetic field. It can be accelerated by gravity field. It means that gravity is a kind of neutral particle accelerator the most profound difference between gravity and EM fields. In all cases, an energy field exists. So accelerators are sources of energy.
You see, when we spot the motion of the earth round the sun, it is more like a packet of fixed energy is orbiting the sun and carries the earth with it. Yes? It is said that energy or matter didn't exist at the onset of the big bang. So there seems to exist a kind of carrier that can either set both energy and matter into motion or convert to energy and then set matter into motion.

ShinAce
2012-May-16, 05:08 PM
No, it does not seem like there is any kind of carrier for matter-energy. If gravity is what you want to know about, look into General Relativity. There, energy and matter are treated together in the stress energy tensor. They all follow geodesics in relativity. Gravity is generally not even regarded to be a force. The concept of acceleration in gravity has an equivalent statement without acceleration involved.

Also, acceleration means force. Neutrons have the strong nuclear force, which very well can impart an acceleration to the particle(s). Are you forgetting that neutrons are involved in particle accelerators when heavy ions are collided? Did you know that neutrons aren't even stable? Take a jar full of neutrons and wait 15 minutes. More than half the neutrons have decayed. The best part is, they decay into charged particles. They don't just explode into a bunch of neutrinos. That neutron will give you a proton, an electron, plus an electron antineutrino.

edit: You never explained why you think that neutrons are special. Instead of asking you the same question again, I'll try something else. What do you hope to explain by assuming uncharged matter is special? Which laws of physics are you working on? eg: Gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic?

KhashayarShatti
2012-May-16, 05:27 PM
No, it does not seem like there is any kind of carrier for matter-energy. If gravity is what you want to know about, look into General Relativity. There, energy and matter are treated together in the stress energy tensor. They all follow geodesics in relativity. Gravity is generally not even regarded to be a force. The concept of acceleration in gravity has an equivalent statement without acceleration involved.

Also, acceleration means force. Neutrons have the strong nuclear force, which very well can impart an acceleration to the particle(s). Are you forgetting that neutrons are involved in particle accelerators when heavy ions are collided? Did you know that neutrons aren't even stable? Take a jar full of neutrons and wait 15 minutes. More than half the neutrons have decayed. The best part is, they decay into charged particles. They don't just explode into a bunch of neutrinos. That neutron will give you a proton, an electron, plus an electron antineutrino.

edit: You never explained why you think that neutrons are special. Instead of asking you the same question again, I'll try something else. What do you hope to explain by assuming uncharged matter is special? Which laws of physics are you working on? eg: Gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic?
But yet it hasn't been proved that this source is mass. It is very interesting for me to know(if someone could help) what exactly started motion? In general it is said that big bang started some kind of motion. But to some extent it doesn't seem to be correct to assume that energy or matter started it. This forum is good to get updated in science, and it is good to know what exactly caused the big bang. Was it a kind of strong unknown force?

ShinAce
2012-May-16, 05:52 PM
Changes in motion are accelerations. Accelerations are the result of forces. That's it! Just forces. So that's why dark energy gets pinned as the force behind accelerated expansion.

Since the inflation of the big bang is an expansion of space, not the matter within it, then there is no motion from inflation. It's the acceleration of expansion which is regarded as a force. If the big bang was a simple bang and then things coasted, then we would talk about motions. It's not like a bunch of cars going around a track. The cars are sitting still, and the track is being built up. If your track was around the top of an active volcano, you'd find that as you follow old tire tracks, the course seems to be getting longer.

The fact that galaxies are flying away from each other need not be regarded as any motion of the galaxies themselves. Andromeda colliding with the Milky Way is a proper motion. The rotation of galaxies is a motion as it shows angular momentum. You can use Earth motion against the cosmic microwave background as proper motion, but this shows that the motion you're thinking about is not absolute. It is relative. The big bang is not what imparts proper motion to galaxies. Inflation actually works to disconnect the players that contribute to accelerated motion.

This still has nothing to do with neutral matter.

KhashayarShatti
2012-May-16, 06:17 PM
Changes in motion are accelerations. Accelerations are the result of forces. That's it! Just forces. So that's why dark energy gets pinned as the force behind accelerated expansion.

Since the inflation of the big bang is an expansion of space, not the matter within it, then there is no motion from inflation. It's the acceleration of expansion which is regarded as a force. If the big bang was a simple bang and then things coasted, then we would talk about motions. It's not like a bunch of cars going around a track. The cars are sitting still, and the track is being built up. If your track was around the top of an active volcano, you'd find that as you follow old tire tracks, the course seems to be getting longer.

The fact that galaxies are flying away from each other need not be regarded as any motion of the galaxies themselves. Andromeda colliding with the Milky Way is a proper motion. The rotation of galaxies is a motion as it shows angular momentum. You can use Earth motion against the cosmic microwave background as proper motion, but this shows that the motion you're thinking about is not absolute. It is relative. The big bang is not what imparts proper motion to galaxies. Inflation actually works to disconnect the players that contribute to accelerated motion.

This still has nothing to do with neutral matter.

So far so good. I conclude that matter cannot set itself into motion. But A sort of unknown phenomena called dark energy could be the only solution to set matter in relative apparent motion faster than the speed of light. In fact if it could be locally applied to a certain part of space, anything in that space can be set in motion relative to neighbouring matter much faster than the speed of light.(distant galaxies are said to receed from us faster than the speed of light), although it is an apparent motion caused by space expansion. So dark energy can not move matter, it can only expand the space.In fact in this case the carrier of matter is dark energy. Now i repeat my question with some modification: What is the actual cause of the motion of matter with respect to space?

ShinAce
2012-May-16, 07:17 PM
So dark energy can not move matter, it can only expand the space.In fact in this case the carrier of matter is dark energy. Now i repeat my question with some modification: What is the actual cause of the motion of matter with respect to space?

I still don't understand what you're saying. You just wrote that dark energy can not move matter, it can only expand the space. Isn't that the answer to your question? This motion is the motion of space, not matter.

The actual causes of motion with respect to space have been highlighted in my previous post. They're called proper motion.

The redshifting of distant galaxies is not the result of an acceleration that was given to each galaxy. It's the effect of space expanding between the galaxies. The motion is in the space, not the galaxies.

Strange
2012-May-16, 07:34 PM
So far so good. I conclude that matter cannot set itself into motion.

Well, it requires a froce to change the state of motion of matter (e.g. to start it moving, to stop it or to change its direction). This force requires energy. However, as matter and energy are equivalent, that energy could come from matter. In fact this is what happens in radioactive decay: some of the mass goes into the kinetic energy of the decay products.

But A sort of unknown phenomena called dark energy could be the only solution to set matter in relative apparent motion faster than the speed of light.

Dark energy is not able to accelerate things to speeds great than the speed of light.

The apparent velocity of distant points in space increases with distance - just as an inevitable consequence of space expanding everywhere - this is nothing to do with dark energy. At a large enough distance the apparent velocity will be greater than light speed: no acceleration, force or energy required.

What is the actual cause of the motion of matter with respect to space?

Either force or gravity.

pzkpfw
2012-May-16, 09:49 PM
ATM claims/speculation outside of the ATM forum. We've had quite enough of this from KhashayarShatti.

KhashayarShatti, you need to phrase these things as questions, and accept the answers. You may not use non-ATM sections of the forum to generate discussion of and develop your ATM concepts.