PDA

View Full Version : An Original State

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-28, 10:32 PM
Is it "fair" to think of E=Mc2 as an original state (among other ways) beyond or prior to any cause and effect, or any system which has developed or evolved which reflects its truth?

WaxRubiks
2017-Jul-28, 10:37 PM
what do you mean by original state?

You can write the power with a '^' symbol, ie E=mc^2...I dunno how to do it otherwise. :D

Strange
2017-Jul-28, 10:41 PM
Is it "fair" to think of E=Mc2 as an original state (among other ways) beyond or prior to any cause and effect, or any system which has developed or evolved which reflects its truth?

No. It just describes the relationship between mass and energy. In other words, how to convert one to the other.

Strange
2017-Jul-28, 10:45 PM
You can write the power with a '^' symbol, ie E=mc^2...I dunno how to do it otherwise.

You can write E=mc2 which gives: E=mc2.

Or the "Advanced" editing mode gives you a superscript button to do the same thing.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 12:02 AM
You can write E=mc2 which gives: E=mc2.

Or the "Advanced" editing mode gives you a superscript button to do the same thing.

Thanks. Always good to know stuff like that.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 12:03 AM
what do you mean by original state?

You can write the power with a '^' symbol, ie E=mc^2...I dunno how to do it otherwise. :D

Ditto. Thanks.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 12:05 AM
No. It just describes the relationship between mass and energy. In other words, how to convert one to the other.

I've never thought at it as a "how to equation", although I can see how it has led to a lot of how to thinking. I see it more as a description of a state before any how to's occur, which is why I am asking the question: is it valid to see it this way? Or in thinking about it this way, does that idea pose any contradictions to what has been observed about how it works?

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 12:18 AM
To add to the above, for sake of clarity. I started thinking about it this way when considering quantum loops, asking myself about what has been observed of quantum loops, their qualities and characteristics, how many of these can be married with the equation.

It also occurred to me when thinking this way, that it might provide some answer to variable conditions being observed in the universe, in that if it is valid, or even better, to think of the equation as a state, perhaps an original one, then when it is expressed in the physical universe there will inevitably be some variation in the systems created by it. It occured to me that this may tie in with the principle of entropy, which is in part thought of as a trend towards disorder. Thought of as an incomplete state towards the next ordered state, more complicated and varied states of order, we have the potential for great variation throughout the universe as the systems evolve. It seems then only natural to be observing these variations rather than challenging.

01101001
2017-Jul-29, 12:29 AM
One more: E=mc^2 yields E=mc^2.

Strange
2017-Jul-29, 12:31 AM
I've never thought at it as a "how to equation", although I can see how it has led to a lot of how to thinking. I see it more as a description of a state before any how to's occur, which is why I am asking the question: is it valid to see it this way? Or in thinking about it this way, does that idea pose any contradictions to what has been observed about how it works?

I can't see how it can describe a state. So I would say no, that is not valid.

For example, the equation for converting degrees centigrade to Fahrenheit doesn't describe a state either.

Strange
2017-Jul-29, 12:33 AM
To add to the above, for sake of clarity. I started thinking about it this way when considering quantum loops, asking myself about what has been observed of quantum loops, their qualities and characteristics, how many of these can be married with the equation.

What is a quantum loop?

You could use this equation to calculate the equivalent mass if a "quantum loop" has energy. (Or the equivalent energy, if it has mass.)

01101001
2017-Jul-29, 12:52 AM
It also occurred to me when thinking this way, that it might provide some answer to variable conditions being observed in the universe, in that if it is valid, or even better, to think of the equation as a state, [...]

An equation is an equation. A state is a state.

An equation is a string of characters, two mathematical expresssions related as the same. A state is a condition. It might be described by a set of values.

How do you find equivalent a couple of expressions that are equal, to some system's condition?

I could imagine the state of something simple to be described in one value, but not two values equated.

cjameshuff
2017-Jul-29, 12:56 AM
It states an equivalence between two physical quantities. This equivalence always holds, it isn't something that only applies to or describes some specific state. Nothing about it states any kind of precedence, ordering in time, cause and effect, or anything of the sort. I don't see any way to interpret it that is consistent with what you are asking.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 01:08 AM
What is a quantum loop?

You could use this equation to calculate the equivalent mass if a "quantum loop" has energy. (Or the equivalent energy, if it has mass.)

Can't answer that, of course, which is why I am asking myself the same question constantly.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 01:12 AM
It states an equivalence between two physical quantities. This equivalence always holds, it isn't something that only applies to or describes some specific state. Nothing about it states any kind of precedence, ordering in time, cause and effect, or anything of the sort. I don't see any way to interpret it that is consistent with what you are asking.

My bold.

That's what I mean about it, you've expressed it very well. I would have to disagree with your last sentence therefore because it seems to fit exactly with what I am thinking.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 01:24 AM
In thinking along these lines for the past week I was reading this webpage (http://www.adamauton.com/warp/emc2.html)to help me understand the equation better.

Among other things it was this at the bottom of the page that struck me most, while I grappled with the other "stuff":

In practice, it is not possible to convert all of the mass into energy

Is that an absolute impossibility or a reflection of our technology, I wondered?

If some type of absolute impossibility, then the equation isn't really describing a conversion because the conversion is impossible, but an unrealised physical state, it seemed to me.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 01:35 AM
What is a quantum loop?

You could use this equation to calculate the equivalent mass if a "quantum loop" has energy. (Or the equivalent energy, if it has mass.)

Can't answer that, of course, which is why I am asking myself the same question constantly.

Just to revisit the reply I made above to the post quoted, this questioning of what is a Q. loop, is done by trying to observe them in as many systems as possible in as many areas as possible. From those observations, I believe, characteristics are revealed hinting at their most basic nature. Well, wrongly or rightly, that's what I am doing, and that is what I mean by asking myself constantly.

Cougar
2017-Jul-29, 02:02 AM
...I see it more as a description of a state before any how to's occur....

Isn't it more like the equivalence principle between two different "states" of mass/energy?

Strange
2017-Jul-29, 07:40 AM
In thinking along these lines for the past week I was reading this webpage (http://www.adamauton.com/warp/emc2.html)to help me understand the equation better.

Among other things it was this at the bottom of the page that struck me most, while I grappled with the other "stuff":

Is that an absolute impossibility or a reflection of our technology, I wondered?

If some type of absolute impossibility, then the equation isn't really describing a conversion because the conversion is impossible, but an unrealised physical state, it seemed to me.

It is not even impossible in practice. If you bring a particle and its antiparticle together then you will convert all the mass to energy, as described by the equation. But, if you were to bring, say, a gram of matter and antimatter together, then the resulting release of energy would blast some of the material away so it would not be converted.

This is irrelevant to the equation, which simply says IF you convert mass to energy, this is the amount of energy you will get. It doesn't say you must convert all mass.

The phase "but an unrealised physical state" suggests that you are using the word state in some sort of non-standard way.

Strange
2017-Jul-29, 07:41 AM
Just to revisit the reply I made above to the post quoted, this questioning of what is a Q. loop, is done by trying to observe them in as many systems as possible in as many areas as possible.

How can you observe them, if you don't know what they are?

Strange
2017-Jul-29, 07:42 AM
My bold.

That's what I mean about it, you've expressed it very well. I would have to disagree with your last sentence therefore because it seems to fit exactly with what I am thinking.

The part you highlight explains exactly why it is not describing a state so it seems odd to disagree with that conclusion. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by the word "state".

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 08:25 AM
How can you observe them, if you don't know what they are?

Humanity observed stars without knowing what they are for a long time. Seems a little obstacle. I think the more you know about something, the easier the observation becomes potentially. Given what I am observing of them thus far, I think they are everywhere, all the time working, but that is more theoretical rather than observational at this stage with me.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-29, 08:27 AM
The part you highlight explains exactly why it is not describing a state so it seems odd to disagree with that conclusion. Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by the word "state".

Yes, I agree, I'll mull over it overnight. Plus your other post which essentially asks much the same question I think.

Strange
2017-Jul-29, 08:39 AM
Humanity observed stars without knowing what they are for a long time. Seems a little obstacle. I think the more you know about something, the easier the observation becomes potentially. Given what I am observing of them thus far, I think they are everywhere, all the time working, but that is more theoretical rather than observational at this stage with me.

OK. But we observed stars as points of light, before we knew what they were. What are these "quantum loops" you are observing? (What is the equivalent of "points of light"?)
Edit: Or, to put it another way, what is the phenomenon that you are observing to which you are assigning the label "quantum loop"?

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-30, 01:02 AM
OK. But we observed stars as points of light, before we knew what they were. What are these "quantum loops" you are observing? (What is the equivalent of "points of light"?)
Edit: Or, to put it another way, what is the phenomenon that you are observing to which you are assigning the label "quantum loop"?

That's the issue in the observations: can you assign an observed loop with with characteristics observed with a quantum loop and entanglement? Loops of some type aren't hard to find. I saw one almost immediately upon waking this morning because over a cup of coffee I wanted to read over an article about the River Of Iron to see if there were any hints in there about the issue of energy levels of Earth. I didn't have to read far and I identified a loop, not hard to see, as you will probably appreciate from this quote:

Livermore thinks the acceleration of the jet is down to push-back from magnetic fields. The flow of iron generates the magnetic field, but, he says, the magnetic field may then be affecting the flow of the iron.

But can that loop be assigned with characteristics of a Quantum Loop as we understand it at this stage? It's challenging because the loop described in the article, and most which can be observed from day to day, one can see a cause and effect relationship, although where one starts and the other finishes is difficult to discern. The observations from Q. loop experiments point to instantaneousness which defies cause and effect. But is our perception of these everyday loops correct, are they in fact cause and effect loops or actually have more in common with what we are detecting about entanglement?*

Then there is the issue of seeing existing models which have worked fairly well for us till now, and probably will do for the foreseeable future, with an alternate model which may turn out to be even more helpful. The periodic table of elements is a candidate for the application of Q. loops if we understand the Q. loops better, I believe. To put it simply for now, I see a loop in the binding of two hydrogen atoms to make helium. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a paper on the issue which has advanced the thinking on that issue far more than I am capable.

* or is it the other way around?

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-30, 01:32 AM
The other thing I would like to add to the post above concerns geometry. I value Euclid highly. Euclid must also apply to a quantum loop, IMO, modified yes in some way, in what I envisage is a type of "fluid geometry", reflecting Euclid's "fixed geometry", but that is a subject to put forward at a later date hopefully when things are better understood.

Edit: Maybe this (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507038)?

Strange
2017-Jul-30, 07:04 AM
That's the issue in the observations: can you assign an observed loop with with characteristics observed with a quantum loop and entanglement?

As you haven't said what a quantum loop is, that is impossible to answer. What do you mean by the term "quantum loop"? (To be honest I don't even know what you mean by "loop".)

Loops of some type aren't hard to find. I saw one almost immediately upon waking this morning because over a cup of coffee I wanted to read over an article about the River Of Iron to see if there were any hints in there about the issue of energy levels of Earth. I didn't have to read far and I identified a loop, not hard to see, as you will probably appreciate from this quote:

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I guess I am being dense.

The observations from Q. loop experiments point to instantaneousness which defies cause and effect.

What are "quantum loop experiments"?

Again: what is a "quantum loop"?

Strange
2017-Jul-30, 07:05 AM
The other thing I would like to add to the post above concerns geometry. I value Euclid highly. Euclid must also apply to a quantum loop, IMO

Why? We already know the universe is not described by Euclidean geometry.

Edit: Maybe this (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507038)?

So are all your references to "quantum loops" about loop quantum gravity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

Strange
2017-Jul-30, 07:58 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

grapes
2017-Jul-30, 08:10 AM
It is not even impossible in practice. If you bring a particle and its antiparticle together then you will convert all the mass to energy, as described by the equation.
It's also taken into account when calculating the mass of a compound, including the energy that binds it together.

ETA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

tusenfem
2017-Jul-30, 10:51 AM
canis lupus, either you give a workable definition of what you mean with a quantum loop, or i will close this thread
if quantum loops are so important for your ideas, then put some effort in, and not via analogies like "iron rivers"
otherwise this discussion is pointless

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-30, 11:11 AM
As you haven't said what a quantum loop is, that is impossible to answer. What do you mean by the term "quantum loop"? (To be honest I don't even know what you mean by "loop".)

I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I guess I am being dense.

What are "quantum loop experiments"?

Again: what is a "quantum loop"?

I am considering how best to define these terms. I've been doing a little research which hasn't proven fruitful. I will have to construct the definitions without much assistance. I'm fine with that, have what I believe a fair definition already. but would prefer to sleep on it and probably post something tomorrow.

I feel a little pressured because of demands elsewhere but nice to see someone pushing it along a bit.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-30, 11:19 AM
Isn't it more like the equivalence principle between two different "states" of mass/energy?

I've read this and considering it but been distracted by the loop issue. Get back to it hopefully. Thanks.

grapes
2017-Jul-30, 07:38 PM
In thinking along these lines for the past week I was reading this webpage (http://www.adamauton.com/warp/emc2.html)to help me understand the equation better.

Among other things it was this at the bottom of the page that struck me most, while I grappled with the other "stuff":

In practice, it is not possible to convert all of the mass into energy

Is that an absolute impossibility or a reflection of our technology, I wondered?

If some type of absolute impossibility, then the equation isn't really describing a conversion because the conversion is impossible, but an unrealised physical state, it seemed to me.
I've emphasized the "all" in red. As has been pointed out, in general it is not impossible.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-30, 10:49 PM
I've emphasized the "all" in red. As has been pointed out, in general it is not impossible.

I have taken it on board, considering it. I wanted to look into what was posted about that issue more closely. You say "generally", but the impression I had taken from Strange's post on the point is that generally when dealing with a mass it was not possible, but in a particular rare situation where you are able to isolate a particle it can occur. Thinking about it more though, with a nuclear explosion which is converting mass to energy, is it fair to state that there must be at least one particle (mass) which releases all of its energy even if some others don't?

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-30, 11:48 PM
How to define a loop in the context of this discussion?

At least two systems connected where both represent a cause and effect upon each other.

The iron river example: the river of iron's flow is affecting the electromagnetic field, which in turn is affecting the river of iron's flow, when in turn then affects the electromagnetic field which in turn ... loop, loop, loop.

This loop is a new system over and above the systems involved in the loop.

Another example, two chess players. It can be said that white causes the sequential moves to follow. In that way, you have a cause and effect. However, except for the existence of black, white's move would be pointless. So, white's initial cause for the effect that follows, was caused by black. The sequence of moves throughout the game may be thought of as loop of cause and effect, where both the cause and effect came into existence simultaneously.

In relation to a quantum loop, I am referring to two particles entangled, keeping in mind the observation problem, that upon one particle being observed the other simultaneously has its properties defined. It becomes more interesting and baffling, where it appears that definition appears to go back in time, but I'm not concentrating on that for the time being, except to keep an open mind that if quantum entanglement is a loop and that loop reflects the more general idea of a loop, this may be occurring also as Prof. Davies appears to be suggesting in this interview (https://youtu.be/W8ZBVHQIPv8) around 13:20.

When I listened to Prof. Davies make another point in this interview (https://youtu.be/W8ZBVHQIPv8), (around 13:40) I was originally confused by his consideration of what I generally think of as immutable laws throughout the universe being reduced to laws which change and vary. After thinking about it for a few days, I began to feel more comfortable with his idea as a reasonable possibility after all. He makes the connection between entanglement and variance when he states it is related to what he was just discussing before around the 13:20 i.e. entanglement. He doesn't give too much to go on but did provide food for thought.

Are the systems we observe and test generally, which can be thought of as being in a loop (not necessarily a completely closed one) reflect some type entanglement we associate with the quantum?

If so, then understanding entanglement will allow us greater insight into these systems, I believe.

At a fundamental level, not necessarily the most fundamental, a hydrogen atom may be viewed as systems entangled to form a new system, the hydrogen atom, which in turn, given the right conditions, can combine (become entangled) to form a varied looped system, helium.

The systems themselves potentially may create energy - a possibility I believe. But, at the same time, it is equally possible these systems may run out of energy and dissolve or may need the input of energy to keep the system (loop) going.*

Edit * as reflected in this diagram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback#/media/File:General_Feedback_Loop.svg)from the wiki page link Strange posted earlier in this thread.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-31, 12:23 AM
According to this line of thinking, the problem of which came first, the chicken or egg, is solved as neither - it was simultaneous.

If correct, not saying it is mind you, if you can solve the chicken-egg problem, there is likely a whole lot of other more straight forward problems solved too by the same line of thinking.

Big call, I know.

Reality Check
2017-Jul-31, 03:34 AM
There is no "line of thinking" until you have actually defined the term "quantum loop", Canis Lupus. What you think a YouTube video contains is not a good source. At 13:20 in the interview, there is no mention of quantum loops.
At 12:30, the term "sort of loop" is used for physic laws and what happens if we do not consider them fixed. In that case there has to be a "feedback" between the coexisting laws in the universe (or multiverse).

01101001
2017-Jul-31, 03:46 AM
To add to the above, for sake of clarity. I started thinking about it this way when considering quantum loops, asking myself about what has been observed of quantum loops, their qualities and characteristics [...]

For clarity? It is not working.

grapes
2017-Jul-31, 04:04 AM
I have taken it on board, considering it. I wanted to look into what was posted about that issue more closely. You say "generally", but the impression I had taken from Strange's post on the point is that generally when dealing with a mass it was not possible, but in a particular rare situation where you are able to isolate a particle it can occur.

No, it is possible.

I think the misunderstanding is from the use of "all". All what?

Just because you can't convert all of the mass in a bucket, doesn't mean that a portion of it can't be completely converted.

Thinking about it more though, with a nuclear explosion which is converting mass to energy, is it fair to state that there must be at least one particle (mass) which releases all of its energy even if some others don't?I would say no, probably not. Nuclear fusion and nuclear fission can both involve the conversion of mass into energy, without any loss of particles.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-31, 05:03 AM
There is no "line of thinking" until you have actually defined the term "quantum loop", Canis Lupus. What you think a YouTube video contains is not a good source. At 13:20 in the interview, there is no mention of quantum loops.
At 12:30, the term "sort of loop" is used for physic laws and what happens if we do not consider them fixed. In that case there has to be a "feedback" between the coexisting laws in the universe (or multiverse).

Ok. I'm on it. It's on the to do list for tomorrow, at worse the day after.

Canis Lupus
2017-Jul-31, 05:05 AM
For clarity? It is not working.

Clarity can come in varying degrees, perhaps progressively. :)

Strange
2017-Jul-31, 05:12 AM
I have taken it on board, considering it. I wanted to look into what was posted about that issue more closely. You say "generally", but the impression I had taken from Strange's post on the point is that generally when dealing with a mass it was not possible, but in a particular rare situation where you are able to isolate a particle it can occur. Thinking about it more though, with a nuclear explosion which is converting mass to energy, is it fair to state that there must be at least one particle (mass) which releases all of its energy even if some others don't?

No. In a nuclear explosion there are no particles which are converted entirely to energy. The mass comes from the binding energy of the nuclei.

But whether "all" is converted or not is completely irrelevant. The equation just says how much energy will be released if some amount of mass is converted.

It also says that if you increase the energy of a system (e.g. by heating it) then its mass will increase. And vice versa.

Strange
2017-Jul-31, 05:15 AM
How to define a loop in the context of this discussion?

At least two systems connected where both represent a cause and effect upon each other.

The iron river example: the river of iron's flow is affecting the electromagnetic field, which in turn is affecting the river of iron's flow, when in turn then affects the electromagnetic field which in turn ... loop, loop, loop.

That is probably true of all realistic / interesting systems.

In relation to a quantum loop, I am referring to two particles entangled, keeping in mind the observation problem, that upon one particle being observed the other simultaneously has its properties defined.

I see no loop there. As you describe it, it is a one way process of one particle affecting the other. In reality it is more like a single system being affected by observation, so no room for a loop.

Are the systems we observe and test generally, which can be thought of as being in a loop (not necessarily a completely closed one) reflect some type entanglement we associate with the quantum?

I don't see why.

At a fundamental level, not necessarily the most fundamental, a hydrogen atom may be viewed as systems entangled to form a new system

That is not what entanglement means.

tusenfem
2017-Jul-31, 06:45 AM