The Paradox of E=MC2

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wellwisher, Sep 5, 2016.

  1. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,659
    I assume that Planck was trying to refer to the process of abstraction in his lecture. And it's true that theoretical physics does operate at a very high level of abstraction. That's one reason why theoretical physics is so often joined-at-the-hip with mathematics.

    It isn't as true for experimental physics though.

    Interpreting Planck's remark too aggressively would eliminate all the empirical elements, such as experiment and observation, from physics. I'm sure that Planck didn't want to suggest that anyone do that.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,805
    In terms of olfaction, the reception for the first time of particular chemicals (like pheromones) may trigger innate and automatic responses in some organisms with little or no mediation by thoughtful activities of a brain involved. But in everyday life for a human the classic 5 senses (including smell) usually involve dependence on some degree of inference and interpretative conditioning crouched in memory (especially when initially setting-up any future reflexive responses and judgements for cognition).

    A rotting odor can lead one to conclude that there's a carcass in the vicinity without actually perceiving the remains. Touching surfaces and objects while blind-folded and trying to identify them certainly doesn't involve the tactile sensations in themselves delivering "immediate apprehension of what _X_ is" but relies on speculative intellect and recall of past experiences. A child determining that there is a hound baying in the distance from a particular direction rather than the dog being nearby involves some number of events in the past which familiarized the growing human with correlating differences in sounds with spatial relationships (as well as with what a hound is).

    Unlike what one of the founders or proponents of modern direct perception (and consequent direct realism) supposedly once suggested, the "function / purpose of a chair" is not non-subjectively carried in the very shape or image information about the chair. But relies upon the cognitive and intellectual abilities of the observer to supply that. A mouse construes the chair as just another oddly structured, generalized terrain to crap and pee on.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The answer is no. because most people will use common sense; make us of their other senses, and not rely on the just the relative motion stemming from the visual sense.

    It is like the freshman physics example of someone sitting on a train that is going V. There is someone else, sitting at the station waiting for the next train. They see each other moving with relative velocity V. Who is fooled into thinking they are both moving at V? However, this is what one is ask to do. One can sense motion with other senses. But if you don't use any sense, but the eyes, this will make more sense to you. One is told not to use the other senses, so it makes more sense. Common sense not applying means don't use the other senses, which, as a team, define immediate reality.

    Common chemical matter is in the sweet spot where all our senses can be used. As we get smaller and farther away, we need to put more and more of our senses on the shelf, until only the eyes are allowed. But one can show in the sweet spot of all the sense, that the eyes alone are not always sufficient. It comes down to the traditions telling use how we need to perceive to be right.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    We are taught how we are supposed to perceive this. On another day, we might go into someone's house how collects antique chairs. We go to sit down and now a chair is not the place to sit. The mouse might treat this antique chair the same way, based on its natural connection to its instincts and senses.
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Say one reference has mass M and the other reference has mass 2M, with relative velocity V. Show me how both references come up with the same energy balance? One reference will have twice the kinetic energy and the other half the kinetic energy. If you assume mass is the same, like in the twin paradox, then there is no problem. But what about all the case where mass is not equal?
     
  9. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,203
    The error in your logic seems to be that you are equating relative velocity to actual velocity.

    As an example: if I am standing somewhere, and someone throws a football at me - we (myself and the football) have relative velocity to each other, yet the football is the only thing moving, and thus the only thing with kinetic energy, while I (being stationary) have zero kinetic energy.
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Let me do the example this way. We have two rockets, one with mass M and the other with mass 2M. Both are on the launch pad, stationary. They begin with one common reference. While the crews are sleeping, we send the rocket with mass M, into space. We expend just enough energy to give it a terminal velocity V, relative the launch pad. We know the amount of fuel that we burned; accurate energy balance. We need to be real accurate, since our energy budget will be audited.

    We awaken both crews, who are unaware of the launch, and we let them assume they are in relative velocity V. If the crew in the 2M ship assumes they are moving at V, since velocity is relative, they have just added energy to the universe; beyond out audited energy budget. They will assume MV2 kinetic energy, instead of the 1/2MV2 kinetic energy, that was added and can be verified.

    The error here would be the assumption, we cannot do a proper energy balance. This is based on two corollaries of relative reference; there is no center of the universe and there is no absolute reference. If these corollaries are true, it would be impossible to do an energy balance, so don't even try. If you don't try, then relative velocity will appear to work, since this is exactly whah we will see.

    But if you do your energy balance, before you begin; to loophole these two assumptions, one can generate endless scenarios; different reference masses. Different mass reference is very common to the universe. This is not a unique scenario. Relative velocity can meet the needs of our visual cortex. But since it assumes you can't do an energy balance, addenda theory will eventually need to be added, stemming from conflicting visual observations, to compensate for the energy differences.

    In my example, we now have 1/2MV2 more energy in the universe. The M reference can't see this. They may need to postulate magic energy, that can't be seen in the lab, but has to be there, since the general in the 2M ship says so, since he can see it. Come to his ship and you can see it too.

    The speed of light is the same in all references. This is a common reference floor that allows one to do an energy balance in any reference. The assumption of no preferred reference or no center of the universe is true for the visual sense, which is bound by inertial reference. The visual limit does not apply at C.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2016
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    An interesting mental exercise would be to ask what would we see if we could travel at the speed of light. It would always be dark behind us, since the light from behind us will never catch up to be seen; can't reach our eyes to be seen. Ahead of us, in the direction of motion, light will appear more concentrated as we add photons faster to the eyes.

    Based on only using our visual sense, one would see an old school universe; below/behind us a void, and above/ahead us, the firmament of light; heaven and hell. It is sort of weird, but at a speed of light reference, you become the center of the universe, based on the visual sense.

    Science, at the age of enlightenment began to use inertial reference; tangible reality, altering the universe to only what could be seen with the eyes. There would be no more spirits and ghosts allowed. Relativity then altered the energy balance of the universe; no absolute reference to create an energy balance. So there was more need for imagination and more need to depart from the other sense; common sense, due to energy anomalies from our earth reference. Now, it is time to go back to instinct, using C, but in a modern way; ground state that is common to all references.

    The void behind and the firmament ahead reflects the ground state; floor.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2016
  12. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    Each reference frame will measure a different energy.
    Right.
    You will have to be more clear on what you are asking.
     
  13. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    An interesting mental exercise would be to actually learn things rather than make something up.
     
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The example I did was based on two references, each with a different mass, with relative velocity V. Each will see a different amount of energy, which you agree with. Which of the two reference sees the correct amount of energy? Conservation of energy does not allow two amounts of energy, even of that is what two references see with their eyes. There is one universal energy balance, not two or 2N.

    In my mental experiment, I specific the amount of the energy used, so we could judge which of the two reference was correct. One will see twice what is real or the other will see 1/2 of what is real, since I did not specify exactly how much. Say it comes down to politics and consensus, does everyone need to assume the wrong amount of energy?

    When we "look" out at the universe, we use the earth as our relative reference. The reason is this is where our telescopes are; extend out sight. How do we know we are seeing the correct amount of universal energy? I agree that which we see, is what we see, but that means nothing, when it comes to energy conservation, since different references, can see different amounts of energy. I am not sure why this is so hard.

    One symptom of an incorrect energy balance; due to relative reference, is other observations will not add up properly to the assumed energy and an addenda will need to be added to compensate. The alternative is to correct the energy for reference, but this does not occur since we can't see the correction. The addenda are much easier to observe; see.

    As an example, say we build a city on a high plateau. We assume the lake in the center of the plateau is the point of zero energy, since all the water drains to this point. This becomes our relative reference; zero point, when we look at the universe. Since we are on a plateau there is potential energy due to elevation and gravity, that we do not see, since it is taboo to go to the end of the plateau. We cannot see there.

    One day we notice our lake is draining, which makes no sense since the lake is at zero energy. Unknown to us, the draining of the lake is due to an underground stream that pours out water at the bottom of the plateau. But since we have assumed the lake is at zero potential, based on what we can see; relative reference, we will need to assume some form of mystery energy to account for zero potential water, moving to negative potential. We cannot see that mystery energy in the lab, because does not exist in the way we expect to see it. But it is needed in the calculations, since other visual observation; lake lowering, appears to require it. But the entire hoopla is due to the wrong relative reference imposed by our sight.

    If I was to suggest going to the taboo zone and looking over the edge, that makes me crazy. But if you look over the edge, beyond the visual sense, the explanation does not require anything but a reference check; restore the real energy balance.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2016
  15. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    Correct.
    Both reference frames will 'see' the correct amount of energy.
    Let's use an example of a bullet shot into a large boulder. From the reference frame of the bullet, there is a huge amount of KE in the boulder moving faster than the speed of sound. From the reference frame of the boulder there is a much lower KE due to the much smaller mass. Which one is right? Simply asking that question shows a profound misundestanding of physics. The are both right.

    Here is another example. What would you say if I told you I could catch a bullet shot from a high powered rifle. I know it is possible because I understand physics and reference frames. Here is how to do it. Have a platform moving at 3,000 fpm pass overhead with a with a guy on it and have him shoot a gun opposite to the direction of travel exactly when he is over the top of you. Assuming the muzzle velocity is 3,000 fpm the bullet will drop vertically and you can catch it (careful it will be hot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).

    See the point? Reference frames are not just some mathematical abstraction; they have real physical consequeces. Since the bullet does not move laterally with respect to you, it had NO KE in the lateral direction in your reference frame. Of course from the shooters reference frame the bullet had a high velocity and a high amount of KE. So what is the 'real' KE? It only depends on your reference frame.

    By the way for all of these examples energy is conserved at each reference frame AND for the system.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2016
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    You need energy to move guy on the platform at 3000 fps. This amount of energy will be greater than the energy needed to move the bullet at 3000fps. The total energy used is the sum of the two. This is our energy balance. However, if both are moving at the same speed and the same direction we can no longer tell how fast both are going by sight alone, unless were know in advance. If the muzzle velocity was unknown, we could guess any reasonable velocity, for the kinetic energy balance, since we don't have a ground state reference or third fixed reference that never changes. We need the third reference, which is where 3000 fps is based.

    Say we are looking in outer space, we don't know how fast the earth is moving in absolute terms; relative to the t=0 reference of the original primordial atom. We will assume there is no preferred reference in the universe, therefore we ignore the underlying universal energy of the earth, by default. We can't do a full energy balance since we lack that third standard reference. How do we know we are not adding or taking away energy if we assume there is no ground state or absolute reference by which we normalize the reference energy?

    When I did the rocket example, I added an exact amount of energy to begin with. I essentially added a third reference. Then I ask each reference, based on their relative two reference system, what they see and then to calculate how much energy was used. We can get two answers, which is not possible since I added only one amount of energy. One answer will be a visual illusion. This is possible because they were not able to distinguish the common ground state shared by both; original energy added. Instead they fixate on each other and assume one or the other is the ground state. This messes up the energy balance for one of the two references.

    Relative reference works with respect to relative velocity, but without an absolute ground state, the total universal energy becomes relative. You need a third reference to act as ground state. Tell that to the electric company the next time you pay the bill. I will use electricity to move a heavy mass around a track, for one hour. I will walk next to the heavy object at the same speed, so there appears to be no relative motion and therefore no need to expand energy. There is no motion therefore my bill should be zero. I will still get charged because the electric company is using a third reference; ground state. It does no matter if I only use two instead of three. The third reference may not be visible with the eyes.
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    There's no such thing as "absolute terms".

    Nor is there a "t=0 reference".

    There is no "underlying universal energy" to ignore.

    From an earlier post:
    This is pure boll*cks. Since EVERYTHING is moving at c relative to light (i.e. the speed of light is c from wherever you look) then your "ground state" doesn't help one whit - you can't, therefore, distinguish an object moving at 0.5 c relative to Earth from one at rest relative to Earth since (according to your "ground state") they both have the same speed.
     
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Let me go in another direction to show a visual problem connecting to observe the visible universe. When look out into deep space from the earth, the light we see from distant stars and galaxies, tells us what the objects did in the past, not the present. If an object is 10 billion light years away, what we see is what the object did 10 billion years ago, since that light took 10 billion years to reach us. If we assume distance and the speed of light is constant, we can calculate the time. We have no clue what these objects are doing today. If the sun gives off a solar flair this instant, we won't know for minutes. By the time the light from the flair reaches us, the sun is doing something else.

    Essentially, as we look out into space, what we see is like a photo scrap book. However we start at the end of the book; present and closer objects, and as we look further into space, we flip the pages of the book backwards, toward the beginning. Each advancement in technology allows top to flip another page backwards toward the first page of the book.

    As an analogy, say we kept a record of a boy called Galaxy. We have photos of his ultra sound, his birth, as a baby, as a little boy, as an adolescent, as a young adult. Today he is a man, so we add another page to his book. As we look out into the universe, first at our sun and then beyond, we see the scrap book of Galaxy in reverse order. If we his baby picture; very distance object, he did not become a baby again. That is the past. He was a baby once and he is no longer the same size. The accelerated expanding universe assumption is based on looking at the book of Galaxy backwards and confusing the direction of time, since you can't see time with the eyes.

    The fastest moving objects, which are the most distant, tells us that object in the universe moved the fastest in the beginning of the universe; baby pictures. If we look at the photo book of Galaxy, in the right order; front to back, the universe starts out fast; baby, and get slower and slower as we move forward in time to the present.
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Why is this a "problem"?
    It's how things are.
    There is no way round it.

    No.
    The most distant are the fastest-moving because the expansion rate increases with distance.
    If you look from there to here then WE are the ones "moving fastest".
    Does that therefore mean that we are older than them?
     
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The assumption of no absolute reference is creating a problem for everyone. If we assume this assumption is correct, than what you are saying is correct. But if you assume there is an absolute reference, then what you are saying will not add up.

    Let me give another example in the form of a question? We have two rockets on a platform, one has mass M and the other has mass 2M. There are both at rest; zero relative velocity. I fill up only one of the two rockets with fuel and burn just enough fuel to generate 1/2MV2 of kinetic energy. What is the final relative velocity of the two rockets?
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Does the light from distant objects, reaching us, take any time to travel, or does it appear instantaneously? If it took 1 billion years to reach us this energy is from 1 billion years ago. It tells us of the past not the present.
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    It's not so much an "assumption" as what the evidence indicates.

    No, the only people that have problems with it tend to be the ignorant ones who can't be bothered to learn science.

    Well apart from the fact that - with the information you've given - it's not possible to answer let me put it this way: in YOUR system the final relative velocity is ZERO since they're both moving at c "relative to light".

    This is not only meaningless, it's blatantly stupid. ANY object has 1/2MV^2 KE (if it's not moving the KE is 0, if it's moving very slowly then KE is low, if it's moving fast the KE is commensurately higher).
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    So what?
     

Share This Page