Is God an energy being ?

[Polymath257]

Nope , all matter is a form of energy , you are thinking of kinetic energy , which is created within a system .

I know that definition defines matter and energy separate but that is just not so .

A piece of wood is energy , fuel , it just has to be transformed into heat energy etc .

A piece of wood *has* chemical energy. It is not energy itself.

 

[Polymath257]

Matter is derived from the term material , all matter has materialistic properties .

You are not considering the equation E=mc^2 and the mass /energy equivalent .

All matter is a form of energy like it or not .

Nope, @ratiocinator is correct here. The energy in E=mc^2 is a property of the mass. And mass is a property of particles. Some of those particles are matter.

 

[Polymath257]

Try my quantum scales , an exact and correct explanation of gravitational mass and force . View attachment 57899

Mass is proportional to the charge??? Simply false. The mass of a positron is much, much smaller than the mass of a proton, but they have the same charge.

 

[Polymath257]

If you say so but I know my model is correct .

The strong nuclear force of the proton and the strong nuclear force of the electron converge to create a third weaker force , namely gravity .
F1+F2=F3
I particular prefer the term N-force because we all know that −1 e + (+1e) = 0 net charge or a neutral charge N

Electrons are not subject to the strong nuclear force.

 

[Polymath257]

You're just going to ignore the fact that quantum fields is electromagnetic radiation and is a form of energy ?

The quantum *photon* field is electromagnetic. But the quantum electron field is not (it produces one, though). The quantum field for a neutrino is also not electromagnetic.

Quantum fields are matter and the Earths field stopping the solar winds demonstates this .

No. The quantum field for photons is not matter. And the solar winds are irrelevant to that.

You can have kE that exists independent of matter energy but requires matter to be produced .

Huh?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Actually, all three are correct, but different ways of saying the same thing.

I do not think that is entirely true as particles are independent of spatial fields in regards to wave function . A partice field has a wave function and that is between 450-750nm of the visible spectrum .

A particle itself has more density than the emitted field so tends to quantum fluctuate in form rather than being wave like .

If you put your foot in a pond you will make waves but your foot isn't wave like .

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Electrons are not subject to the strong nuclear force.

Really and how do you know that ?

The electon is attracted to a proton and vice versus so how can you say that ?

 

[Polymath257]

Really and how do you know that ?

The electon is attracted to a proton and vice versus so how can you say that ?

The electron is attracted through the E&M force, not the strong force. They are quite different in dynamics and how they work.

The E&M force involves the exchange of photons. The strong force involves the exchange of gluons.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

A piece of wood *has* chemical energy. It is not energy itself.

Define energy in your terms please ?

I define energy as anything with a value greater than 0 or nothing .

 

[Polymath257]

Define energy in your terms please ?

I define energy as anything with a value greater than 0 or nothing .

Energy is the quantity conserved because the laws of physics are time invariant.

Momentum is the quantity conserved because the laws of physics are translation invariant.

Angular momentum is the quantity conserved because the laws of physics are rotation invariant.

I can list a number of other properties and why they are conserved via Noether's Theorem.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Energy is the quantity conserved because the laws of physics are time invariant.

Momentum is the quantity conserved because the laws of physics are translation invariant.

Angular momentum is the quantity conserved because the laws of physics are rotation invariant.

I can list a number of other properties and why they are conserved via Noether's Theorem.

Ok , you can quote these terms but ask yourself are these terms necessarily physically true ?

Energy is a quantity that is conserved and is an invariant is the constant state and form of a particle that is stating in my eyes , anything greater than the value zero being energy ?

Wood is a quantity that is conserved isn't it being made of particles?

1 kg of dried out wood chippings , the mass is conserved ?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

The electron is attracted through the E&M force, not the strong force. They are quite different in dynamics and how they work.

The E&M force involves the exchange of photons. The strong force involves the exchange of gluons.

We can't split an atom so how do you know the electron is attracted through the Electromagnetic force ? I though they were attracted through Coulombs of force ?

 

[Polymath257]

Ok , you can quote these terms but ask yourself are these terms necessarily physically true ?

If the laws of physics are not invariant in those ways, then there would be no such conserved quantities.

Energy is a quantity that is conserved and is an invariant is the constant state and form of a particle that is stating in my eyes , anything greater than the value zero being energy ?

Through the word 'invariant', this made sense. After that, it makes no sense.

Wood is a quantity that is conserved isn't it being made of particles?

Wood is not conserved when you burn it. The mass is conserved and the energy is conserved (if you include the mass and energy dispersed in the resulting gases).

1 kg of dried out wood chippings , the mass is conserved ?

Well, if you are burning the wood, you need to include the mass of the air that is involved in that reaction. And you need to include not just the mass of the ash, but also of the gases released.

 

[Polymath257]

We can't split an atom so how do you know the electron is attracted through the Electromagnetic force ? I though they were attracted through Coulombs of force ?

The coulomb force is one aspect of the E&M force.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

If the laws of physics are not invariant in those ways, then there would be no such conserved quantities.



Through the word 'invariant', this made sense. After that, it makes no sense.



Wood is not conserved when you burn it. The mass is conserved and the energy is conserved (if you include the mass and energy dispersed in the resulting gases).


Well, if you are burning the wood, you need to include the mass of the air that is involved in that reaction. And you need to include not just the mass of the ash, but also of the gases released.

Ok good , you are aware of the fire process and how fire works . So you must agree that when we are bunring this 1 kg of wood chippings , the process gains kE and some of this kE is temporarilly conserved by the mass embers ?

 

[Polymath257]

Ok good , you are aware of the fire process and how fire works . So you must agree that when we are bunring this 1 kg of wood chippings , the process gains kE and some of this kE is temporarilly conserved by the mass embers ?

No. The gas released would have kE, but not the embers.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

The coulomb force is one aspect of the E&M force.

The only aspect I am aware of !

Is it true that two opposite signed charges can occupy the same given coordinate (x0,y0,z0,) simultaneoulsy ?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

No. The gas released would have kE, but not the embers.

Interesting because embers tend to be glowing , retaining/conserving light energy that is created in the process . Some embers also develop a velocity and travel upwards with the gases .

Either way you agree the gases have gained kE , can you explain why the gases are attracted upwards ?

Flames point upwards .

 

[RestlessSoul]

Actually, all three are correct, but different ways of saying the same thing.



What do you mean by the phrase 'fundamental substance'? Are you sure that it is even a meaningful concept?

Isn't it rather the case that all three have practical applications, they all get results, but none gives a true description of reality at the subatomic level? They don't, for example, fulfil Einstein's aspiration that "the programmatic aim of all physics is the complete description of any real situation, as it supposedly exists".

I'm sure you're familiar with the statement attributed to Feynman and also David Mermin, that the Copenhagenists approach to QM could best be characterised as "shut up and calculate". And why not if that approach works so well in developing new technologies?
Only that hasn't satisfied those who want to know what QM means for the material world. Beginning, presumably, with wave/particle duality.

"Quantum mechanics is the most useful and powerful theory physicists have ever devised. Yet today, nearly [100] years after it's formulation, disagreement about the meaning of the theory is stronger than ever."
- N. David Mermin

You're right, I'm not sure if "fundamental substance" is even a meaningful concept. If it isn't, does that mean that fundamental particles may in fact be abstractions? And if that is the case, is our entire universe constructed from abstraction and metaphor?

Mermin again;

"Having once removed the mystery from electrodynamics, let me immediately do the same for quantum mechanics:
Correlations have physical reality; that which they correlate does not."

Whatever mystery that observation removes, it seems to open the door to a galaxy of new ones.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Isn't it rather the case that all three have practical applications, they all get results, but none gives a true description of reality at the subatomic level? They don't, for example, fulfil Einstein's aspiration that "the programmatic aim of all physics is the complete description of any real situation, as it supposedly exists".

I'm sure you're familiar with the statement attributed to Feynman and also David Mermin, that the Copenhagenists approach to QM could best be characterised as "shut up and calculate". And why not if that approach works so well in developing new technologies?
Only that hasn't satisfied those who want to know what QM means for the material world. Beginning, presumably, with wave/particle duality.

"Quantum mechanics is the most useful and powerful theory physicists have ever devised. Yet today, nearly [100] years after it's formulation, disagreement about the meaning of the theory is stronger than ever."
- N. David Mermin

You're right, I'm not sure if "fundamental substance" is even a meaningful concept. If it isn't, does that mean that fundamental particles may in fact be abstractions? And if that is the case, is our entire universe constructed from abstraction and metaphor?

Mermin again;

"Having once removed the mystery from electrodynamics, let me immediately do the same for quantum mechanics:
Correlations have physical reality; that which they correlate does not."

Whatever mystery that observation removes, it seems to open the door to a galaxy of new ones.

Maybe there isn't a sub atomic level ! Why does a frame works components have to be over complicated once we know the frame work?

Atoms are really small , practically 0 in size and people try to go beyond 0 which is rather ironic by trying to create/invent new particles .