Is God an energy being ?

[Polymath257]

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".

No, they are all literally different interpretations of exactly the same math. The particles and waves are NOT classical particles and waves: they are *quantum* particles and waves. And those are also quantum fields.

And Einstein was wrong when it comes to quantum mechanics, as shown by actual experiments he dreamed up as thought experiments. His intuition was that they would come out in a different way than they, in fact do.

The problem is that, ultimately, the philosophy of realism (where things have definite properties at all times) is simply false. Einstein would be disappointed, but ultimately, he was wrong in his intuitions on this.

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.

I think one of the problems is that people are trying to interpret quantum mechanics based on a metaphysics based on classical physics and that simply doesn't work with what we know about the universe now.

What we need is new metaphysics, not new physics, I think.

"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?

No. There are properties that can be detected. But the way those properties change and are correlated is not consistent with classical ideas. if you use the same metaphysics to attempt to understand quantum mechanics as what you used to understand Newtonian mechanics, you will fail.

The problem is in the philosophy, not in the physics.

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."

Precisely. The universe works on probabilistic principles, not classical/realist principles. That makes a huge difference.

But it is a serious error to try to interpret the new, more accurate description of things (quantum mechanics) in terms of the old, less accurate description (classical mechanics). That is the origin of most of the 'paradoxes' of quantum mechanics.

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

 

[Polymath257]

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 .

The light emitted is radiant energy and is due to their temperature. The amount of kE in the embers is very small compared to that of the gases.

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

Buoyancy. Hot gases are less dense than the surrounding air and so rise. Just like helium rises even if it isn't hot.

Flames point upwards .

Not in zero gravity, they don't.

 

[Polymath257]

The only aspect I am aware of !

You have never heard of magnetism?

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

At the atomic level and below, that question makes no sense. The wave functions can overlap, certainly. But the position of atomic sized particles isn't a definite quantity.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

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.

How can kg times a speed squared be any more than a force equation between two particles colliding ?

All Einstein as done is change Newtons acceleration to a constant . F=ma explains force if the mass is accelerating , E=mc^2 explains a force if the speed is constant . Might as well E=m(d/t) ^2 which would neither be an energy equation .

Correct me if I am incorrect on the physical process the equation represents ?

 

[Polymath257]

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 .

Atoms are small, certainly. But they are far, far larger than atomic nuclei. That isn't going beyond 0: is simply getting smaller than 10^(-10) m.

And yes, we know quite a variety of subatomic particles and know their properties with quite a lot of accuracy.

Here's a link to the best current information: Particle Data Group

 

[Polymath257]

How can kg times a speed squared be any more than a force equation between two particles colliding ?

It isn't a force. it's an energy.

All Einstein as done is change Newtons acceleration to a constant . F=ma explains force if the mass is accelerating , E=mc^2 explains a force if the speed is constant . Might as well E=m(d/t) ^2 which would neither be an energy equation .

Correct me if I am incorrect on the physical process the equation represents ?

You aren't even close to being correct. Yes, m(d/t)^2 represents an energy, not a force.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Buoyancy. Hot gases are less dense than the surrounding air and so rise.

Really ? I know you are just repeating what is presently said .

A single atom conserves its mass and is still attracted to the ground , therefore there must be and is required a force equal to the upwards velocity of the single atom .

Can you explain this ?

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

It isn't a force. it's an energy.



You aren't even close to being correct. Yes, m(d/t)^2 represents an energy, not a force.

How does it represent an energy ? Please explain the physical process the maths is too ?

 

[Polymath257]

Really ? I know you are just repeating what is presently said .

No, I am using principles that are well understood.

A single atom conserves its mass and is still attracted to the ground , therefore there must be and is required a force equal to the upwards velocity of the single atom .

Can you explain this ?

Collisions with other atoms.

 

[Polymath257]

How does it represent an energy ? Please explain the physical process the maths is too ?

As written, it is twice a kinetic energy. KE=(1/2)mv^2.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

The wave functions can overlap, certainly. But the position of atomic sized particles isn't a definite quantity.

Particles require opposite polarity wave functions to have a specific density before they become a bonded particle by the opposing forces . The dynamics of this are specifically the oppostie wave function must manifest simultaneoulsy at the same position to have the sufficient density required . Otherwise a single pole wave function would be just sparesly dispered by transition function .

 

[Polymath257]

Particles require opposite polarity wave functions to have a specific density before they become a bonded particle by the opposing forces . The dynamics of this are specifically the oppostie wave function must manifest simultaneoulsy at the same position to have the sufficient density required . Otherwise a single pole wave function would be just sparesly dispered by transition function .

Word salad. You are clearly using words you do not understand the meaning of.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

As written, it is twice a kinetic energy. KE=(1/2)mv^2.

That still mean nothing in regards to explaining the physical process it is devised for .

I have seen one video where it shows a single photon hitting a box in space and moving the box , is that a good example of the physics because if so then E=mc^2 is a kinetic force equation , not an energy equation .

The real energy equation is

 

[Polymath257]

That still mean nothing in regards to explaining the physical process it is devised for .

I have seen one video where it shows a single photon hitting a box in space and moving the box , is that a good example of the physics because if so then E=mc^2 is a kinetic force equation , not an energy equation .

nope, moving the box would be due to the *momentum* of the photon, not the energy of the photon. The two are different things.

The real energy equation is

E^2 = m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2.

Energy is the fourth (time) component of the energy-momentum four-dimensional vector. The mass is, in essence, the relativistic length of that four-vector.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

nope, moving the box would be due to the *momentum* of the photon, not the energy of the photon. The two are different things.



E^2 = m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2.

Energy is the fourth (time) component of the energy-momentum four-dimensional vector. The mass is, in essence, the relativistic length of that four-vector.

Sorry you answered before I uploaded a diagram , see prior post of the true equation

m/V*kE/t

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Energy is the fourth (time) component of the energy-momentum four-dimensional vector. The mass is, in essence, the relativistic length of that four-vector.

In English instead of an alien language ?

 

[Polymath257]

In English instead of an alien language ?

It is standard English for those studying relativity.

 

[TheBrokenSoul]

Word salad. You are clearly using words you do not understand the meaning of.

My neurolgical reference frame doesn't use words I don't mean the understanding of .

You answered earlier that opposite pole wave functions can overlay the same spatial position , opposite pole particles can occupy the same spatial position .
How do we know the proton and the electron are not convergenge particles occupying the same positions (x0,y0,z0,) ?

Maybe you just didn't understand what I said .

If a mono-pole manifests in micro bang theory before the big bang , when there was never a time where there was the absence of space , the micro bang mono pole because of spectral transitions is attracted to the whole of space and becomes 0 density because it has no bond .

At the instant of manifestation is when the micro bang mono pole conserves its highest density before it it sparesly spread to 0 density .

When two manifest simultaneuosly at the same location , both bond and the energy is conserved and invariant .

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry you answered before I uploaded a diagram , see prior post of the true equation

m/V*kE/t

Given that the units don't even work out for that, it is just nonsense.

 

[Segev Moran]

I've been thinking then I thought that I am energy , the earth is energy , the atmosphere is energy , between heavenly bodies there is energy .

Before God there was no energy and to create energy you need energy so that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy .

Energy is a physical thing.
God is an unknown.
If you want to imagine God as the sum of all energy, you can. But no imagined image or force can be or describe god.
This is one of the basic things we know about God.
The idea that A can only be generated by A, is not true.
If God is the maker of energy, it doesn't mean it is made of energy, it means it contains energy.