Ok. Thank you. Technically, there is no such thing as "stationary mass". Absolute zero cannot be achieved. Let me put it this way - No subatomic particle within an atom can occupy the same position relative to the balance of the subatomic particles in that same atom in any two increments of time. It is that movement that produces the energy in an otherwise stationary mass.
Movement comes from input energy, the movement does not produce energy otherwise you would be breaking fundamental laws (Think of warming up a cup of water) AND the mass still has energy equivalent to mc2 independently of the movement of any particles. That mass energy does not change
Wrong! Did you ever attend a physics lesson? So you think that a mass traveling at 10m/s uses 100 times more energy than a same mass traveling at 1m/s! And your logic doesn't even take account of time
Interestingly a recent paper by Austrian Physicists has proposed that our underestimating of classical physics as 'deterministic' is incorrect. The paper argues instead that it is impossible to calculate/predict in advance a sequence of events including things like position and motion no mater how 'perfect' our knowledge of initial starting conditions in the system being studied might seem. If I understand it correctly they argue, that the quantum measurement problem in facts 'leaks' into classical physics and you end up with the same issues with cause/effect and measurement of outcomes we have in quantum mechanics. https://phys.org/news/2019-12-physics-deterministic.html
Yes, there is a schism in modern physics. The QM rules of partical physics don't mesh with the incredibly well tested results of Einstein. There are lots of different approaches being followed to discover a unifying theory. My understanding is that one of the problems (the problem??) is that our understanding of why QM works is weak - that physicists know some very helpful rules, but not the why. Though numerous famous physicists have contributed Feynman's quote that nobody understands quantum mechanics is still probably true. So, there are several fundamental directions, such as the Everett "multi worlds" interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation, among others. One would hope that soon some new Einstein (or university full of Einsteins) will figure out what the heck is going on. Until then, we're going to hear a LOT of stuff on this topic - which is in the realm of theoretical physics, not scientific method (science), since teting these ideas is not particularly possible.
Yep, and even in 'classical' physics there are big issues looming. For one our understanding of gravity hasn't progressed much in more than 100 years despite all our progress in other areas. Worse, on astronomical scales large structures like galaxies and galaxy clusters seem to be moving/interacting in a way that doesn't quite comply with the laws of gravity as we define them now. So we plug in 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' account for the apparent observed anomalies and after almost a century of looking - nada. We're even getting contradictory measurements for the age of the universe depending on the method used. Exciting times.
"Uses"? What do you mean uses? The measurable energy is the mass times its velocity squared. That's what it is. That's what is measured.
The implications would be like something out of a sci fi novel. Are you aware of what has been reported to go on at the quantum scale? Electrons do not orbit. Electrons do not spin. We know not where they're going. We know not where they've been. I've read that, electrons seem to vanish from one place and somehow appear somewhere else within the atom. Crazy stuff!
You are confusing two different issues. To accelerate a mass from rest to velocity v, energy has to be applied to the mass. This energy is referred to as kinetic energy and is calculated as half mass times velocity squared (Newtonian). E = mc2 is nothing to do with this. This energy is the total energy that a mass inherently has if all the mass (rest mass) was converted to energy at which point that mass will no longer exist but will exist as energy (mass and energy are interchangeable)
Not like the Moon orbits the Earth, no. They do, however, occupy orbitals when bound to atomic nuclei. Name a particle physicist who believes that.
Predictions derived from the big bang theory like the abundance of deuterium have been proven. There is no Astrophysical process other than the big bang that can account for deuterium’s small but definitive presence throughout the cosmos . Moreover, according to the big bang theory , about 23 percent of the universe should be composed of helium. By measuring the helium abundance in stars and nebulae, astronomers have impressive support that, indeed, this prediction is right on the mark.
The Spin nomenclature scientists use really isn't spin in the colloquial sense. Spin is vibrational wave patterns. And when we're talking about waves we're talking about frequency wavelength and amplitude. Just as a violin has strings that each have a specific vibrational wave pattern, as do atomic particles.
We know the Graviton exists because there is a vibrational pattern that perfectly matches it. We know the vibrational pattern of known atomic particles like the photon. It’s like a violin with vibrational patterns associated with each of its strings-only one string is missing between the A and C strings. We know there has to be a B string between the A and C strings. We have just not found it yet.
Not true in the manner you suggest. String theory, M Theory, Loop Quantum Qravity, or even Geometric TOR all make attempts to incorporate some means of defining gravity at a quantum level. None have provided verifiable prediction, and that includes string theory. The existence of a graviton has been proved. There are some recently, that suspect the HIGGs, which may come in different labors, may have a variation that gives particles mass may also be the source of gravity. Since our experiences and observation have resulted in models that all link gravity to mass.... interesting thought. So, perhaps we’ve seen the Higgs vacation, but didn’t have the tech to recognize what we saw.
[QUOTEt="An Taibhse, post: 1071292379, member: 70296"]Not true in the manner you suggest. String theory, M Theory, Loop Quantum Qravity, or even Geometric TOR all make attempts to incorporate some means of defining gravity at a quantum level. None have provided verifiable prediction, and that includes string theory. The existence of a graviton has been proved. There are some recently, that suspect the HIGGs, which may come in different labors, may have a variation that gives particles mass may also be the source of gravity. Since our experiences and observation have resulted in models that all link gravity to mass.... interesting thought. So, perhaps we’ve seen the Higgs vacation, but didn’t have the tech to recognize what we saw.[/QUOTE] Correction....the positive evidence for the existence of a graviton has not been verified.
This would perhaps be more compelling if it didn't come from a guy who seems not to understand the rudiments of the geometry of a sphere in Euclidean space. If you draw an analogy, do yourself a favor and use something you have knowledge of - which in your case obviously does not include violins, which don't have C strings.
Sorry, I flunked music. We know element 119 probably exists even though we have not found it yet because we have found element 118 and element 120. We even know what properties element 119 might have based on its position in the periodic table
We don't know the graviton exists. As Fermilab senior physicist Don Lincoln wrote in a post: "“Gravitons are a theoretically reputable idea, but are not proven. So if you hear someone say that ‘gravitons are particles that generate the gravitational force,’ keep in mind that this is a reasonable statement, but by no means is it universally accepted. It will be a long time before gravitons are considered part of the established subatomic pantheon.”" https://futurism.com/the-edge-of-physics-do-gravitons-really-exist
Energy of motion in joules is .5 × m × v2 where m is mass in kilograms and v is velocity in meters per second But, energy is not limited to motion. And, that equation says nothing about the energy equivalence of mass or of other forms of energy - electrical, mechanical, thermal, or even nuclear.
Obviously you have never heard of the concept, "falsifiability." Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory. There's a reason the type I error is the type I error and not the type II error because scientists worry more about saying something exists when it doesn't than saying something doesn't exist when it does.
You're not acknowledging any distinction between power and energy. Potential energy (power, or the ability to affect change) is not the same as energy, which is effectively change. All matter has a charge because no subatomic particle can occupy the same position relative to the balance of the subatomic particles within an atom in any two increments of time. All matter, on any scale, is subject to constant change. The potential energy (power) in the material universe is equal to all of the matter in the material universe moving at the speed of light squared. Power does not require change ("motion"), energy does. No change=no energy. Power is a measure of potentiality. Energy is a measure of actual material change. Power affectively material change. Energy is effectively material change.
Power is the energy per unit time. Why are you explaining things you don't understand yourself? Potential is energy, not power.