Can the energy of movement be altered by another energy?

[Wolf]

I was recently studying quantum mechanics and thought of a situation
quantem mechanics in a way is movement and how movemnt and reality
go together such as e=mc squared but is it posible that the energy of movement or the velocity if you wish could be altered by another
energy causing the movement to slow or speed up or stop in isnstances
please if you get the second and know anything on this subject
reply to this or if anything i have said is wrong corect me for i have just started studying quantum mechanics and would apreciate the help. thanks

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Wolf
quantem mechanics in a way is movement

That's sort of a tenuous assertion, but okay.

how movemnt and reality
go together such as e=mc squared

Well, E = m c² is a result of relativity theory, not quantum mechanics. I'm also not sure how "reality" enters the equation, or how it deals with movement. It simply relates mass and energy.

but is it posible that the energy of movement or the velocity if you wish could be altered by another
energy causing the movement to slow or speed up or stop in isnstances

Of course. Such "energies" are more properly called "forces." You can apply a force to a moving object and slow it down, stop it, or speed it up.

- Warren

 

[Wolf]

Reality

reality falls into this because well what if there was no reality
then there would be nothing so i supose the question i am asking is
what type of energy or force could change reality and it's movement

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Wolf
reality falls into this because well what if there was no reality
then there would be nothing so i supose the question i am asking is
what type of energy or force could change reality and it's movement

What kind of force could... change reality's movement? This doesn't even make any sense, I'm afraid.

- Warren

 

[Wolf]

why

why does that not make sense to you?

why is it not posiable for a force to be able to alter gravity,movement or reality itself?

"it is primitive to believe something exists or not exists"

there is proof sugesting that it is posible but none sugesting the opposite

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Wolf
why is it not posiable for a force to be able to alter gravity,movement or reality itself?

Forces certainly alter movement. Forces do not alter gravity. Physics does not concern itself with the word 'reality,' since reality is not easily definable. A physicist would delegate a discussion about the definition of 'reality' to a philosopher.

- Warren

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by chroot
Forces certainly alter movement. Forces do not alter gravity.

forces alter gravity.

 

[quantum_foam]

Such as?

Some forces can oppose the effect gravity has on mass, but I am not familiar with any force that truly alters the forces of gravity, or how it functions. To which forces are you refering?

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by quantum_foam
Such as?

Some forces can oppose the effect gravity has on mass, but I am not familiar with any force that truly alters the forces of gravity, or how it functions. To which forces are you refering?

the source of all gravity is the stress tensor (well... nonradiative gravity). the stress tensor is force per unit area, therefore the more force is in your system, the more gravity it will "create".

this applies to any kind of force at all. adding more force to the system will make more gravity.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Lethe wrote:
the source of all gravity is the stress tensor (well... nonradiative gravity). the stress tensor is force per unit area, therefore the more force is in your system, the more gravity it will "create".

So you are saying that if the gravitational force in given situation increases, then that force "created" more gravity??
You normally make more sense than that!

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
So you are saying that if the gravitational force in given situation increases, then that force "created" more gravity??
You normally make more sense than that!

i am saying that forces alter gravity.

if i push on the wall, i have altered the gravitational field in the vicinity of the wall, by exerting a force.

do you not agree? was it unclear?

 

[quantum_foam]

Originally posted by lethe
i am saying that forces alter gravity.

if i push on the wall, i have altered the gravitational field in the vicinity of the wall, by exerting a force.

do you not agree? was it unclear?

You have not altered gravity in any way by pushing on the wall.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by quantum_foam
You have not altered gravity in any way by pushing on the wall.

Yes, you have, but the effect is extremely small --- unmeasurably small, in this case.

Amplifying on Lethe's point:

In Newtonian gravity, the source of the gravitational field is mass density. In general relativity, it is stress-energy, which includes not only relativistic mass-energy density, but also momentum density / energy flux, pressure, stress, and strain. Exerting a force on the wall stresses it, and actually changes the gravitational field produced by the wall by a very tiny amount.

 

[quantum_foam]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Yes, you have, but the effect is extremely small --- unmeasurably small, in this case.

Amplifying on Lethe's point:

In Newtonian gravity, the source of the gravitational field is mass density. In general relativity, it is stress-energy, which includes not only relativistic mass-energy density, but also momentum density / energy flux, pressure, stress, and strain. Exerting a force on the wall stresses it, and actually changes the gravitational field produced by the wall by a very tiny amount.

Very true, but you have not altered the behavior of gravity--you have simply changed the way gravity is affecting the surroundings in that particular situation. Gravity, and how it behaves, has not changed.

 

[Wolf]

but he has

by pushing on the wall the force of gravity is increased on the wall
argo it has been changed so what if you could eliminate force upon a being let's say an energy lowers the amount of force on your body then gravity is no as great on the being therefore if you where going to put it in words reality has been altered and so has movement because the normal rules of reality state that you should have the same constant force of gravity on a being but if that force is changed in the way i described above then the rules of reality have been broken and thus changed so in my original question is there a type of energy that could change the movement of reality the answer is yes

 

[Wolf]

patern

quantum mechanics sugest that all forces of energy have a movement patern and that if i swing my arm out straight that my body has a specific energy patern when i do this but if that patern was changed then what would happen to my arm going straight out would it stop speed up or slow down this is my original question also my question was what would it take to change the movement patern of this action

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Exerting a force on the wall stresses it, and actually changes the gravitational field produced by the wall by a very tiny amount.

that I can understand...

Originally posted by Wolf
by pushing on the wall the force of gravity is increased on the wall

but that not.
are you saying that the force of gravity on the wall is increased? force exerted by what?

 

[onycho]

Keen Observation

reality falls into this because well what if there was no reality

Wolf what if there was no human perspective of reality in an unknown and unmeasurable dimension where timelessness exists. In other words, we see the world as we assume it exists. Can anyone reconcile the fact that life forms, human choice or even intelligence arises spontaneously from inanimate sub-atomic particles?

Most people think only in the 'box' and see OUR reality.

Supposition: What if 'we' exist in another form, in a stream of an undefined and unknown ether called 'freewill.' This stream of this unknown coursing through this unseen dimension in a singularity (no past, present or future time) but for a short blip in the this flow, the universe and all we sense becomes reality. We can see with our visual cortex, the solid world we live in with emotion, fear, sight, touch, planets, galaxies, the visible cosmos but a non-reality point of perspective.

That the 'we' (our personal experience) is a true reality but 'we' in effect have no body and no ability to experience the unknowable Truth. So scientists, cosmologists, theologists, physicists go on their merry way making mearsurements, experiments, formula and theory about something that doesn't really exist.

 

[quantum_foam]

The ideas of reality--what is "real" and what is not, is more a study of philosophy than of science. However, quantum mechanics dictates that indeed nothing is "real" until it is observed. Thus, whatever is observed, by humans or anything, becomes real.

 

[onycho]

quantum foam,

The ideas of reality--what is "real" and what is not, is more a study of philosophy than of science. However, quantum mechanics dictates that indeed nothing is "real" until it is observed. Thus, whatever is observed, by humans or anything, becomes real.

Actually you are somewhat correct in your statement. Reality is necessary for science and philosophy to exist in a symbioic relationship for both to be valid. They are not in opposition as many like to argue with the theories of evolution and creationism.

Quantum mechanics presents an illusory view of the universe. It conveniently arranges mental constructs into dialectical assertions of pure reason, the type that Imanuel Kant would not accept. Each assertion, or thesis, stands opposed to a contradictory assertion or antithesis. Hegel, on the other hand, accepted contradictions as indicative of the true nature of things. Hegel viewed the thesis and the antithesis as imperfect expressions of a more inclusive synthesis. Karl Marx extended the concept to dialectical materialism. The abstract entities named in the thesis and antitheses of quantum mechanics have no real basis in immediate experience. They are mental constructs that exist by virtue of their dialectical opposite. The mind of man can create mental constructs, but it can not create a real object out of nothing. In the very process by which the mind creates mental constructs of abstract dialectical entities it likewise creates credulity and belief in them. The tendency is to confuse abstract entities with existential entities, because supposedly one can not identify what does not exist.

Do you believe that Quantum Mechanics theories are valid in
all parts of the universe or even on the 'otherside' of the universe?

Quantum Mechanics does appear to answer unknown observations that were previously unexplainable but so did Neuton's mathematics in his time.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by quantum_foam
However, quantum mechanics dictates that indeed nothing is "real" until it is observed.

I'm pretty sure quantum mechanics says nothing about the "reality" of anything.

In any event, this thread is rapidly evolving off-topic. Can we get it back on-topic?

- Warren

 

[quantum_foam]

Originally posted by chroot
I'm pretty sure quantum mechanics says nothing about the "reality" of anything.

On the contrary! Have you heard of Schrodinger's Cat? Not only does Quantum Theory describe what is real and what is not, but it also describes multiple realities, and things of the such.

The definition of reality or "unreality" is most certainly not only described in Quantum theory, but is also an intregral part of the theory itself.

Back on topic, though...

I still fail to see how "pushing on the wall," as it was put, actually changes the behavior of gravity itself. I agree that the *effect* of gravity on that wall has indeed changed, but the action (in my opinion) has not changed how gravity fundamentally functions or behaves.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by quantum_foam
On the contrary! Have you heard of Schrodinger's Cat? Not only does Quantum Theory describe what is real and what is not, but it also describes multiple realities, and things of the such.

No, it does not. Quantum mechanics describes the probable outcomes of experiments. There are many ontological interpretations of the theory, but the theory itself does not have anything to say about reality.

The definition of reality or "unreality" is most certainly not only described in Quantum theory, but is also an intregral part of the theory itself.

It seems to me that you really don't know anything about quantum mechanics beyond what you've read in paperback novels. Do you actually know anything about the theory?

- Warren

 

[onycho]

Quantum Mechanics & What is Real

Schrödinger's cat

Oh contrare. Quantum Mechanics states that until something is actually observed, several alternatives remain unknown. Only afer you look in the box can you tell what is real and what did not happen.

In 1935 Schrödinger published an essay describing the conceptual problems in QM1. A brief paragraph in this essay described the cat paradox.


One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a ``blurred model'' for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.


We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe interference effects from these. We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a definite macroscopic state. That is the measurement problem and Schrödinger's cat is a simple and elegant explanations of that problem.

 

[onycho]

The Nature of Gravity

Very true, but you have not altered the behavior of gravity--you have simply changed the way gravity is affecting the surroundings in that particular situation. Gravity, and how it behaves, has not changed.

The problem here is what exactly is gravity by definition. Our consciousness makes us aware of this force but as to its source or origin no one knows.

We know it is a primal force like energy but that too has no known reason for existence in our observable world.

 

[chroot]

Schrodinger's cat is not part of quantum theory. Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment designed to highlight the strangeness of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Note, again, that you're not discussing quantum mechanics, but an interpretation of it. Quantum mechanics, the physical theory itself, is not concerned with the meaning of "reality" in any way, shape, or form.

- Warren

 

[quantum_foam]

After some amount of research, I have discovered that you are correct. I was not aware that there is an actual confined theory of quantum mechanics. I was under the impression that it was simply a compilation of many experiments/theories.

Is there a written theory as is the General Theory of Relativity? If not, then aren't any interpretations of the theory as valid as any other?

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by quantum_foam
I was under the impression that it was simply a compilation of many experiments/theories.

No. Quantum mechanics is a (more or less) rigorous mathematical formalism which can be used to calculate the results of experiments.

Is there a written theory as is the General Theory of Relativity?

Quantum mechanics was developed not by one person (as was relativity), but by many people simultaneously. There is no one single magnum opus to consult on the topic. On the other hand, a quantum mechanics textbook would be the right place to go to learn the theory.

If not, then aren't any interpretations of the theory as valid as any other?

The interpretations are all equally valid. Quantum mechanics per se is not at all dependent upon those interpretations. The theory predicts specific results for experiments, and those results are then verified. Nowhere in the "workings" of quantum mechanics is there any philosophy.

- Warren

 

[onycho]

Quantum Mechanics and Reality

Actually you too are basically incorrect.

[onycho's content deleted.]

Moderator edit: We do not permit plagiarism on this site.

 

[Scorp]

hey wolf...you still here?
you still talking about your theorys?
i think they could go far...
if you got more ppl to disengage the filter
in their head...all they have to do is listin and
and give it a chance...they might get what your saying...

 

[Scorp]

hey wolf...look what i can do...


[tex]
\begin{equation*}\begin{split}\tau &= \tau_1+\tau_2 = \sqrt{{\Delta t_1}^2-{\Delta x_1}^2}+\sqrt{{\Delta t_2}^2-{\Delta x_2}^2} \\&= \sqrt{(5-0)^2-(4-0)^2}+\sqrt{(10-5)^2-(0-4)^2}\\&= 3+3 = 6\end{split}\end{equation*}
[/tex]

 

[Wolf]

My theory

my theories are diferent from the normal if people could shut their filter off for a litle bit people would see what i am saying makes sense you just have to ignore the 'rules of logic' to see them once you shut that filter off for a minute you start to see what it means
once that hapens then you can bring normal logic back into the situation

 

[onycho]

Wolf Pay No Attention To the Other Posters

my theories are diferent from the normal if people could shut their filter off for a litle bit people would see what i am saying makes sense you just have to ignore the 'rules of logic' to see them once you shut that filter off for a minute you start to see what it means

Your theories, although a bit confusing, are no more or less valid than others on this forum.

Please keep in mind that there was a time when the scientists and people of a distant past time believed that if you were to walk far enough you would fall off this flat earth.

The current theories of quantum physics, cosmology, mass, energy, gravity, time, space and all that goes along it are nothing but today’s thinkers and shakers trying to cope with observation and mental experiments and reality. In a hundred years, if Earth people remain in place, advances will have put all current theories in the category of the same 'flat Earth society.' In other words, no one knows anything for certain.

So any concepts or ideas that you have are just as valid as anyone on Earth today.

"We see reality as we assume it exists."

 

[quantumdude]

I think that this thread has lingered here quite long enough. Wolf, this Forum is for threads that have direct relevance to quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. The Forum for personal speculation is the Theory Development Forum, which is where I am sending this.

 

[onycho]

I think that this thread has lingered here quite long enough. Wolf, this Forum is for threads that have direct relevance to quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. The Forum for personal speculation is the Theory Development Forum, which is where I am sending this.

Tom you have every right to move posts wherever you like as you are the master mentor.

But please allow me to mention the fact that Quantum Mechanics is just fuzzy enough enough to have had personal observaton and speculation more or less with a very direct relevance to our understanding of QM.

One of the most astonishing features of quantum mechanics: the 'autonomous' role of the observation, as a subjective event which cannot be reduced to a physical one. The very existence of a qualitatively different formalization for the observation process is something unthinkable in classic physics, where the observer can be both completely ignored and completely amalgamated, pure soul or another piece of matter as you like, in the physical representation of the event, without affecting the natural laws.

In quantum mechanics, on the contrary, we have two qualitatively different evolution laws for the system: the first continuous, in absence of observation events, and the second discontinuous, accomplishing a sudden ''reduction'' of the wave-packet to one of the possible values/pure states (eigenvalues/eigenvectors) of the observable, during a measurement event. Such a behavior must be confronted with the classic description of the physical knowledge. In fact, in classic mechanics the 'knowledge' event is something not reducible to a mechanical description, as the whole history of the body/mind dualistic philosophies has shown."

Without personal speculation like Einstein or Newton, where would our current concepts of the laws of nature and relativeity be today.

Just a thought...