It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# All the Laws of Physics distilled down to one Fundamental Law.

page: 6
9
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 12:33 PM
Getting back to the issue of gravity as negative energy for a moment, I came across these two yahoo answers when I was doing research for my negative energy and negative space thread. The funny thing is that both questions are the same but the "best answer" on each question seem to be contradictory. This first answer would be more in line with what I'm arguing and the second answer would be more in line with what Astyanax is arguing.

Gravity can have negative energy? How?

Gravity is a force. It doesn't 'have' energy.

Objects set at a distance can have gravitational potential energy but for objects with positive mass this is always positive. Theoretically an object with negative mass (a class of hypothetical material we call exotic matter) can have negative gravitational potential (repelled from other negative mass, but no one knows which way around the signs might work for regular mass's gravitational attraction/repulsion from exotic matter).

No one is yet quite sure which way around the gravitational attraction/repulsion works for antimatter - gravity is so weak and our supplies of contained antimatter so infinitesimal that the experiments to test have been beyond our sensitivity to measure - though that work is finally being conducted as we speak. It's unlikely but yet possible that antimatter is gravitationally repelled from normal matter.

Why does gravity have negative energy?

Gravity is generated by mass, energy-density (e.g. electromagnetic field), momentum, pressure, and stress. These sources of energy collectively are known as the energy-momentum tensor (also sometimes called the stress-energy tensor) and have been the source of gravity in Einstein's field equations since they were published nearly a hundred years ago. You still retain gravity when you convert mass to energy.

It's easy to show why gravity has negative potential energy with a thought experiment. We have two objects - the earth, and a bowling ball far enough away from the earth that the potential energy of the gravitational field is very close to zero, and the kinetic energy of the bowling ball is zero (initially at rest). Wait. Given enough time, the bowling ball will eventually crash into the earth with significant POSITIVE kinetic energy (1/2mv^2 is always positive). Since energy must be conserved, and the total energy was very near zero initially, the total energy when the bowling ball hits the earth must also be very near zero. That means that we must have extracted NEGATIVE energy out of the gravitational field equal (but opposite sign) to the POSITIVE kinetic energy of the bowling ball when it hits the earth in order to conserve energy.

What I want to point out is the last sentence of that last answer where the person says "That means that we must have extracted NEGATIVE energy out of the gravitational field equal (but opposite sign) to the POSITIVE kinetic energy of the bowling ball when it hits the earth in order to conserve energy."

What this seems to fail to take into account is that a force was needed to lift the bowling ball up against the force of gravity, which probably means that fuel must have been burnt up in order to lift the bowling ball to some high point above the Earth. That is where the energy was extracted from in order to give the ball a potential energy and that is what supplies it with a kinetic energy when the ball is dropped. The ball does not extract energy from the gravitational field when lifted and does not give energy back to the gravitational field when it falls.
edit on 18/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 12:10 AM

Based on what I've read around the internet on this topic it seems that even the majority of physicists are not satisfied with the explanation you have put forward in this thread.

I put forward no explanation whatsoever. Are you sure you haven't got me confused with somebody else?

You've shown how to calculate it using abstract math, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there is no physical representation of the energy in the system. There is nothing you can directly isolate and measure as the energy storage mechanism. In all the other examples you gave there is a physical representation and a clear mechanism for how the energy is stored.

The point wasn't yours; it was mine. To remind you again: you were drawing a distinction between energy and potential energy — and not just gravitational PE, but any PE. My point is that potential energy is also energy.

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 06:21 AM

Astyanax

Based on what I've read around the internet on this topic it seems that even the majority of physicists are not satisfied with the explanation you have put forward in this thread.

I put forward no explanation whatsoever. Are you sure you haven't got me confused with somebody else?

You've shown how to calculate it using abstract math, but that wasn't my point. My point was that there is no physical representation of the energy in the system. There is nothing you can directly isolate and measure as the energy storage mechanism. In all the other examples you gave there is a physical representation and a clear mechanism for how the energy is stored.

The point wasn't yours; it was mine. To remind you again: you were drawing a distinction between energy and potential energy — and not just gravitational PE, but any PE. My point is that potential energy is also energy.

I think the argument is silly as it only takes into account the standard model.

The real question when concerning potential energy is not whether the energy state is real or not, it's more to do with why there is potential energy in the first place.

For example let's take a quite heavy particle... For this thought experiment let's say the value of the mass of this particle is one. Now this has a rest mass of one, that means that the energy required for movement of that object from a standstill is > one.

Now let's take a photon which has a rest mass of zero.... in other words it has no mass whatsoever, however it has potential mass as it may exert a force. Now that force and the potential energy of the photon in question is in direct relation to the wavelength.

I might add that the actual equation for this which I have made a point of not putting here as most will not understand contains the Planck constant!

So how does this all relate to gravitational potential energy, I hear you say...

Well the key to understanding gravity is to take into account that gravitation is a force of potential energy caused by the total volume of space-time in any given surface area.

As I have pointed out earlier matter is made of braids of space-time at the Planck scale... the total number and complexity of those braids is what gives matter mass. Now energy is the raveling and unraveling of those braids, potential energy is the frequency of modulation of space-time at the Planck scale.

I know it's hard to grasp but this is what LQG is telling us.

Peace,

Korg.

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 08:55 AM

I put forward no explanation whatsoever.

So it wasn't you that brought up the topic of gravity as negative energy and how the inflaton field balances it all out and how that can provide a framework for a zero-energy universe? Maybe you aren't arguing it as the definite correct explanation, but you did put forward the idea in this thread.

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by Korg Trinity

The point you bring up about the photon having no rest mass, but energy, is interesting. I think this concept is what led me to start asking things like "what are photons before they become photons/where are photons before they become photons" which led me to answers of EM field theory. So there must be some link to the 'potential energy' of the EM field, where the 'mass of the yet to be existent photon' is. Because EM radiation is real, and is an inseparable phenomenon from charged matter, the EM field must be accounted for somehow in the total energy of the universe, since it acts as the 'relayer' of mass carrying motioned charged particles, in a sense an extension of them, by coupled proxy. I may be going out on a limb, but something tells me that is why c^2 may be in the famous Einstein equation, the link between mass, energy, and the speed of light squared. But back to what I was trying to say and think, It makes me wonder if the EM field then is a very compressed substance, or if the entire space itself is EM field in some way, though I dont know how it would be explained positive and electrically neutral matter having no radiating affect, how is it explained that they are not coupled to the field any way? Though they can be affected by it, or no? The fact that Em radiation curves with gravity is telling of some connection between the EM field and fundamental space is it not? Oh and I brought up e=mc^2, what is the reason for c being squared and not cubed? Is it because an EM wave is viewed as a 2 dimensional wave of sorts, and so the value takes into consideration the 2 dimensions in which it crests and troughs, or is the squared for that reason, as well as the double components of magnetic and electric?

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 09:28 AM

I think this concept is what led me to start asking things like "what are photons before they become photons/where are photons before they become photons" which led me to answers of EM field theory. So there must be some link to the 'potential energy' of the EM field, where the 'mass of the yet to be existent photon' is.

Consider events in which photons are created. One typical process via which photons are created is when an electron "orbiting" an atom decides to jump down to a lower energy level. When it does so it will release a photon which contains an amount of energy exactly equal to the difference in the energy levels of the electron, so the energy for the photon has clearly come from that differential between energy levels. This is strange because the electron will undergo a "quantum leap" in which it moves from one energy level to the next without actually travelling the distance in between those levels. How exactly the photon is generated in that process I cannot claim to understand, but there is some sort of energy conversion happening. And what exactly do you mean by "EM field"? Electromagnetic radiation is really just composed of individual photons which together can be considered an "EM wave".
edit on 19/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 10:05 PM

ChaoticOrder

I think this concept is what led me to start asking things like "what are photons before they become photons/where are photons before they become photons" which led me to answers of EM field theory. So there must be some link to the 'potential energy' of the EM field, where the 'mass of the yet to be existent photon' is.

Consider events in which photons are created. One typical process via which photons are created is when an electron "orbiting" an atom decides to jump down to a lower energy level. When it does so it will release a photon which contains an amount of energy exactly equal to the difference in the energy levels of the electron, so the energy for the photon has clearly come from that differential between energy levels. This is strange because the electron will undergo a "quantum leap" in which it moves from one energy level to the next without actually travelling the distance in between those levels. How exactly the photon is generated in that process I cannot claim to understand, but there is some sort of energy conversion happening. And what exactly do you mean by "EM field"? Electromagnetic radiation is really just composed of individual photons which together can be considered an "EM wave".
edit on 19/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 11:03 PM

Lol, I must say, you can certainly play around with those sciency words.
Entertaining nonetheless

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 05:04 AM

According to popular theory your explanation is wrong.

It is not "my explanation", that is the mainstream explanation which is taught in school.

First of all electrons dont decide to jump down to a lower level

They don't "decide" as if they were conscious, it's completely random. It's a type of true quantum randomness.

understanding the phenomenon of EM radiation and its subsequently coupled charged particle can be done so without evoking atoms or implying that it is something about the atom which allows EM radiation to be created.

You might possibly be able to understand EM radiation without taking into consideration how atoms create photons, but that doesn't mean atoms don't release photons when the electrons falls down to a lower energy level, because they do. It's like the inverse of the photoelectric effect.

And I can't be bothered straining my eyes to read the rest of your post, try using paragraphs.

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 05:50 AM

Oh your missing our by your inability to read, one word at a time its not going anywhere. There were a few points I made in there I wanted you to consider, actually thats why I wrote it.

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 07:12 AM

ImaFungi
According to theory, there are EM fields which exist in all 3 dimensions plus obviously time (though that is part of the tricky thing I cant process, how its related to time and space and mass and energy so fundamentally because it is the fastest velocity, that means something very significant but I am not quite sure I grasp it yet) And electrons are coupled to this EM field, by lines of force, protons are coupled to the EM field in a different manner then electrons, because protons are composite particles that have a net positive charge, but according to quark theory they have a fraction of negative charge and I think all charged particles positive or negative are coupled to the EM field anyway.

The part you are missing is the concept that the EM spectrum is a frequency of space-time itself. It is the frequency of waves that space-time itself propagates.

When say an electron drops in energy state it does indeed create a photon. what LQG is telling us here is that the volume of space-time needed to create the corresponding braid has been reduced.

Think of it as a tightening of a knot.... The resulting left over space-time ripples out across space-time. It is this movement of space-time that we think of as light or EM radiation.

Do you follow?

Korg.

edit on 20-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 07:25 PM

Korg Trinity

ImaFungi
According to theory, there are EM fields which exist in all 3 dimensions plus obviously time (though that is part of the tricky thing I cant process, how its related to time and space and mass and energy so fundamentally because it is the fastest velocity, that means something very significant but I am not quite sure I grasp it yet) And electrons are coupled to this EM field, by lines of force, protons are coupled to the EM field in a different manner then electrons, because protons are composite particles that have a net positive charge, but according to quark theory they have a fraction of negative charge and I think all charged particles positive or negative are coupled to the EM field anyway.

The part you are missing is the concept that the EM spectrum is a frequency of space-time itself. It is the frequency of waves that space-time itself propagates.

When say an electron drops in energy state it does indeed create a photon. what LQG is telling us here is that the volume of space-time needed to create the corresponding braid has been reduced.

Think of it as a tightening of a knot.... The resulting left over space-time ripples out across space-time. It is this movement of space-time that we think of as light or EM radiation.

Do you follow?

Korg.

edit on 20-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

Yes but there are complexities I am uncertain of that make it hard for me to imagine the exactities of this stuff. Like how EM radiation is an electric and magnetic component wave existing like a longitudinal wave only spreading on a parallel plane. You are saying that the entirety of space is a fundamental substance, a somethingness. We can imagine taking all the stars and matter and planets and energy out of reality, or at least this universe lets focus on, and there will be the fundamental space, which is somesort of something, that has the potential, when stars and planets and matter is placed in it, to react in ways like, creating em radiation and gravity, that is what you are suggesting, in an out of sequence way, not your suggestion my explanation, because you are suggesting that it is nothing but this fundamental substancy space that is responsible for creating the stars and planets and matter. So of course there must be an intimate link between it all. I think I agree with that, I just dont know why a lot of the physics buffs I have come across have an immediate reaction of denying the potential of the EM field being linked to space, and the gravity field being linked to space, and them all pretty much being the same thing, because that what the early physicists believe with Aether theories and luminiferous aether which most physicists on this site at least scoff at.

posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 02:31 AM

ImaFungi
I just dont know why a lot of the physics buffs I have come across have an immediate reaction of denying the potential of the EM field being linked to space, and the gravity field being linked to space, and them all pretty much being the same thing, because that what the early physicists believe with Aether theories and luminiferous aether which most physicists on this site at least scoff at.

The reason is simple and human nature.

Humans have a nasty habit of holding onto something they believe in with every ounce of strength they can muster. Denying anything that could reveal anything other than what they believe.

Scientist being human still suffer from this and it is often compounded by the fact that their belief is backed up with data. However even if the pieces of a puzzle were to fit together it may not show the correct picture and as such scientist often jump to the wrong conclusions.

This is then worsened by the fact that we have a scientific community all feeding off of each others belief that they are right.

The Consensus among the scientific community is that the standard model is the correct model of the universe, any theory however logical and true that defies the standard model is treated with fear and loathing by the largest part of the community.

Any Scientist that claims any different get's labeled fringe and even though may be published, is not taken seriously by the community.

Peace,

Korg.

posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 03:06 AM
NICE. You got me. I gave you a star. but no flag. I've already been yelled at once today by the netbots for being nice to people. anyway. i thought you were gonna come up with the right answer but of course you missed it. here it is. the one great law. ready? "I'm the Universe and I'm a bad a**, what are you lookin at?" but yours was pretty good. i can accept that. also. one of my favorites from a really smart government tech rep i used to work with. he'd say "Petty Officer XXXXXXXXX, do you know how close you are to the other end of the Universe" and i would say "I don't know Doc" and he's say "exaactly the same distance as every other place in the Universe is to it. When you talking about numbers like that, its like talking abou an a honest politican or forest nymphs! but tween me and you, put your money ont the forest nymphs, they're better dressers and require less alchol consumption to find one than an elected offcial who won't tell you the truht and will stick you with the tab !
:evil:

new topics

top topics

9