The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics

[JaysonR]

I have not read through every post in this thread, but as I was reading along some of the discussion, I ran past this line and I just wanted to comment on it on the side:

Energy is transmitted by waves and waves interact.

Energy isn't transmitted by waves.
Waves are a categorical family of energies which refer to a transfer of motion unique to the classification.

It may seem as though I'm stating the same thing, but the difference is in the implied concept.
In stating that energy is transmitted by waves, I would be implying that the energy is separate from the wave - as if it were a metaphorical bottle on an ocean wave.

But this isn't the case; energy is only a description of actionable exchange.
It is not a thing unto itself.

It would be as if I were to write the following:
Voices are transmitted by people and people interact. Those interactions are known as singing in cadence.

In this comparison, it is more easy to clearly understand that a voice is not a thing unto itself, but an extension of the latter: people.
Further, it is clear that the interactions of the providers of the voices are not inherently in cadence, nor called such a thing.
It is called vocalizing - to include all of the forms.

Cadence - specifically, identical cadence, is when two or more people produce voices which have the same oration, tone, pitch, inflection, and rhythm.

With a mind on the example, when we flip back over to the actual statement:
Energy is transmitted by waves and waves interact. Those interaction are known as interference patterns.

Begins to create basic conflicts.
First being that there are other forms of wave interactions than interference, just as there are other types of human interactions than, "in cadence".
Interference is one specific form of interaction which describes the constituent behavior of two or more waves which are equals or equal opposites in their description.

Second, then, is the first of this post: that a wave is not energy, nor energy an object. Energy is a description of action of objects.

Third, is that a wave is not an object, but a categorical description of events.
Exhaust from a car is similar; for convention, we call it such, but this does not account for what is taking place specifically at all.
It is only a vague classification based on the most basic similarity in action between all forms being compared.

The chemical exchanges in jet fuel exhaust and lawn mower exhaust are not alike.
The conceptual model of exchange is similar; in the same way we compare the concept, "running".
If a bear is running and I am running, then we are both running.
But we are not doing so in like fashion.

The phrase is relative to the system which is producing the action, and not universal in application.

Likewise, one wave from one source producing a wave is not akin to another wave from another source producing this second wave.

It is a bit amiss to think of the universe as either energy or waves, as that is akin to thinking of people as but words or body movements.

As such, when we get to:

Everything is energy

With a mind to the above, then we arrive at a thought that everything cannot be energy since energy is not an object of any kind, but a category of vaguely similar actions of exchange, to each system uniquely.

Instead, everything provides energy because everything has its means of exchange.
It is that each exchange is of its constituents' capacity of integrity and therefore there is the capability of equaling in measure a concept of that actionable value into a given network.


By way of example.
If I play an human audible tone, the tone will cause a propagation of motion physically within the air concussively.
It will reach the hair cells of the human ear and cause minute motion which will in turn cause a specific chemical release.

The threshold of hearing is consequently based on the degree of that which pushes the filament (hair) over far enough to cause a bend which will produce the chemical release - somewhat like a dam.

If, then, I produce two perfectly acceptable human audible tones, but the second is the equal opposite frequency (repetition of action) of the first, then the motion that will move through the air concussively and reach the ear will be that which moves the filament in equally opposing directions.
Thereby, the filament will not move; the chemicals will not be released, the neurotransmission and subsequent processing will not be conducted; no sound will be heard.

Meanwhile, if I play the same exact tone over itself, then the motion that will move through the air concussively and reach the ear will be of two counts of the same motion.
Therefore, the filament will react to two counts of the same motion, but will do so simultaneously.
This then will cause the filament to react more to the sound than if only either tone arrived singularly; the filament will bend more; the chemicals released will be in higher count as a consequence (like a dam); the sound heard will be, "louder".


However, these are not examples of energy as an object.
These are examples of objects interacting upon each other by consequential motion that is systemically permitted, restricted, and defined.

We refer to the amount of motion B that can be accomplished from condition A providing motion A as, "energy".

Or, as it is so inadequately, yet classically, stated:
The quantity of ability to do "work".

(Now, if I could rate all of our employees by this definition...there'd be some that would be anti-matter humans. )

An example of energy as an object is a photon (light), a quanta of the EM field.

But all particles can be thought of as "frozen light" as any particle can be transformed into photons via different reactions. Exposing any particle to it's anti-particle will cause both to be transformed into photons.

In the early universe when the temperatures were still extremely high, everything was just photons with high energy (vibrating wildly). Eventually some of that energy became electrons, protons and formed hydrogen and helium. With a little deuterium. I imagine neutrinos formed as well.

With that in mind there is nothing that is not energy (photons) with the exception of spacetime itself which is a strange 3D field that seems to be made of probabilities? Probabilities that any particle could exist at any point in the spacetime. We do see those "probable" particles as the Dirac sea or virtual particles.
Space could be divided into gravitons/gravitinos but we don't know yet. Dividing energy into quanta works out, not so much with spacetime/gravity.

But what time and space are exactly is still unclear. Same with energy technically. But our current understanding is still that everything is either light (photon) or bound up light (mass).

[JaysonR]

Originally Posted by joelr

An example of energy as an object is a photon (light), a quanta of the EM field.

Energy is not a photon.
E=mc2 would make little sense if energy was a photon.
It would also present problems with the definition of energy.
"the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems"
Translating energy as equal to a photon would present:
Energy is a photon and a photon is the ability a physical system has to be a photon upon other physical systems.

Energy is a property of an object, not the object itself.
Take, for instance, the basic dictionary:
Energy: The capacity for work...
Capacity: The ability to receive...
Ability: The quality of being able to...
Quality: An inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property
Property: Something owned; a possession

In other words: a photon's energy is not a photon.
A photon's energy is the photon's ability to affect any given system.
The ability for it to affect any given system is based on how much mass is affected by a comparative to the constant of a photon speed.
Just because a photon is the comparison speed does not mean that the photon is therefore energy itself.
If such were the case, then we would have E=mE2, or c=mc2.
But that's not the case because a photon is perceived as exactly zero mass which thereby causes its energy to be 0 due to the product with the speed of a photon of zero mass.

If E was c, then we would never be capable of having any given object with energy as all would be 0.

But all particles can be thought of as "frozen light" as any particle can be transformed into photons via different reactions. Exposing any particle to it's anti-particle will cause both to be transformed into photons.

Yep, it's actually easy to conceive of protons and electrons as eddies on either side of a current of water that is hitting a rock that is splitting the current; metaphorically.
Or, somewhat better...the top and bottom sides of a twisted towel.

Thereby, bound up light has mass because it is compounded photons creating attractive force into itself.
Unbounded mass is a photon.

Energy is the effect of unbinding and reaching a state of being unbound; the unbound speed of light due to lacking mass.
It is not equal to being in the state of unbound.
Thereby, the energy of an object is equal to how much mass it has bound, thereby how much bound up mass is available to unbind at the speed of light in a vacuum.

It's almost, but not quite, like taking a towel and calling it the universe.
Then attaching a red line hanging from one corner of the towel universe.
And then twisting it and calling it an object of mass.
Then letting it go to get back to being untwisted.
Then calling the amount of rotations, and in how much time, the red line flings around its axle, the energy of the mass.

The more rotations at the greater the speed, the more energy the given binding of the towel is said to have had.
However, again, that would not mean that unbound equals energy.
The rotations derived from the bound being unbound equals energy.

Ergo, energy is an action (or potential action) of an object.
It is not an object (or potential object) of an object.

Originally Posted by JaysonR

Energy is not a photon.
E=mc2 would make little sense if energy was a photon.
It would also present problems with the definition of energy.
"the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems"
Translating energy as equal to a photon would present:
Energy is a photon and a photon is the ability a physical system has to be a photon upon other physical systems.

The way you word it is misleading. First, electromagnetic radiation is energy.
It is obviously not kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, elastic energy or several other forms that energy may take. But energy can change forms as long as it obeys the conservation laws. Sometimes energy will leave a physical system as a quanta of EM radiation or photon
[/quote]


In other words: a photon's energy is not a photon.
A photon's energy is the photon's ability to affect any given system.
The ability for it to affect any given system is based on how much mass is affected by a comparative to the constant of a photon speed.
Just because a photon is the comparison speed does not mean that the photon is therefore energy itself.
If such were the case, then we would have E=mE2, or c=mc2.
But that's not the case because a photon is perceived as exactly zero mass which thereby causes its energy to be 0 due to the product with the speed of a photon of zero mass.

If E was c, then we would never be capable of having any given object with energy as all would be 0.
[/quote]


I'm not exactly sure what you're saying about the relativistic mass-energy equation. There is more to a photons energy than what it looks like you are saying.
The popularized equation is a shorthand version of longer formulas:

E^2 - P^2 c^2 = m/0^2 c^4

P is momentum, m/0 is rest mass. It's often not possible to separate the total mc^2 energy of an object into rest energy of the inside pieces, kinetic energy, potential energy and so on so you use a new term for total energy (m/0c^2).

Originally Posted by JaysonR

Yep, it's actually easy to conceive of protons and electrons as eddies on either side of a current of water that is hitting a rock that is splitting the current; metaphorically.
Or, somewhat better...the top and bottom sides of a twisted towel.

Thereby, bound up light has mass because it is compounded photons creating attractive force into itself.
Unbounded mass is a photon.

The last statement sounds a bit off.

True, bound up light (mass) has a gravitational attraction but light/photons themselves also have a gravitational attraction. The attractive force is not what gives anything mass.
In space, away from a gravity well, nothing would have mass if that were so. We don't know where mass comes from actually. That is the reason why we are searching for the Higgs boson. The standard model predicts mass comes from a particle that clumps around matter giving it a weight. Without the Higgs there is going to be a big problem because it's a big deal if you can't even explain why things have mass?

[JaysonR]

Let me try to erase the drawing board and start over simply.

Energy is a property of objects, not an object itself.
Specifically, energy is the property an object has in measure to affect other objects. Or said traditionally, "the capacity to do work" (even though I think that is a severely lacking description).

A photon is not a property; it is an object independent unto itself. Specifically, it is a type particle.

Saying that energy is a photon is akin to stating that red is a shirt.
A photon has the property of energy like fashion that a shirt has the property of being red.

Just because every object has energy doesn't mean that everything is energy.
To state the latter is to fundamentally change the definition of energy scientifically.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by JaysonR

Ergo, energy is an action (or potential action) of an object.
It is not an object (or potential object) of an object.

mass is also a property derived from energy. meaning to say if energy in its simplest definition is motion, mass is a result of hi-speed movement. mass therefore cannot be truly an "object" in a true sense of the word.

imo, the binding and releasing of energy measured as photons is just space contracting and expanding. that is to say, the process where electrons go up and down their orbital energy states.

what is the true object? imo it is space. somebody asked what is it that is vibrating or what is the medium of the waves? i think it is space that vibrates. so to me space is not "empty" but something "substantial" that is just imperceptible to humans.

[JaysonR]

Originally Posted by hybrid

mass is also a property derived from energy. meaning to say if energy in its simplest definition is motion, mass is a result of hi-speed movement. mass therefore cannot be truly an "object" in a true sense of the word.

Quite.
Mass cannot be an object or else no object could have mass.

imo, the binding and releasing of energy measured as photons is just space contracting and expanding. that is to say, the process where electrons go up and down their orbital energy states.

Again, I agree.
This is why I used the twisting towel model analogy.

what is the true object? imo it is space. somebody asked what is it that is vibrating or what is the medium of the waves? i think it is space that vibrates. so to me space is not "empty" but something "substantial" that is just imperceptible to humans.

More or less, again, exactly why I used the twisted towel analogy.

There's that classic bowling ball on a rubber sheet model.
But that is a bit flawed, as it represents the the bowling ball independent of the sheet of rubber.

It is more akin to a giant cube of gelatin in which the middle of we twist a volume of the gelatin sharply into itself, and to which the other (if we can imagine such a thing as a moving body of gelatin within gelatin) small twists of gelatin then are going to attract on a gradient to the larger twist.
But all in all, they are all the same thing, just twisted differently.

Now, the measure of how much of a reaction is going to take place when any twisted gelatin in the gelatin cube untwists (unbinds) is what we can call energy.
It's the amount of **** we expect to happen when it suddenly comes apart.

Obviously its more complicated than this in reality as this is only a conceptual model of how we can really see every object as twisted photons and not really break much of our neck in craning our head sideways.

But this is also a side tangent; the primary point was that energy cannot be a given object unto itself or we have removed a property from objects - just as you pointed out the same as being the case with mass.

BTW, if you walk the above model through, then mass is basically resting energy (twists that aren't flinging apart), and energy is unraveling mass (if we aren't addressing mechanical energy and momentum [et al] which would be a mass during given states expending the property therein to return to a resting state of non-unraveling mass).

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by JaysonR

But this is also a side tangent; the primary point was that energy cannot be a given object unto itself or we have removed a property from objects - just as you pointed out the same as being the case with mass.

that everything is energy is a very common misconception specially in spiritual forums.
they tend to think energy in an abstract way and reify it into a thing.

imo, everything is energy simply means that everything is in motion but they have use the word energy to mean both motion and the substance that is moving/vibrating.
so to some energy is a kind of vibrating substance (whether material or non-material) that is both the source of matter and mind.

BTW, if you walk the above model through, then mass is basically resting energy (twists that aren't flinging apart), and energy is unraveling mass (if we aren't addressing mechanical energy and momentum [et al] which would be a mass during given states expending the property therein to return to a resting state of non-unraveling mass).

i think that objects with mass are partial (twisting) standing waves in actuality. they have always motion and yet could have rest mass and inertial mass.

[JaysonR]

Originally Posted by hybrid

that everything is energy is a very common misconception specially in spiritual forums.
they tend to think energy in an abstract way and reify it into a thing.

imo, everything is energy simply means that everything is in motion but they have use the word energy to mean both motion and the substance that is moving/vibrating.
so to some energy is a kind of vibrating substance (whether material or non-material) that is both the source of matter and mind.

It doesn't help that alternative medicine advocate companies encourage this perception by using, "energy", in their terminology as if it is a separate thing.

Grabbing a website at random from google search:
http://www.leveragingthought.com/
This site starts off with:

Everything is energy, which is at its root core, vibration (physical matter is made of atoms, which can be broken down into individual quarks, which are basically vibrating units of energy).

(not saying this to counter anyone in the thread, but instead just listing the example of how wrong this kind of information is)
A) Everything isn't energy; everything has energy.
B) quarks are not vibrating units of energy; they have energy.

To continue:

Everything that you see around you is made up of energy – including light, sound, and physical matter. Thoughts are also a powerful form of energy. All energy vibrates at different frequencies, and the energy of your thoughts creates a literal vibrational force field around you, that attracts similar energy and physical circumstances, people, places, and events to you at all times.

A) Everything isn't made up of energy. Energy can't make up anything anymore than "red" can make up a shirt.
B) Thoughts are not a unified object, and therefore not a source of energy. Thoughts are a chain reaction of electrochemical exchanges, which, by default are going to have energy due to their electrochemical exchanges; but that energy is accounted for and not available for tapping into like a battery for extra energy (unless you don't want your brain). Your body is already getting as much from this process as it can.
C) Yes, different energies have different frequencies, but no; there is no evidence for a "literal vibrational force field around you" as a result of your brain working.
There has never been any verifiable scientific proof that the human body has such a thing, and since that is the case, there is no verifiable scientific proof that it then attracts "similar energy" (or the rest of the claim for that matter).
For one thing, like attractions repel in physics; they do not attract.
But in the discussion of like frequencies attracting each other...
If I drop a quarter on one side of the tub and a quarter on the other side of the tub, the second frequency of waves doesn't suddenly speed across the bathtub to meet up with the first frequency of waves any faster than it already would have moved across the bathtub on its own without the first frequency of waves being present.
So...no.
D) As to all these circumstances, people, places, and events...um...I hope places are never attracted to me. I'm not interested in New York city suddenly ripping out of the Earth and landing on my body like I'm the Wicked Witch of the West.

I'm not going to go through everything on the site; I think this is already enough as a random sample.

What are they selling anyway?

DETAILS:

- Each session is 1 hour in length
- Sessions are once every 2 weeks
- Pre-session workbook questions and post-session exercises after every session
- Unlimited email Q&A access with Dr. Kulkarni one week before and after your session, or continuously for ongoing coaching clients.

For how much?
Well, they don't tell (which is in itself a bad sign for trust), but they state that their "discounted rate" is $85.

So at least $85 to have someone talk to me for an hour about how physics doesn't work?
Pass.

So yes, there are a bunch of swindler's out there that are abusing the terms and causing confusion in popular culture.


Also, on this tangent of energy tapping....the only way to get more energy out of a thing is either to excite its particles or break the bond.
Exciting requires a source of interaction, which will cost energy, so that's not a near sourceless or sourceless means of getting more energy out of a thing.
But it would work; though it's a not really getting more out of something as instead creating more interactions within the same timeframe measured and therefore receiving more energy on the output.

The only way to get more energy out of what's just exactly present is not something I'm really interested in being around, because the last time that was accomplished, two cities in Japan went up in a huge mushroom cloud (not counting meltdowns of nuclear reactors...but on that tangent, considering how many safety measures are needed to make nuclear sites safe...I'd say it's a safe bet to not want more energy out of a mass than what you have already unless your job is working at a nuclear power plant).
I'd like to stay away from releasing more energy from mass than it already is willing to provide innately.
(meaning, doing something to the mass that excites it or moves it in some way isn't getting more energy out of the mass, but instead 'sucking' energy off of the exchange of that mass doing something besides just "sitting" there in it's "natural" or "inherent" state).

i think that objects with mass are partial (twisting) standing waves in actuality. they have always motion and yet could have rest mass and inertial mass.

Absolutely.
Obviously nothing is static; especially on the particle level.
I don't even want to know what a static atomic particle object would look like.
If that happened...um...I think I'd be kissing my wife and saying I love you, but the universe is about to explode...or something equally bad.

Crazy Horse dreamed and went into the world where there is nothing but the spirits of all things. That is the real world that is behind this one, and everything we see here is something like a shadow from that one.

― Black Elk, Black Elk Speaks: Being the Life Story of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux