ENERGY

[Jon Osterman]

I'm still unclear to me as to why you don't see time as fundamentally different from space, and therefore energy as fundamentally different from momentum.

According to our understanding of physics, they are not so different.

Consider two events that happen, according to your point of view, at the same time, say 1m apart. You regard these as simultaneous. Now your friend is in a rocket travelling very fast, he passes you just as the events happen and he sees them too. Special relativity tells us that he doesn't see these events at the same time. In his reference frame they are not simultaneous, and they are actually closer together than 1m. What has happened is that part of the space-distance between the two events that you see, is seen by him as a time-difference. Which is which is actually a matter of which reference frame you are in. (In mathematical terms, your axis for time is not parallel to his.)

I understand that a given momentum necessarily implies a specific amount of energy, much like I suppose coordinates in three-D space allows us to calculate distances, but we still have what appears to be a fundamental difference between time and space and hence between energy and momentum.

The relation between energy and momentum is due to the relativistic length being conserved by the Lorentz transformation. A few posts ago, I wrote dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 -dz^2 = constant, which is a relation between time and space, but a similar relation holds for energy and momentum. E^2 - px^2 - py^2 -pz^2 = constant (ignoring factors of c). Interestingly, this constant quantity is the mass of a particle. This is why "a given momentum necessarily implies a specific amount of energy" as you say, E = sqrt( |p|^2-m^2). In the non relativistic limit, this turns into E = m + 1\2 m v^2.

If time and space are essentially just parts of the same thing, how could our brain possibly see them as different, both in terms of their nature and of their properties?
EB

This is an interesting question, but an unanswered one. This is asking, what sets the arrow of time? Why do humans (and presumably other animals) experience time as a continuous stream? No-one knows, and I personally have not seen a satisfying answer.

 

[steve_bank]

You and I do not grok.

I sure had gathered as much from the way you had jumped on me early on.

With your big shoes on.

Fortunately, there's a forum feature whereby you can 'ignore' people you don't want to read. Help yourself.
EB

Not all that big shoes. I was a worker bee engineer, one of many. The work I pursued was multidisciplinary requiring applying fundamental physics, and a a little
beyond.

J
In his book on quantum physics Bohm made a brief case for an uncertainty principle analogy of the mind. The more we try to narrow a metaphysical definition the more diffuse it becomes.

In the 18-19th centuries Natural Science under philosophy morphed into modern empirical math model based science. Metaphysics was no longer adequate in describing the natural world and empirical observation. Hence the evolution of the SI as the basic words of the science language. Meters, kilograms, seconds.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think I'm doing anything here that most other people here are not also doing, including you.

And, few people are scientists themselves. What are these people supposed to do? Just shut up and let the scientists try to say everything that needs saying?!

You think that trained scientists are the only one to have something interesting or valuable to say?!

One simple solution is for you to put me on your ignore list.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

And, few people are scientists themselves. What are these people supposed to do? Just shut up and let the scientists try to say everything that needs saying?!

You think that trained scientists are the only one to have something interesting or valuable to say?!

I would say that it depends on the specific topic. In this case, the “what is energy” question, then I would think that anyone who has no understanding of what energy actually is would have nothing interesting or valuable to say. That is except maybe asking open (not leading) questions in an attempt to understand. Any misguided assertions by the uninformed would certainly not be interesting or valuable though possibly humorous.

The term, “scientist”, certainly does not mean “all knowing”. My field is physics so I know little if anything about many other fields of science. I certainly would never attempt to explain to or correct a neurologist in a discussion about their field.

 

[steve_bank]

You are not doing anything wrong, except possibly opening questions on the science form for which you do not want to hear scientific answers. Perhaps more appropriate for philosophy. If you opened time on philosophy I would not participate.


Question again. What are you looking for, it seems it is open ended debate wit no resolution. No problem for me in general, I will counter your ideas when it strikes me to do so.

The benefit of this forum is you can learn to expand, test yourself, and up your game without fear or penalty....

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are not doing anything wrong, except possibly opening questions on the science form for which you do not want to hear scientific answers.

This is clearly plain wrong. The poll I'm doing on consciousness is specifically for scientifically-minded people to put forward what they may see as a scientific view of consciousness, if there is one.

What are you looking for, it seems it is open ended debate wit no resolution.

If you're talking about my poll on consciousness, then it's just a poll, not a debate as such and, obviously, it's not, therefore, open-ended.

Your various assertions here really have no merit.
EB

 

[Malintent]

In my opinion, the question of a "scientific description of consciousness" is equally meaningful as the question of a "philosophical description of Gravity". You can make one, but its utility may be dubious.

 

[Kharakov]

This is an interesting question, but an unanswered one. This is asking, what sets the arrow of time? Why do humans (and presumably other animals) experience time as a continuous stream? No-one knows, and I personally have not seen a satisfying answer.

I do. Beings that did not react to time as a continuous stream, dun got eaten more.

They got eaten ups lots more than the beings that were like "F this crap, I ain't gettin' bit", so got to splooge into crevices and spread their inertial entropic awareness down the line. Which comes down to Dixie Flatline, that end times guy who surfed the net till he got 'trode burns:

 

[Kharakov]

In my opinion, the question of a "scientific description of consciousness" is equally meaningful as the question of a "philosophical description of Gravity". You can make one, but its utility may be dubious.

Yeah, well, ya know that's just like uhh, your opinion man.

 

[steve_bank]

Energy is like a fart in the wind, pop and its gone.

 

[skepticalbip]

Energy is like a fart in the wind, pop and its gone.

It never goes. It just changes form. it can change from nuclear to EM, potential to mechanical, chemical to thermal, mechanical to heat, energy to mass, or lots of combinations.