Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic
From: OsherD (mdoctorow_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/24/05
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Leonid Portnoy: "Re: Can we have Second Order Logic expressibility in FOL?"
- In reply to: OsherD: "Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic"
- Next in thread: OsherD: "Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic"
- Reply: OsherD: "Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Jan 2005 22:08:18 -0800
Would energy be created from nothing if we allowed:
1) E = FL
in the energy conservation equation:
2) KE2 - KE1 + PE2 - PE1 = F(x2 - x1)
where work W = F(x2 - x1) is done on an object in moving it from x1 to
x2 and KE is kinetic energy and PE is potential energy, respectively
given by (1/2)mv^2 and mgh classically? This equation holds for a
gravitational field as well, say with KE1 = KE2 and PE the
gravitational potential. Here L is presumably not necessarily x2 - x1.
The question seems relevant logically to whether E = wLF can be used
in such contexts.
There are several relevant points.
A. If E = LF or wLF is used, say to replace F in the equation, then a
larger system can be used than the one in question in which energy is
conserved and the one in question can be taken as non-conserved.
Energy is not necessarily conserved in all systems and subsystems -
just presumably in a "large enough one". Examples of candidates for
energy from higher dimensional space(time) include 10 or 11 dimensions
of superstring/brane/M-theory.
B. Conservation of energy has a somewhat different logical and
philosophical status now that acceleration of the universe about 2
billion years ago has been accepted in physics. Philosophy has not
quite caught up, but it is quite plausible that energy is in fact
changing from somewhere. It can still be regarded as quite often
conserved, but now even "in large enough systems" may or may not be
applicable.
C. If E = FL, it is possible that potential and kinetic energy do not
exhaust types of energy. We may in fact have a dimensional or
dimensionless "constant" k such that:
3) E = kwFL + k1KE + k2PE
and k stays constant for certain periods of time (long in cosmology),
perhaps at 0, but then becomes another value at a certain time at which
constants k1 = k2 = 1.
It is true that logically "potential" versus "actual" seem
complementary or mutually exclusive and exhaustive, but potential and
kinetic energies as usually defined even classically do not capture
everything potential or actual in the scenarios described above. In
other words, (1/2)mv^2 looks kinetic but isn't necessarily everything
"actual", and mgh looks potential but isn't necessarily everything
potential. A misnomer in words is involved here. Kinetic energy is
not defined as "actual" but as (1/2)mv^2 in classical physics, and
potential energy is not defined as "potential" but as mgh or various
other potential functions in classical physics.
Osher Doctorow
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Leonid Portnoy: "Re: Can we have Second Order Logic expressibility in FOL?"
- In reply to: OsherD: "Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic"
- Next in thread: OsherD: "Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic"
- Reply: OsherD: "Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
