Brent wrote about my questioning 'energy': *"Hmm. It's the 00 component of the stress-energy tensor. It's the Hamiltonian, the time evolution operator. It's not a thing*."
Brent, you may know better than that: 1. I did not restrict my inquiry to 'things' (is e.g. a 'refutation' a thing? but you *can* identify it) 2. The ID for 'energy' is misplaced if you refer to it as a component of a * 'kind''* of it 3. a Hamiltonian is part of the physical world figment. In my 'agnostic' inquiry I want to eliminate the restrictions to human conclusions as explanation. Can you arrive at a so called 'Hamiltonian' by considerations without applying any relation to references including the 'idea' of energy? in which case it falls again into an idem per idem. 4. I am not sure if "time" is primary to 'energy, or vice versa, but both fall under point #3. I tried to outline something (in my own *narrative* about the 'story' - history? of *some(?) * Multiverse which might lead to descriptions in physical thinking "close" to energy: that is the formation of the timeless complexity we call a* 'universe'* - from the complete symmetry of (my) proto-world "Plenitude" by inevitable reasons, which respites as it forms - yet *FROM THE INSIDE* shows for 'us' a vast time-space system (*in* *OUR* universe) which is explained for human understanding(?) by the terms of a physical world. The trend of the re-dissipation is a draw on the complexity realized - again from the inside - as a power to equalize, dissipate, eliminate 'complex knots' all the way from a hypothetical Big Bang to a similarly hypothetical Big Crunch of redistribution. All in a timeless instant as seen from the Plenitude. (Mind you: I set up the Plenitude as beyond the limitations of our insight and it's symmetry beyond the limitations we have for the term. The inevitability of 'universes' formation comes from the postulate that within the Plenitude everything is in 'transition' with everything else - consequently it is inevitable that 'related' aspects "ball together" occasionally (into a complexity?) violating the total symmetry). This 'narrative' has no "scientific" claims and is not ready for discussion. John On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:26 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > On 8/16/2011 9:27 AM, John Mikes wrote: > > Stathis, > > do you have a reasonable opinion about whatever you (and physicists?) call: > *"energy"*? > (Not how to measure it, not what it does, not the result of 'it', or > quantitative relations, or kinds you differentiate, but 'is it a thing'? > where it comes from and how? i.e. an i*dentification of the term*, I > mean). > > > Hmm. It's the 00 component of the stress-energy tensor. It's the > Hamiltonian, the time evolution operator. It's not a thing. > > Brent > > > I could not get a reasonable reply from physicists so far upon many such > questions. All 'cop-out' on paraphernalia I want to exclude. > (You remember: I have a Ph.D. chem-phys-math and 50 yrs in polymer > engineering). > Friendly: > John Mikes > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
