Thanks, Brent, I chose the wrong wording to Stathis. John On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** > On 8/17/2011 9:01 AM, John Mikes wrote: > > 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) > > > You explicitly asked," is it a thing". So I answered. > > > > 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. > > > Sure. If you find a time evolution operator that accurately predicts the > evolution of a closed system, then it turns out that it implies a conserved > quantity - which is what we call the energy. > > > > 4. I am not sure if "time" is primary to 'energy, or vice versa, but both > fall under point #3. > > > They are conjugate variables. Time symmetry <=> energy conservation by > Noether's theorem. > > Brent > > > > 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. > > > -- > 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.
