St Tom made no effort whatsoever to understand how the world works. He was completely uninterested.

That’s “the history”, and while some theologians May have been more interested than him... what with no interest being a very low bar, none of these arguments ever sought ( or have ever produced) insight into how the world works. Their purpose was to assert the authority and primacy of a social construct they called god, itself immensely useful to them for various reasons having nothing to do with how the world works.

(July 22, 2019 at 1:50 pm)comet Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 9:10 am)polymath257 Wrote: The heat is the random motion of the molecules, which are all made of quantum particles.

---

Everything there is is a property of such particles. The motion is a property.

---

What do you even mean when asking what something 'is'? Isn't knowing 'how to use it', meaning when and where to find it, when it shows up, and how it acts, aren't these *precisely* what it means to know 'what something is'?
You can equally well say we don't know what momentum is, or what spin is, or what charge is. Well, we seem to know enough to use these and describe in exquisite detail how these things operate.
I think asking anything past that is metaphysical BS.

thats it then.  its bs to you.  Before they knew what the atom was made up of it was metaphysical BS to you.  To me it is not BS, its learning.

and no, knowing how to predict the out come is totally different than knowing where it comes and what it is.  My wife knows a car and how they behave.  she doesn't have  clue to the parts that make it up.

maybe it might be better for us to put it in those terms for you.   We don't know what the pieces are that make up energy (if there are pieces that is), or the fabric of space/time or gravity.

---

(July 22, 2019 at 12:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Actually it's not "random". The relative motions may be "random" but the temperature they are generally at, is not "random". They are either hotter or colder than another group of them. The energy of them can be determined. That is not "random".
Saying they are all quantum particles does not really do it.
Important characteristics of an atom, (which determines it's behavior) are above the quantum level.

this is actually way short of understanding.  the quantum behavior of space/time determines exactly how the atom behaves.  What you are talking about is how we can ignore the underlining quantum effects to do "chemistry" at our level.  In most cases.  But the discoveries we have made, ie materials and other technologies, are based precisely on quantum affects and relativity. 

valance shell electrons, our everyday chemistry, only works in the quantum world.

I am so not sure why you are dismissing the fact that the standard model is based on quantum particles?  what the problem for you?  they are just the facts of the standard model?

why is that?

When you ask 'what something is made of', like energy, you are vasing your metaphysics on a classical image that is simply not appropriate for quantum mechanics. Energy is a *property* of particles, like momentum and spin. So to ask what energy is'made of' makes no more sense than to ask what momentum is 'made of' or what spi  is 'made of'.

Both are *properties*, which means ways of interaction between different particles. So, for example, charge determines the strength of the interaction with photons (and thereby via the EM force). Mass is a proerty that describes the strength of interaction via gravity. Energy is a property that describes certain dynamical properties, like momentum. In fact, energy is the fourth component of the energy-momentum 4-vector.

I would disagree that your wife knows how the car behaves. She might know how it behaves in some very limited set of circumstances, but she would not in more extreme cases. The difference is that our desriptions work in every circumstance we have ever tested (and that is the criterion). If those particles are truly fundamental (and if they are not, just apply these comments to those that are), then they are not made of something else and all is just the properties.

Next, the properties that are 'above the atom' are usually statistical averages of those of the individual atoms. This is certainly the case for temperature, pressure, entropy, and other thermodynamic properties.

---

(July 22, 2019 at 12:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 9:10 am)polymath257 Wrote: The heat is the random motion of the molecules, which are all made of quantum particles.

---

Actually it's not "random". The relative motions may be "random" but the temperature they are generally at, is not "random". They are either hotter or colder than another group of them. The energy of them can be determined. That is not "random".
Saying they are all quantum particles does not really do it.
Important characteristics of an atom, (which determines it's behavior) are above the quantum level.

Yes, saying they are quantum particles with certain properties *does* 'do it'. The temperature is the average kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules of the sample. Being hotter or colder simply means having a higher or lower average KE. There are no *fundamental* properties above the atom: all are *derived* properties from the characteristics of the underlying quantum particles and how they interact.

---

(July 22, 2019 at 3:33 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: I'm not dismissing that. There is obviously more that exists, IF one set of them can be one temperature, and another identical set be another temperature. The energy that heats up one set is not nothing, and is not known to be a set of quantum particles. In the linear accelerator are quantum particles speeding up and smashing quantum particles ? No. Why build the damn thing if they are ?

The one set has a higher average kinetic energy than the other: you  add up the the kinetic energy and divide by the number of atoms/molecules.

Yes, linear accelerators are smashing particles together to better learn the characteristics of their interaction (including how they form more complicated aggregations).

There are quantum particles. Such particles have properties, like spin, charge, momentum, energy, parity, mass, etc. Those properties determine how those particles interact with other particles. We are attempting to learn the specifics of those interactions. Note that energy is *one* of those properties. It is not, itself, fundamental in any way that is different than, say, charge, or spin.

(July 22, 2019 at 10:36 pm)polymath257 Wrote: The one set has a higher average kinetic energy than the other: you  add up the the kinetic energy and divide by the number of atoms/molecules.

Yes, linear accelerators are smashing particles together to better learn the characteristics of their interaction (including how they form more complicated aggregations).

There are quantum particles. Such particles have properties, like spin, charge, momentum, energy, parity, mass, etc. Those properties determine how those particles interact with other particles. We are attempting to learn the specifics of those interactions. Note that energy is *one* of those properties. It is not, itself, fundamental in any way that is different than, say, charge, or spin.

But you can add just energy to the system. It is *something*.

(July 22, 2019 at 1:28 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(July 13, 2019 at 7:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

---

If everything needs a reason to exist, then you are locked into a preceding cause for God to exist (in other words, God was created by something else).  This gets you into an infinite regression of causes, which is a messy business at best, and doesn't help your argument.

Since, by your argument, God can't exist without a prior cause and you reject the possibility of such a cause, then God can't exist.  Since God can't exist and the universe clearly does, then

---

you have managed to neatly disprove the existence of God.

---

Well done!!


Boru

---

Perhaps, he's getting too much credit.
Not everything must have a cause; rather, everything that begins must have a cause.  

[quote pid='1920898' dateline='1563773283']
[color=#222222][size=medium]But we know that is untrue already. So why are you repeating that lie?

(July 22, 2019 at 11:15 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 10:36 pm)polymath257 Wrote: The one set has a higher average kinetic energy than the other: you  add up the the kinetic energy and divide by the number of atoms/molecules.

Yes, linear accelerators are smashing particles together to better learn the characteristics of their interaction (including how they form more complicated aggregations).

There are quantum particles. Such particles have properties, like spin, charge, momentum, energy, parity, mass, etc. Those properties determine how those particles interact with other particles. We are attempting to learn the specifics of those interactions. Note that energy is *one* of those properties. It is not, itself, fundamental in any way that is different than, say, charge, or spin.

But you can add just energy to the system. It is *something*.

No.  The fact that you can change the properties of particles does not make the properties “something” separate from the particle.   It is still nothing but an attribute of something else that is something.

(July 23, 2019 at 2:43 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 11:15 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: But you can add just energy to the system. It is *something*.

No.  The fact that you can change the properties of particles does not make the properties “something” separate from the particle.   It is still nothing but an attribute of something else that is something.

thats right.  its only our perspective that makes it look like its something separate.  Like accelerating a car.  you changed a property, kinetic energy, but the motor is part of the car. 

also, changing the kinetic energy didn't change the total energy of the system.  the total energy is the same, it just looks different to you.

(July 22, 2019 at 11:15 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 10:36 pm)polymath257 Wrote: The one set has a higher average kinetic energy than the other: you  add up the the kinetic energy and divide by the number of atoms/molecules.

Yes, linear accelerators are smashing particles together to better learn the characteristics of their interaction (including how they form more complicated aggregations).

There are quantum particles. Such particles have properties, like spin, charge, momentum, energy, parity, mass, etc. Those properties determine how those particles interact with other particles. We are attempting to learn the specifics of those interactions. Note that energy is *one* of those properties. It is not, itself, fundamental in any way that is different than, say, charge, or spin.

But you can add just energy to the system. It is *something*.

No, you cannot just add energy to a system. To add energy, you have to apply a force. In other words, you have to interact with the system by some other system. Interactio between particles can, and does, change the dynamic properties of the particles involved. This includes energy and momentum, for example.

Energy is a property of the particles, not something that can be separated from them. Energy doesn't exist as a 'thing in itself', but solely as a property of such things: quantum particles.

---

(July 23, 2019 at 5:44 am)comet Wrote:

(July 23, 2019 at 2:43 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: No.  The fact that you can change the properties of particles does not make the properties “something” separate from the particle.   It is still nothing but an attribute of something else that is something.

thats right.  its only our perspective that makes it look like its something separate.  Like accelerating a car.  you changed a property, kinetic energy, but the motor is part of the car. 

also, changing the kinetic energy didn't change the total energy of the system.  the total energy is the same, it just looks different to you.

You accelerate a car by applying a force to it. That force comes from a system other than the car (the force of the road on the car).

Yes, the total energy of the 'system' changes *if* you consider the system to be the car. If you consider the system to be the car plus the road, then not.

And, when it comes to cosmology, there are some inherent difficulties involved in even talking about the 'total energy of even a universe of finite extent. That is because the energy is one component of a four dimensional vector and there is no single way to parallel transport a vector in a curved spacetime. So, in some ways, energy is *less* fundamental than, say, charge, which is the same for all observers.

---

(July 22, 2019 at 3:33 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: I'm not dismissing that. There is obviously more that exists, IF one set of them can be one temperature, and another identical set be another temperature. The energy that heats up one set is not nothing, and is not known to be a set of quantum particles. In the linear accelerator are quantum particles speeding up and smashing quantum particles ? No. Why build the damn thing if they are ?

Two *identical* sets of particles will have the same temperature because they will have the same kinetic energy. To be identical means to share all properties.

(July 23, 2019 at 8:36 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 22, 2019 at 11:15 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: But you can add just energy to the system. It is *something*.

No, you cannot just add energy to a system. To add energy, you have to apply a force. In other words, you have to interact with the system by some other system. Interactio between particles can, and does, change the dynamic properties of the particles involved. This includes energy and momentum, for example.

Energy is a property of the particles, not something that can be separated from them. Energy doesn't exist as a 'thing in itself', but solely as a property of such things: quantum particles.

---

(July 23, 2019 at 5:44 am)comet Wrote: thats right.  its only our perspective that makes it look like its something separate.  Like accelerating a car.  you changed a property, kinetic energy, but the motor is part of the car. 

also, changing the kinetic energy didn't change the total energy of the system.  the total energy is the same, it just looks different to you.

You accelerate a car by applying a force to it. That force comes from a system other than the car (the force of the road on the car).

Yes, the total energy of the 'system' changes *if* you consider the system to be the car. If you consider the system to be the car plus the road, then not.

And, when it comes to cosmology, there are some inherent difficulties involved in even talking about the 'total energy of even a universe of finite extent. That is because the energy is one component of a four dimensional vector and there is no single way to parallel transport a vector in a curved spacetime. So, in some ways, energy is *less* fundamental than, say, charge, which is the same for all observers.

I don't think so.  The energy isn't a "fourth vector".  The different types of energy can be thought of as vectors and the total energy is the resultant vector.  the vector quantities themselves might change but the result's magnitude will always be the same.  

you are right and wrong with the car. The reaction force of the street is in response to the car.  Yeah, you can say the friction coming from the street is adding to the car but then look at the car and street surface as the system. we can do this all the way down or all the way up.   

I think your base claim that energy is a component vector is wrong.  "total energy" is the resultant vector, not a component vector.   and its magnitude will always be the same.  KE + PE.  the components that you are talking about are the components of KE and PE. 

I think your base understanding is incomplete.  are you trained in this stuff?

(July 23, 2019 at 8:59 am)comet Wrote:

(July 23, 2019 at 8:36 am)polymath257 Wrote: No, you cannot just add energy to a system. To add energy, you have to apply a force. In other words, you have to interact with the system by some other system. Interactio between particles can, and does, change the dynamic properties of the particles involved. This includes energy and momentum, for example.

Energy is a property of the particles, not something that can be separated from them. Energy doesn't exist as a 'thing in itself', but solely as a property of such things: quantum particles.

---

You accelerate a car by applying a force to it. That force comes from a system other than the car (the force of the road on the car).

Yes, the total energy of the 'system' changes *if* you consider the system to be the car. If you consider the system to be the car plus the road, then not.

And, when it comes to cosmology, there are some inherent difficulties involved in even talking about the 'total energy of even a universe of finite extent. That is because the energy is one component of a four dimensional vector and there is no single way to parallel transport a vector in a curved spacetime. So, in some ways, energy is *less* fundamental than, say, charge, which is the same for all observers.

I don't think so.  The energy isn't a "fourth vector".  The different types of energy can be thought of as vectors and the total energy is the resultant vector.  the vector quantities themselves might change but the result's magnitude will always be the same.  

you are right and wrong with the car. The reaction force of the street is in response to the car.  Yeah, you can say the friction coming from the street is adding to the car but then look at the car and street surface as the system. we can do this all the way down or all the way up.   

I think your base claim that energy is a component vector is wrong.  "total energy" is the resultant vector, not a component vector.   and its magnitude will always be the same.  KE + PE.  the components that you are talking about are the components of KE and PE. 

I think your base understanding is incomplete.  are you trained in this stuff?

No, you misunderstood. Energy is NOT a vector. It is a *component of* a vector. More specifically, it is the time component of the energy-momentum 4-vector. So, in that sense, it has *exactly* the same 'reality as momentum. In other words, it is a *property* of the particles involved.

The PE and KE are not 'components in the vector sense. They are scalars that add up to be the total energy. But, you are working classically, and classical physics is ultimately wrong. When you get to relativistic physics, energy is one component of a four dimensional vector associated with the particle. And, in fact, the energy-momentum vector for a particle always has a (relativistic) length associated with the rest mass of the particle. That is where the equation E^2 = m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2 comes from (the correct version of E=mc^2 to apply to moving and/or massless particles).

(July 23, 2019 at 9:10 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 23, 2019 at 8:59 am)comet Wrote: I don't think so.  The energy isn't a "fourth vector".  The different types of energy can be thought of as vectors and the total energy is the resultant vector.  the vector quantities themselves might change but the result's magnitude will always be the same.  

you are right and wrong with the car. The reaction force of the street is in response to the car.  Yeah, you can say the friction coming from the street is adding to the car but then look at the car and street surface as the system. we can do this all the way down or all the way up.   

I think your base claim that energy is a component vector is wrong.  "total energy" is the resultant vector, not a component vector.   and its magnitude will always be the same.  KE + PE.  the components that you are talking about are the components of KE and PE. 

I think your base understanding is incomplete.  are you trained in this stuff?

No, you misunderstood. Energy is NOT a vector. It is a *component of* a vector. More specifically, it is the time component of the energy-momentum 4-vector. So, in that sense, it has *exactly* the same 'reality as momentum. In other words, it is a *property* of the particles involved.

The PE and KE are not 'components in the vector sense. They are scalars that add up to be the total energy. But, you are working classically, and classical physics is ultimately wrong. When you get to relativistic physics, energy is one component of a four dimensional vector associated with the particle. And, in fact, the energy-momentum vector for a particle always has a (relativistic) length associated with the rest mass of the particle. That is where the equation E^2 = m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2 comes from (the correct version of E=mc^2 to apply to moving and/or massless particles).

energy is a property that is used. as in "how much energy does it have?"   I think I get that. 

what type of energy is the time component of energy-momentum 4-vector?   what are its parts?