(July 28, 2019 at 10:53 am)comet Wrote:(July 28, 2019 at 9:40 am)polymath257 Wrote: Well, let me put it this way. What *sort* of answer to the question 'what is energy' would you consider to be appropriate? Even a ballpark example where what 'something is' is answered in a way you find to be acceptable.
From what I can see, to ask what something 'is' isn't usually a reasonable question. We can ask for its composition (if it is made of other things) or its properties (how it works), but asking for what it 'is' in some metaphysical sense is BS.
There are a couple of general ways of defining energy. Perhaps the best is that it is the conserved quantity derived from Noether's Theorem when the laws of physics are time invariant. In those cases where the laws are NOT time invariant, energy can't even be defined. In those cases where the laws 8are* invariant, itNoether's law gives a good definition.
And it turns out to be that fourth component of the energy-momentum vector because usually time invariance also comes along with location invariance, which gives momentum conservation.
When you say we don't know why QM works, it seems to me that you have things exactly backwards. QM is the *answer* to how things work. And it seems to be fundamental, which means it has no underlying 'reason' for 'why' it is the way it is.
Now, it is possible some future modification of our understanding will have QM as a consequence of some *other* laws, but then *those* laws will have no 'reason' for them.
I suspect you are wanting some sort of 'mechanism' that is based on a classical concept of particles and composition that is simply false. THis is where metaphysical assumptions about how things 'must be' lead to problems: the universe may not agree that it 'must be' how you think it should be.
good stuff ... I get ya. But I think you are looking at an end game that I am not really looking for. I am only interested in how the universe works. you got one thing right, if you give me a mechanism I will certainly entertain it for more than I will the statement that energy is a vector competent in special relativity, four-momentum.
yes, I agree to everything else you said. I was only pointing out your statement about what energy is being wrong. At best, its a property that allows us to do work. Its not fundamental in that it based on the properties of other "volumes of space/time". That being potential differences due to the states of those volumes. for example: Like + or - charges
It (energy) looks like its just a way to describe the different volumes relative to each other. But I am no particle physicist and I haven't done a lerneze transformation in over 25 years. lol, 10 years has long past me by.
I also feel that "time" as a demission is just a useful trick. Time is just repeating states changes that we can call a tick. I think they close the gap (very big and very small) when they remove dt.
ps: I know, I should say very fast vs very small, but thats a story for another day.
It seems to me that you would only consider something to be understood if a cause and effect mechanism for its operations can be discerned. If no cause and effect mechanism is there because the concept is inconsistent with observation, then you would insist on postulating there must be something at finer granularity there we do not yet know, and not that there may indeed be nothing there for us to know and what is seen is in fact the most granular level of reality. Is that a fair description?
