A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

I agreed that I have problem with my English, with grammars and typos.

But I do understand what I read.

And I preferred to rely on physics textbook, then on dictionary, which never give enough detail or a complete picture of what science is.

Here is the introduction to EM from my old physics book, by Serway:



This is followed by Maxwell's contribution to EM theory:


So far that describing EM "Waves", not EM "Energy".

When it does talk about energy in the introduction, it say:



Here, I will stress out the important part of EM waves descriptions: "electromagnetic waves carry energy and momentum..."

Here, it is my understanding that energy is a property of EM waves, not the waves being a property of EM energy, which is what you and your definition are claiming.

Those EM examples you gave me the types of waves - gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves. They are waves, not energy.

Yes, these waves give out specific range of energy, but each of these waves, are actually define by their wavelengths and frequencies. Wavelength, frequency and wavelength are properties of the waves.

(Source:

Raymond A Serway and John W Jewett, Jr, chapter 34, page 983, Electromagnetic Waves, Physics for Scientists and Engineer with Model Physics (8 edition), Cengage Learning, Los Angles)​

I am not sure I am getting to you about the what is a wave and what is a property of wave.

So let me give you a different example, unrelated to EM waves.

I am sure you understand what a Periodic Table is, in chemistry.

Each atom will have a number of properties assigned to it:

1. the atom name,
   
2. symbol,
   
3. atomic number,
   
4. atomic weight (total number or mass of protons and neutrons)
   
5. period number
6. group number
   
7. type (transitional metal, alkaline, halogen, noble gas, etc)
8. electrons
9. physical state (at room temperature, eg solid, liquid, gas)
10. etc

All these properties are what define each atom.

In EM wave spectrum, the properties are

1. type or name of EM wave (eg microwave, infrared, etc)
   
2. wavelength
3. frequency
4. energy

Do you now understand what I am saying? Energy is just one of properties of EM wave.

Maybe I am picky, Ben, but I rather to refer gamma ray, x-ray, microwave by their proper field (EM) name as "wave" or "radiation", instead of "energy".

You open up any physics textbooks, I have yet to see a chapter title being called "Electromagnetic Energy"; most of them would call it EM "Wave" or "Radiation".

In Wikipedia, the page title is Electromagnetic Radiation, but here is the opening paragraph.


Here it identified EM radiation as "waves", and waves that carry EM "radiant energy".

Why is microwave not called "micro-energy"? And why not "radio energy" instead of "radio wave"?

To me, it would seem that radiation and wave are synonymous to each other.

Gnostic, waves are waves, whether they be water, sound, etc.. Electromagnetism is not the same thing as a wave, though when the em is used as an adjective to the noun wave, it refers to the radiation of em energy.

Now some advice for your further self education, you will never understand physics textbooks until you have a good understanding of English. Your post is a prime example of a mish mash of information about different things you have read in your elementary physics book, that has no coherency as to the relevance of em energy. So get your English dictionary out and use it to understand the meaning of each and every word you used in the post and try and make sense of what you have written?

The 'micro' in microwave energy just refers to a part of the em spectrum, meaning i/1000000 meters, and is used as an adjective to the noun 'wave' so as to inform the reader the wavelength band involved. "Micro-energy" has no meaning as the noun 'energy' does not demote a quantity, and so a millionth of energy is a nonsensical term, though in another context, it could mean just a very small amount of energy.

The noun 'energy' component of "Radio energy" implies a non-definitive quantity of energy, and the adjective 'radio' tells us that the energy is in the form of radio waves, while the noun 'wave' component of "radio wave" implies wavelength or cycle, and the adjective 'radio' means the em radiation, so that tells us that the term means radiated em waves. Now all the time, whether the noun 'energy' is actually used or not, it is implied as there are no em waves, em radiation, radio waves, microwave radiation, etc. devoid of energy. So you could restate the above as em wave energy, em radiation energy, radio wave energy, microwave radiation energy. You could also say em energy, radio energy, microwave energy, and waves and radiation are implied.

So you see, you need to do a lot of study and practically use the terms regularly over time to become totally familiar with how it all fits together. Best of luck.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Already given you examples, I'm not repeating myself because you refuse to acknowledge fact

You have not answered my question.

 

[ChristineM]

You have not answered my question.

I have, several times.

 

[Polymath257]

The noun 'energy' component of "Radio energy" implies a non-definitive quantity of energy, and the adjective 'radio' tells us that the energy is in the form of radio waves, while the noun 'wave' component of "radio wave" implies wavelength or cycle, and the adjective 'radio' means the em radiation, so that tells us that the term means radiated em waves. Now all the time, whether the noun 'energy' is actually used or not, it is implied as there are no em waves, em radiation, radio waves, microwave radiation, etc. devoid of energy. So you could restate the above as em wave energy, em radiation energy, radio wave energy, microwave radiation energy. You could also say em energy, radio energy, microwave energy, and waves and radiation are implied.

ALL waves are associated with energy. A sound wave isn't "devoid of energy". But then, neither are various chemicals, a moving car, or any number of other things. That doesn't mean we can *identify* those things with the energy they convey.

Saying radio energy *means* having an E&M wave with a particular energy. The wave is NOT an energy wave. It is an Electromagnetic wave. For radio waves, the frequency of the E&M wave has to be in a certain range. But, for example, a sound wave with the same frequency as an AM radio band would be a very different sort of thing. Both cwould arry energy, but neither *is* pure energy.

It is a slight abuse of language to speak of 'radio energy'. For most discussions it is slight enough to be irrelevant. But if you are inclined to think that radio waves are pure energy, then you would be wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Now, to get back to the original (lack of) point, in what sense is an E&M wave 'tangible'?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How about an experiment? Suppose in stage one of the experiment you are pressed lightly on your forearm by something, with the touches a tenth of a second apart. In stage two, you are touched in the same way by with the interval one fifth of a second apart. I would bet that you would be able to distinguish easily which case had a longer time interval of separation.

There, you have time as a tangible thing.

I understand what time means in common usage, but the only thing tangible in the experiment is not a tangible time, but the tangible feeling of being touched/pressed in sequence. That our mind's memory allows us to remember the apparent 'past', and learn to conceive of an apparent 'future', does not mean the past and future exist in reality, the only thing tangibly real is the here and now. That this here and now existence is permanent, is not time, it is reality. non-existence is not real and never will be....plain logic! So I repeat, time is merely a concept to represent the measurement of finite duration, and an essential one for all sentient beings, but there is no tangible reality on the other side of it.

So here is an experiment for you, sit down and contemplate your pen laying on your desk top, no thoughts, no concepts, just look and see if you can observe any tangible evidence of time associated with the pen laying there, on and on and on, that you can touch, taste, smell, hear, or see?

 

[Polymath257]

I understand what time means in common usage, but the only thing tangible in the experiment is not a tangible time, but the tangible feeling of being touched/pressed in sequence.

With a different in time interval between the touches. That is why makes time in this case tangible.

That our mind's memory allows us to remember the apparent 'past', and learn to conceive of an apparent 'future', does not mean the past and future exist in reality, the only thing tangibly real is the here and now.

I don't know how the work 'tangibly' modifies the word 'reality' here, but the past and future are definitely real. In fact, because of relativistic effects what *you* consider to be 'here and now' might be quite different than what someone else considers to be 'here and now'.

That this here and now existence is permanent, is not time, it is reality. non-existence is not real and never will be....plain logic! So I repeat, time is merely a concept to represent the measurement of finite duration, and an essential one for all sentient beings, but there is no tangible reality on the other side of it.

So, you are claiming the only reality is our qualia? I call BS.

So here is an experiment for you, sit down and contemplate your pen laying on your desk top, no thoughts, no concepts, just look and see if you can observe any tangible evidence of time associated with the pen laying there, on and on and on, that you can touch, taste, smell, hear, or see?

Why should I be limited to those senses? But yes, I can observe the ink drying out, the plastic hardening and becoming brittle, etc. ALL are the effects of time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, they have to push. They have to present the evidence and convince others that their viewpoint is correct.

Do you see something wrong with this requirement?

Not at all.

Do you see anything wrong with opposition to the genuine scientific merit of new ideas by obstructionism by some scientists, so called, who have some interest, vested or otherwise, in the the prevailing models?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, radio is an electromagnetic radiation. Like all radiation, it *carries* energy, but is not itself just energy. As with all electromagnetic radiation, it consists of photons. Those photons are NOT pure energy. They also, for example, have polarization (spin), momentum,etc.

You may well be interested in the direction of release of the electromagnetic energy because that is the direction of the photons and hence, the direction in which it can be picked up by receivers.
But, unless you are picking up the heat generated when the radio waves hit your material, you are not picking up the energy per se; you are picking up the photons.

So pray tell me how does em radiation carry energy?

What separates the energy from the em radiation?

Is there a separation between the radiation and the em waves, and between the waves and the em energy?

When em radio waves are received by an antenna, the antenna is not receiving photons directly, these are induced to form in the conductor by the em radiation energy received.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, but that E&M wave is precisely that: a wave of electric and magnetic fields. In free space, the electric field vector is always perpendicular to the magnetic field vector. Both are perpendicular to the direction of the wave motion. Depending on polarization, the electric field can vibrate back and forth in one plane (linear polarization) or spin around the axis of motion (circular or elliptical polarization).

The energy is determined by the electric and magnetic fields. The energy is propagated in the direction perpendicular to both of those fields (the Poynting vector).

This is the classical description, by the way. It is the one you get by solving Maxwell's equations. It is also possible to do a quantum description using photons where the E&M potential is used to represent the photon probability wave and the energy, momentum, and polarization are carried by the photons.

Are you saying there an em wave is devoid of energy?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ALL waves are associated with energy. A sound wave isn't "devoid of energy". But then, neither are various chemicals, a moving car, or any number of other things. That doesn't mean we can *identify* those things with the energy they convey.

Saying radio energy *means* having an E&M wave with a particular energy. The wave is NOT an energy wave. It is an Electromagnetic wave. For radio waves, the frequency of the E&M wave has to be in a certain range. But, for example, a sound wave with the same frequency as an AM radio band would be a very different sort of thing. Both cwould arry energy, but neither *is* pure energy.

It is a slight abuse of language to speak of 'radio energy'. For most discussions it is slight enough to be irrelevant. But if you are inclined to think that radio waves are pure energy, then you would be wrong.

Stop it, you keep implying em radiation is devoid of energy, this is utter nonsense. Show me how there is no energy component to em radiation?

 

[Polymath257]

So pray tell me how does em radiation carry energy?

What separates the energy from the em radiation?

Is there a separation between the radiation and the em waves, and between the waves and the em energy?

Separation is a bit extreme. There are differences. All electric and magnetic fields have energy. Even static fields have an energy density associated with the strength of the field. In E&M waves, the electric and magnetic fields are moving in the direction of propagation and so the energy is moving along with them.

In a similar way, a moving car has energy that moves along with the car. But the car is not simply energy. There isn't a 'separation' between the car and the energy in the sense that the location of the energy is in the car. But they are not identical things.

The *exact* same thing works for E&M waves. The waves carry energy, but are not, themselves, just energy. The energy is carried along by the wave.

When em radio waves are received by an antenna, the antenna is not receiving photons directly, these are induced to form in the conductor by the em radiation energy received.

Yes, actually, the antenna *is* receiving photons directly. I'm not quite sure what you are mistaking the photons (quanta of E&M radiation) for in the conductor. The electric field will cause a force on the charges in the conductor, leading to a current, but that current is not a photon in nay sense of the term.

Recall that the energy of a single photon is very small for radio waves (E=hf), so there are a LOT of photons in any radio signal. That is one reason why it is possible, and often easier, to use the classical approximation for them.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

With a different in time interval between the touches. That is why makes time in this case tangible.


I don't know how the work 'tangibly' modifies the word 'reality' here, but the past and future are definitely real. In fact, because of relativistic effects what *you* consider to be 'here and now' might be quite different than what someone else considers to be 'here and now'.

So, you are claiming the only reality is our qualia? I call BS.

Why should I be limited to those senses? But yes, I can observe the ink drying out, the plastic hardening and becoming brittle, etc. ALL are the effects of time.

I am not talking about qualia, you are so very inclined to go off on your own, please pay attention and stay relevant.

I asked that you just look without thought, not to have thoughts about your observations of ink drying out, etc.. Your observations have nothing to do with time, they have all to to do with the memory of your observations in the here and now. When you are deep dreamless sleep and not observing, there is no sense of time, but in fact your body kept on and on existing to be there until you awake where it continues to exist on and on, only now in the awake state.

 

[Polymath257]

Stop it, you keep implying em radiation is devoid of energy, this is utter nonsense. Show me how there is no energy component to em radiation?

I have not said that. I have *never* said that. I'm not even sure how you can take what I said as implying that.

Electromagnetic waves have an energy associated with them. So do ALL waves. For example, sound waves have an energy associated with them.

But the E&M wave is not the *same thing* as energy. The E&M wave is a wave of changing electric and magnetic fields. Those fields have energy, but are not the same as energy. Because the electric and magnetic fields are propagated, the energy is carried along with them.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not talking about qualia, you are so very inclined to go off on your own, please pay attention and stay relevant.

I asked that you just look without thought, not to have thoughts about your observations of ink drying out, etc.. Your observations have nothing to do with time, they have all to to do with the memory of your observations in the here and now. When you are deep dreamless sleep and not observing, there is no sense of time, but in fact your body kept on and on existing to be there when it continues to exist on and on, only now in the awake state.

Is that how you determine if something is real? Or tangible (whatever that means)?

 

[Polymath257]

Not at all.

Do you see anything wrong with opposition to the genuine scientific merit of new ideas by obstructionism by some scientists, so called, who have some interest, vested or otherwise, in the the prevailing models?

If there is genuine scientific merit, I do see something wrong. But the issue is how to establish that merit. The *only* way to show scientific merit is to produce evidence to the place that you convince enough people you are correct, even in spite of their biases.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you saying there an em wave is devoid of energy?

Read what I said again. I said nothing even close to this.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not talking about qualia, you are so very inclined to go off on your own, please pay attention and stay relevant.

I asked that you just look without thought, not to have thoughts about your observations of ink drying out, etc.. Your observations have nothing to do with time, they have all to to do with the memory of your observations in the here and now. When you are deep dreamless sleep and not observing, there is no sense of time, but in fact your body kept on and on existing to be there until you awake where it continues to exist on and on, only now in the awake state.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't determine whether something (like time) is real based on my dreams and imaginings.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Separation is a bit extreme. There are differences. All electric and magnetic fields have energy. Even static fields have an energy density associated with the strength of the field. In E&M waves, the electric and magnetic fields are moving in the direction of propagation and so the energy is moving along with them.

In a similar way, a moving car has energy that moves along with the car. But the car is not simply energy. There isn't a 'separation' between the car and the energy in the sense that the location of the energy is in the car. But they are not identical things.

The *exact* same thing works for E&M waves. The waves carry energy, but are not, themselves, just energy. The energy is carried along by the wave.



Yes, actually, the antenna *is* receiving photons directly. I'm not quite sure what you are mistaking the photons (quanta of E&M radiation) for in the conductor. The electric field will cause a force on the charges in the conductor, leading to a current, but that current is not a photon in nay sense of the term.

Recall that the energy of a single photon is very small for radio waves (E=hf), so there are a LOT of photons in any radio signal. That is one reason why it is possible, and often easier, to use the classical approximation for them.

You really did not answer the question, what does "separation is a bit extreme" mean'? In what way is it separated?

Are you suggesting by the car analogy that em radiation energy is kinetic?

Your description of the em radiation of photons does not alter the fact that em radiation is energy. So are you saying that photons are devoid of energy?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Read what I said again. I said nothing even close to this.

Ok, you say that the energy is determined by the electric and magnetic fields and that the energy is propagated in the direction perpendicular to both of those fields.

If the energy of em waves is not an intrinsic to it, please explain the reality of separation?