A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok that might be the case.

But are certainly confusing radiation (wave) with energy.

Like polymath have tried to explain to you, the same thing that I have tried to do the same - radiation isn't energy itself, but radiation do carry energy and momentum.

Serway and Jewett, whose book (Physics for Scientists and Engineer with Modern Physics) I have quoted, back in post 3337, stated precisely what I have been saying all along.

You quoted from dictionary, but a dictionary isn't a physics book, so in the matter of relevancy, Ben, I have quoted from a more reliable and appropriate source, you didn't.

We are been stubborn about it, but you ridiculed my English, which I won't deny is nowhere near the best, but you belittled my knowledge on physics.

Just because my English needs a great deal of improvement, you are wrong about my understanding on EM physics, and you are wrong to think your dictionary provided with right answer.

My suggestion to you, is to use textbook next time, instead of a dictionary.

Radiation waves is just another term for em energy waves. Check out my post #3380 that was meant to address your (and Polymaths') claims to the contrary. That's the problem with mere book reading, lacks the depth that goes with the real world.

 

[Thief]

But we are in a topic about religion and science. You would use the most appropriate vocabulary for religion, just as you would use the most appropriate language for whatever field in science that you would be discussing, don't you agree?

science will take you to the point of decision

it will not make the choice for you

but to say no to spirit....you must also say no to science

Spirit formed what you study

 

[Polymath257]

That's correct, you base it on your conceptual belief, but I am pointing out that if something is real in the sense of it being detectable in the here and now, then you should be able to prove it, but you can't because it is not a tangible thing, it's merely an artifact of the mind.

You can detect energy in the here and now, you can detect space in the here and now, you can detect matter in the here and now, but you can not detect time in the here and now because it does not exist as something tangible, it is only as a conception.

You can't detect space in the 'here and now' because to detect space, you need two 'heres'. To detect time, you need two 'nows'.

Your requirement of tangibility is rather limited.

 

[Polymath257]

So you are saying a photon is the same as a car, and has kinetic energy only when it moves?

Photons are always moving. So they have kinetic energy. They also have momentum and polarization. Cars do not have polarization.

 

[Polymath257]

So the energy of zero point energy is actually separate from the actual universal zero point energy field?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Is the electric charge of an electron separate from the electron?

The charge is different than the electron. It is associated with the electron, however.

How do the electromagnetic waves carry the energy, in what separate form from the electromagnetic waves themselves?

Again, the electric and magnetic fields have associated energy densities. Those fields move, so the energy does also.

 

[Polymath257]

Haha, because the book you are studying does not use the term is besides the point, obviously it is not germane to the area of interest, but there are times when it is relevant and proper to use the term energy. Even your microwave oven gives you a hint, how many watts is it rated at? All radio and radar transmission systems are rated in RF wattage transmitted, 100 KW, 10 KW, etc.. That means the radio or radar as appropriate, radio frequency energy output.

A light bulb is rated in Watts also. But the light from that bulb is not the same as the energy released.

 

[Polymath257]

Radiation waves is just another term for em energy waves. Check out my post #3380 that was meant to address your (and Polymaths') claims to the contrary. That's the problem with mere book reading, lacks the depth that goes with the real world.

And you show how focusing on one subject makes it possible to miss the overall meanings.

Sound is a type of radiation. But sound waves are not 'energy waves'. They carry energy. But they are pressure waves.

Light, i.e, an electromagnetic wave, is a type of radiation. But light is NOT an 'energy wave'. It carries energy, But it is an electromagnetic wave.

Alpha rays are a type of radiation. But alpha rays are not an 'energy wave'. They carry energy. But they are actually helium nuclei.

 

[Polymath257]

Electromagnetic radiation can be expressed in terms of energy, wavelength, or frequency. Frequency is measured in cycles per second, or Hertz. Wavelength is measured in meters. Energy is measured in electron volts. Each of these three quantities for describing EM radiation are related to each other in a precise mathematical way. But why have three ways of describing things, each with a different set of physical units?

Because energy, frequency, and wavelength are different things. For light, they are very closely related, but for other types of wave motion, they need not be.

So, the speed of light is a constant. We usually denote it by c. It is a general thing for waves that the frequency times the wavelength is the speed of the wave. So, for light, Lf=c.

But sound is another type of wave. The difference is that the speed of sound is NOT a constant. But, if v is the speed of sound in a given case, then Lf=v for sound.

Next, light is made of photons. The energy of a single photon is given by E=hf, where f is the frequency and h is Planck's constant. The photon is a quantum mechanical particle. The corresponding wave is called and electromagnetic wave because we discovered such waves before we knew of the existence of photons. That wave consists of changing electric and magnetic fields moving at, wait for it, the speed of light.

But, for example, electrons are a different type of quantum particle. As such, they ALSO have an associated wave. In this case, we have that L=h/p where p is the momentum of the electron. Since electrons do not all have the same speed, we also have Lf=v where v is the speed of the electron. For small velocities, we have p=mv. For relativistic velocities, there is a more accurate formula for p.

But photons also have momentum with p=E/c. If you work through all of the equations, you will find that L=h/p for photons also. In fact, this is an equation that works for all quantum particles.

Finally, when you talk about a radio tower being so many Watts, that is not energy either. It is power. It describes how much energy is released from the tower in a second. That energy is carried by an electromagnetic wave. It isn't a sound wave. It isn't an electron wave. It is an electromagnetic wave.

But an electromagnetic wave isn't *just* energy, like you have been implying. it also has momentum. It also has polarization. It also has an electric and a magnetic field. None of those is the same as energy.

 

[Polymath257]

Radiation waves is just another term for em energy waves.

This is simply false.

There are other types of radiation waves than EM waves. Sound is also a radiation, for example. Alpha and beta radiation are other types of radiation. Neutrons can be a form of radiation. None of those are EM radiation.

Check out my post #3380 that was meant to address your (and Polymaths') claims to the contrary. That's the problem with mere book reading, lacks the depth that goes with the real world.

Please go and learn a bit of physics outside your area of specialty.

 

[gnostic]

Radiation waves is just another term for em energy waves. Check out my post #3380 that was meant to address your (and Polymaths') claims to the contrary. That's the problem with mere book reading, lacks the depth that goes with the real world.

You talk of problem with "book reading, lacks the depth that goes with the real world", and yet you rely on your definition to this EM energy in a dictionary, which is essentially a book.

Physics textbooks are supposed to explain any phenomena in precise details; the definitions you quoted from a mere dictionary lacks depth in reality, and they are sometimes wrong.

Do you double-standard much?

Seriously, you can't tell me to not use a book, when you used one yourself. And I keep telling you a dictionary isn't a science book; it provided only general definitions.

Can you show me where I am wrong about EM waves are EM radiation, in a physics textbooks or other sources?

How you work with radio waves and radar technologies for so long, and yet not understanding physics of EM, is utterly mind-boggling?!

Perhaps you simply can't pick up physics textbook and read and understand, if you are so entrenched in your ignorance.

Perhaps a better solution is for you to go back to uni, and take classes in physics and ask your lecturer or teacher about this EM energy being the same as EM radiation; perhaps then they can set you straight.

 

[ChristineM]

motion has a cause......
the rotation is the result of gravity

think.....

singularity

no movement.....
then ....BANG

hollow sphere of energy....expanding.....as a pulse

OR
it was spinning BEFORE the bang

Spirit first

How is a sphere of energy hollow? Surly the filling is energy, make up your mind

What was before the bb event? Nothing, quantum soup, superstrings, membranes. Do you know because, if you do i suggest you report it to both the church and the scientific community, you would be rich and famous with bishops and popes along with the world's leading cosmologists, quantum scientists and particle physicist as best friends on your speed dial list.

Was it spinning or are you guessing? Oh yes you are guessing like the rest of your bogus claims.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can't detect space in the 'here and now' because to detect space, you need two 'heres'. To detect time, you need two 'nows'.

Your requirement of tangibility is rather limited.

First of all there are not two 'nows' to be had, there is only one the eternal present, secondly, two 'heres' are not needed to detect space, just look out at the space around you, wave your hands, it is happening in space.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Photons are always moving. So they have kinetic energy. They also have momentum and polarization. Cars do not have polarization.

Are you saying the photons's kinetic energy is the same energy as the photon's electromagnetic energy? Is it the same with the car?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Irrelevant to this discussion.


The charge is different than the electron. It is associated with the electron, however.


Again, the electric and magnetic fields have associated energy densities. Those fields move, so the energy does also.

The point I was trying to make is that zero point energy is electromagnetic in nature, iow, it is constituted of electromagnetic energy, do you agree?

Electrons are only known in model form , not in reality, and they are said to possess a negative electric charge. Possess means it is a given that the electron can not exist with the charge, and the charge can not exist without the electron, they are merely different aspects of one thing, along with other aspects like magnetic moment, spin, etc..

So do you think there is any separation between the moving em fields and the moving em energy, or has it ever occurred to you that they may be different conceptual aspects of one phenomenon?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A light bulb is rated in Watts also. But the light from that bulb is not the same as the energy released.

Huh, Light is composed of em wave energy, how can the em light energy radiated from the bulb not be equal to the em light energy radiated from the bulb?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you show how focusing on one subject makes it possible to miss the overall meanings.

Sound is a type of radiation. But sound waves are not 'energy waves'. They carry energy. But they are pressure waves.

Light, i.e, an electromagnetic wave, is a type of radiation. But light is NOT an 'energy wave'. It carries energy, But it is an electromagnetic wave.

Alpha rays are a type of radiation. But alpha rays are not an 'energy wave'. They carry energy. But they are actually helium nuclei.

You, as a mathematician are probably so used to dealing in the quantitative and qualitative aspects of a phenomenon, you forget there is an underlying unity from which the aspects are indivisibly a part, and the whole is greater than the sum of the apparent 'parts'.

And you are being pedantic, light is composed of waves of em energy, are you saying waves of light em energy means something different from light em energy waves?

Alpha rays are em radiation energy waves.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because energy, frequency, and wavelength are different things. For light, they are very closely related, but for other types of wave motion, they need not be.

So, the speed of light is a constant. We usually denote it by c. It is a general thing for waves that the frequency times the wavelength is the speed of the wave. So, for light, Lf=c.

But sound is another type of wave. The difference is that the speed of sound is NOT a constant. But, if v is the speed of sound in a given case, then Lf=v for sound.

Next, light is made of photons. The energy of a single photon is given by E=hf, where f is the frequency and h is Planck's constant. The photon is a quantum mechanical particle. The corresponding wave is called and electromagnetic wave because we discovered such waves before we knew of the existence of photons. That wave consists of changing electric and magnetic fields moving at, wait for it, the speed of light.

But, for example, electrons are a different type of quantum particle. As such, they ALSO have an associated wave. In this case, we have that L=h/p where p is the momentum of the electron. Since electrons do not all have the same speed, we also have Lf=v where v is the speed of the electron. For small velocities, we have p=mv. For relativistic velocities, there is a more accurate formula for p.

But photons also have momentum with p=E/c. If you work through all of the equations, you will find that L=h/p for photons also. In fact, this is an equation that works for all quantum particles.

Finally, when you talk about a radio tower being so many Watts, that is not energy either. It is power. It describes how much energy is released from the tower in a second. That energy is carried by an electromagnetic wave. It isn't a sound wave. It isn't an electron wave. It is an electromagnetic wave.

But an electromagnetic wave isn't *just* energy, like you have been implying. it also has momentum. It also has polarization. It also has an electric and a magnetic field. None of those is the same as energy.

Energy. frequency and wavelength are only different conceptual aspects of the one thing, there is no wavelength aspect without a frequency and energy aspect, and no frequency aspect with an energy and wavelength aspect, and no energy aspect without a frequency and wavelength aspect. Try to understand that reality is on the other side of conceptualization, and that models are not real, except as mental constructs.

You keep saying that the energy is 'carried' by an electromagnetic wave, in what form is it carried, in a packet or what? I've asked you this before and I do not believe you answered..yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is simply false.

There are other types of radiation waves than EM waves. Sound is also a radiation, for example. Alpha and beta radiation are other types of radiation. Neutrons can be a form of radiation. None of those are EM radiation.

Please go and learn a bit of physics outside your area of specialty.

Alpha and Beta waves are em waves silly...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You talk of problem with "book reading, lacks the depth that goes with the real world", and yet you rely on your definition to this EM energy in a dictionary, which is essentially a book.

Physics textbooks are supposed to explain any phenomena in precise details; the definitions you quoted from a mere dictionary lacks depth in reality, and they are sometimes wrong.

Do you double-standard much?

Seriously, you can't tell me to not use a book, when you used one yourself. And I keep telling you a dictionary isn't a science book; it provided only general definitions.

Can you show me where I am wrong about EM waves are EM radiation, in a physics textbooks or other sources?

How you work with radio waves and radar technologies for so long, and yet not understanding physics of EM, is utterly mind-boggling?!

Perhaps you simply can't pick up physics textbook and read and understand, if you are so entrenched in your ignorance.

Perhaps a better solution is for you to go back to uni, and take classes in physics and ask your lecturer or teacher about this EM energy being the same as EM radiation; perhaps then they can set you straight.

Haha,,,,,the sources I used were not from a dictionary silly! You and Polymaths have so much egg on your face...

 

[Polymath257]

Alpha rays are em radiation energy waves.

No, they are not. Alpha rays are helium nuclei. You are thinking of gamma rays, which are electromagnetic.