What is pure energy?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

What is pure energy?

Unread post by crawler » Thu Apr 16, 2020 1:47 am

Physicists sometimes mention pure energy. What is pure energy?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 2b86c6762a
So the full answer to the question of whether pure energy exists is:
(1) For all of the particles that exist, massive and massless, energy is only one property of them, and cannot exist independently.

[This probably includes E=mcc, & includes the KE of a particle or body, & includes PE].
(2) For all of the situations where energy appears to be lost in a system, such as through gravitational decay, there exists some form of radiation carrying off that energy, leaving it conserved.
[Does this mean that (a) gravity waves have mass, & (b) electric fields have mass, & (c) magnetic fields have mass, & (d) other force fields, if they exist, have mass].
[Does PE belong in (1) or in (2). Perhaps PE due to gravity belongs in (1), & PE due to GWs belongs in (2)][Except that GWs do not exist].
(3) And that dark energy itself may be the purest form of energy, existing independent of particles, but as far as any effect other than the expansion of the Universe, that energy is inaccessible to everything else in the Universe.
[So, we cant use dark energy, ie it cant be felt as a force, in which case it cant be called energy].
As far as we can tell, energy is not something we can isolate in a laboratory, but only one of many properties that matter, antimatter and radiation all possess. Creating energy independent of particles? It might be something the Universe itself does, but until we learn how to create (or destroy) spacetime itself, we find ourselves unable to make it so.
[The universe does of course create energy (almost) independent of particles. This creation manifests as the sustaining of mass, ie the sustaining of the annihilation of aether. A kg of gold has an everlasting gravity field but it doesn’t lose mass. Likewise an electron has an everlasting charge. An electron has an everlasting orbit. A photon is everlasting. All quantum stuff (& energy) comes from (is created by) subquantum aether. However aether is not everlasting. And in the end (or before) neither is any quantum thing everlasting]. [Re creating or destroying spacetime, spacetime is merely a figment of Einstein's imagination].
It might be something the Universe itself does, but until we learn how to create (or destroy) spacetime itself, we find ourselves unable to make it so.
[I suppose that Einstein would add: (4) Spacetime can create forces (or would he call them pseudo-forces). Or he might prefer to say that (1) & (2) & perhaps (3) are manifestations of spacetime].

Anyhow, i reckon that mass cant be completely converted to (pure) energy (ie E=mcc aint true). Mass is bottled light (Jeans), ie confined photons (Williamson), & annihilation of say an electron (a confined photon) produces a free photon (or two), & free photons have mass. Free neutrinos are paired photons (if u were wondering). Confined neutrinos are dark matter (u should have been wondering). Anyhow, mass cant be completely destroyed, all of the confined photons can only be converted to free photons, & free photons cant be destroyed, hencely E=mcc aint valid.

Mass is the property of annihilating aether. All quantum things have mass. But we know that a confined photon has millions of times the mass of a free photon. Williamson says that this is because the confined photon has a loop (a free photon doesn't have a loop). It’s a mystery. And protons are almost 2000 times as massive as electrons, Williamson says because protons have tighter loops than electrons, in which case protons might be bigger than electrons. Anyhow, mass is lost when confined photons become free photons, but that loss will not be in accordance with E=mcc, ie even here that equation aint valid, it will be say 1/2 mcc, or perhaps some fraction of mccc, or something else.

Pure energy exists only as KE or PE. Hencely fission & fusion change PE to KE & vice versa. But KE & PE do not have mass.

User avatar
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:47 pm

Re: What is pure energy?

Unread post by paladin17 » Thu Apr 16, 2020 3:31 pm

In my estimation, such a thing doesn't exist. It's a remnant of the old religious thinking that sought for "quintessence" (a term that was actually used in cosmology to describe "dark energy") or any other "super-fundamental", "divine" entity.

In practice, quantum mechanical states, for example, not always have their energy defined, so it doesn't exist for them (strictly speaking). Then, if you look at the concept of "potential energy", you immediately see that it is artificially constructed - to keep the conservation laws in place (as I described in my video). Etc.

It is still possible that a more convenient - and thus more "fundamental" - notion can be constructed though.

Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: What is pure energy?

Unread post by crawler » Fri Apr 17, 2020 12:14 am

I think that every kind of energy is a math construct. What we have is forces of various kinds. Likewise mass is a math construct, or at least the measure of mass is. And the measure will involve force. And what is measured is not mass but is inertial mass. U should do a video explaining that every time that they prove equivalence to umpteen decimals then all they are proving is that inertial mass equals inertial mass.

Actually i think that we now have simple gravity drop tests that don’t involve force. But these are not used to measure mass, they are used to measure big G. Big G seems to vary, as u say in your video. I have explained that here in the past. It is due to the centrifuging of aether. Spinning & orbiting objects suck aether in at equator, & aether is spat out at the poles. This creates a pseudo-gravity. When say Moon & Jupiter etc align the effect is maximised. The main reason why it is so tricky is that pseudo-gravity is a 1/r thing, whilst gravity is a 1/rr thing.
I guess that that might affect the rotation of spiral galaxies, ie adding to the need for dark matter (u mention DM in your video). But i havnt thought that through yet.

Anyhow, momentum & energy laws are based on action equalling reaction, which is i think always true.
Although Einstein might say that there is no such thing as a gravity force, ie that gravity is a pseudo-force, a trick of spacetime. Stupid.

Re conservation of energy, as i said in my original posting, this law is broken everywhere at all times. The subquantum aether continuously & continually sustains gravity charge magnetism photon-propagation etc etc etc, for eternity.

I think that pure energy would need the existence of pure force, & pure force is impossible.
Potential energy is almost pure energy. But PE is only an accounting term. Actually all energies are only accounting terms, but PE takes accounting to another level, being due to position rather than speed or temperature etc.

In my previous posting i said that .............. And protons are almost 2000 times as massive as electrons, Williamson says because protons have tighter loops than electrons, in which case protons might be bigger than electrons.
I should have said – in which case protons might be smaller than electrons.

Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: What is pure energy?

Unread post by Cargo » Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:47 am

The true fallacy comes form trying to equal Mass to Energy, when they are really not relatable in celestial contexts.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: What is pure energy?

Unread post by crawler » Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:41 am

Cargo wrote:
Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:47 am
The true fallacy comes from trying to equal Mass to Energy, when they are really not relatable in celestial contexts.
Yes i touch on that in my OP. It aint possible to derive E=mcc from a gedanken. Einstein's derivation is flawed, Ives points out that once again Einstein snuck in a postulate that mirrored his conclusion. He was good at that.

Mass is the property of annihilating aether. Aether flows in to replace the lost aether. The acceleration of the inflow gives an inertial force (on particles) which we call gravity. We cant measure mass, or we can, by simply stating the numbers of elementary particles (electrons quarks etc).

I aint sure about celestial contexts. Aether is created somewhere in our cosmos. The new aether creates free photons. The free photons sometimes become confined photons (electrons etc). Hencely mass is created, without needing any energy of a quantum kind. Meanwhile aether is being annihilated in free photons & in confined photons. And free photons are being annihilated in super massive stars (which some call black holes)(which probably don't exist). But i don't know what to think about free photons being annihilated in ordinary stars. If mass is being annihilated in one part of our quantum cosmos & an equal amount being created in another part then i suppose that we have conservation of mass, & possibly energy, overall. But that this is by virtue of some kind of invisible subquantum train operating at the aether level.

Anyhow the equation(s) linking mass & energy at micro or macro or celestial levels cant possibly be decided by a gedanken.

Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: What is pure energy?

Unread post by crawler » Fri May 15, 2020 9:31 pm

Wikileaks……….. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ........
Inflation (cosmology) and Baryogenesis.
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. The period from 0 to 10^-43 seconds into the expansion, the Planck epoch, was a phase in which the four fundamental forces — the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the gravitational force, were unified as one.[22] In this stage, the universe was only about 10^−35 meters wide and consequently had a temperature of approximately 10^32 degrees Celsius.[23] The Planck epoch was succeeded by the grand unification epoch beginning at 10^-43 seconds, where gravitation separated from the other forces as the universe's temperature fell.[22] The universe was pure energy at this stage, too hot for any particles to be created.
At approximately 10^−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially, faster than the speed of light, and temperatures dropped by a factor of 100,000. Microscopic quantum fluctuations that occurred because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle were amplified into the seeds that would later form the large-scale structure of the universe.[24] At a time around 10^-36 seconds, the Electroweak epoch begins when the strong nuclear force separates from the other forces, with only the electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force remaining unified.[25]
Inflation stopped at around the 10^−33 to 10^−32 seconds mark, with the universe's volume having increased by a factor of at least 10^78.
Reheating occurred until the universe obtained the temperatures required for the production of a quark–gluon plasma as well as all other elementary particles.[26][27] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions.[4] At some point, an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.[28]
The universe continued to decrease in density and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form, with the electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force separating at about 10^−12 seconds.[25][29] After about 10^−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle accelerators. At about 10^−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was now no longer high enough to create new proton–antiproton pairs (similarly for neutrons–antineutrons), so a mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 1010 of the original protons and neutrons, and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).
A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion kelvin and the density of matter in the universe was comparable to the current density of Earth's atmosphere, neutrons combined with protons to form the universe's deuterium and helium nuclei in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN).[30] Most protons remained uncombined as hydrogen nuclei.[31]
As the universe cooled, the rest energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate that of the photon radiation. After about 379,000 years, the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen), which were able to emit radiation. This relic radiation, which continued through space largely unimpeded, is known as the cosmic microwave background.[31]
The chemistry of life may have begun during a habitable epoch when the universe was only 10–17 million years old.[32][33]
Last edited by crawler on Fri May 15, 2020 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: What is pure energy?

Unread post by crawler » Fri May 15, 2020 9:39 pm

So, wikileaks says that the standard model of the BB involves pure energy at the beginning ie before we have any photons or particles. What can their pure energy be?

I notice too that wiki is happy to have temperature before there are any photons or particles. How?

And wiki's explanation of the CMBR says that the photons were created after 379,000 years. But earlier they said that photons predominated after 1 second -- what happened to thems photons -- how come they are not in our CMBR?

When did their supposed Dark Matter happen?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest