Einstein was able to define the origins of gravity and potential energy associated with rest mass in terms of curvature or the changing geometry of a space-time manifold but he did not tell us anything about the causality of kinetic energy.

For example he told us that gravity is caused by curvature or distortion in a space-time manifold however he did not due the same for kinetic energy associated with constant relative motion.

Yet its casualty is central to our understand of our universe because it along with gravity and Dark Energy are assumed to be responsible for evolution of the universe.

However one reason may be because kinetic energy of relative motion is constant with respect to both distance and time.  In other words the energy of an object in constant motion always moves the same distance in a given time interval.

As was just mentioned one of the difficulties in defining the kinetic energy in terms of the space-time environment defined by Einstein is that its magnitude is determined only by the distance an object moves through space within a constant time interval.  In other words it is only dependent on the spatial not on time parameters of its movement.

However redefining Einstein’s space-time universe in terms of its spatial properties would allow one to define the energy of constant motion in terms of those spatial properties.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he define the displacement or curvature he associated with the potential energy of rest mass in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light because that gave us the ability to redefine a unit of time in his space-time universe to an equivalent unit of space in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.

This fact is the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov. 26, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Using those concepts one could define the energy of rest mass in terms of magnitude of a physical displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension cause by a objects mass while defining the kinetic energy of two masses in relative motion in terms of the spatial displacements cause by that motion. 

In other words the “surface” of three dimensional space associated with objects in relative motion would exist on different three dimensional plains with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example magnitude of kinetic energy of two masses would be defined the relative magnitude of their displacement in “surface’ of three dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension 

In other words it allows one to mathematically derive the causality of relativistic motion in terms of the geometry of either four *spatial* dimensions or four dimensional space-time space because when Einsteinâ€s defined his space-time universe in terms of energy/mass and the constant velocity of light he allow to chose one or the other and get the same end results.

Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity derived the causality of gravity in terms of a curvature or displacement in a space-time manifold however in his Special Theory of Relativity he only told us the effects of relative motion has on an environment not what caused the energy of that motion.  However as was shown above one can use his theoretical concepts to mathematically define its casual in terms physical displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension thereby give a more complete understanding of the relativistic environment encompassed by his theories.

This is significant because understanding the spatial properties of relative motion is the first step in understanding how Newton’s laws of motion are physically connected to Einstein’s space-time environment.

Later Jeff

Copyright 2018 Jeffrey Oâ€Callaghan

The post What is the origin of kinetic energy and why should we care? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

One is that it would allow physicists to define a particles mass and inertia by using one’s imagination to extrapolate observations made in a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For the past 50 years, the Standard Model of particle physics has given us a complete mathematical description of the particles and forces that shape our world.  It predicts with so much accuracy the microscopic properties of particles and the macroscopic ones of stars and galaxies that many physicists feel that it is the ultimate theory of matter and energy.
But as Charles Seife mentions on page 142 of his bookAlpha & Omega “Taken literally the plain vanilla form of the Standard model does not say anything about particle mass at all: in fact if theorists try to put mass in to its equations they blowup and become meaningless.”

In 1964 Peter Higgsshowed that one can solve this problem and explain why particles have inertial or rest mass if one assumes space is permeated by what is called a Higgs field.

He was able to show that if a particle changes its velocity or accelerates, then the Higgs field should exert a certain amount of resistance or drag which according to his theory is the origin of mass.  In a slightly more precise terminology, the origin of mass is an interaction between a particle and the (nonzero) Higgs field.  It also assumes the disturbance created by mass as it moves through this field would have to generate the particle called the Higgs boson.

The only problem is that the Higgs boson has never been observed.

This is problematic for its proponents primarily because The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) the world’s most expensive and highest-energy particle accelerator has been able to attain the energy levels which most believe should make it observable.

However, if it cannot be observed in the high energy environment presently generated by the LCH, scientists are going to have to make a decision as to whether or not to continue to expend the resources looking for something that may not exist or expend even more to create a more powerful accelerator.

This is especially relevant because as mentioned earlier there is an alternative explanation for mass that is based on the observable and therefore verifiable properties of three-dimensional space which does not require the large expenditures in time and money as would be required for verifying the existence of the Higgs boson.

Observations of our three-dimensional environment tell us the total potential energy of an object or particle is related to the magnitude of its relative displacement.  For example the potential energy of water in a bucket is determined by the height or displacement of its surface relative to the surface of the table it is resting on.  However, its potential energy is greater if one measure it with respect to the relative to the floor on which the table is resting.

In the following discussion the potential energy of the water in the bucket relative to the table top will represent the rest mass of an object or particle while its energy with respect to the floor will correspond to the energy associated with its relative motion or velocity.

In the article “Why Space-time?” Sept. 27, 2007 it was showed one can derive the rest or inertial mass of an object or particle in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  Additionally it was shown one can derive the causality of all accelerations including gravitational in terms of an interaction of its mass with the slope of a curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space caused by that displacement.

(This curvature is analogous to a curvature in a four-dimensional space-time manifold Einstein theorized was responsible for gravitational accelerations)

This means that one could define the potential, inertial or rest energy of mass by extrapolating the observations of the potential energy of the water in a bucket resting on the surface of a table to a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional manifold with respect to  a fourth *spatial* dimension.  In other words one could define the potential energy associated with inertial mass in terms of the displacement of a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension for the same reason as one can define the potential energy of the water in the bucket as being related to its displacement with respect to the table top.

However the article “Defining energy” Nov 26, 2007 derived the energy associated with the relative velocities in terms of a differential displacement of a volume of an object or particle with respect to a fourth “spatial” dimension.  In other words it was able to show the energy associated with velocities are a result of a differential displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth “spatial” dimension.

(The energy associated with relative velocities would be associated with the displacement of the surface of the table with respect to the floor in the example mentioned earlier.)

Isaac Newton defined inertia as being responsible for why an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will remain in motion in a straight line at a constant speed.

This means, one could define the potential energy associated with the velocity or momentum of an object or particle in terms of the displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension associated with its rest mass plus that associated with its relative velocity because according to the concepts presented in those articles it would be defined by the sum of those components.

The first would be magnitude of the displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space associated with the rest mass of an object.  The second would be the magnitude of the displacement of that “surface” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by the energy of its relative motion.  (The momentum of an object at rest with respect to other objects is zero so the displacement of three-dimensional space with respect to those objects would also be zero.) 

This also defines why the “relativistic” mass or inertia of an object or particle increase as its velocity approaches that of light because its total energy/mass would, according to the concepts presented here be related to the relative magnitude of the total displacement in a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension which in turn would be related to their relative velocities.

Yet, as mentioned earlier the article “Why Space-time?” showed that accelerations are caused by an object or particle interacting with a curved “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Therefore,  if as mentioned earlier the momentum of a particle or object is caused by a displacement of a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold it would tent to stay rest or ones in motion would tend to stay in motion unless it interacted with a “surface” that was curved with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This means that one does not have to assume the existence of the Higgs Boson to explain why particles have both mass and inertia because it shows how one can use his or her imagination to explain it by extrapolating observations of a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011

The post Mass, inertia, and the Higgs Boson appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Both of these definitions have one thing in common in that they assume that there exists entity called time whether it has the physical properties many physicists associate with a space-time dimension or only abstract ones given to it by our consciousness. 

However, they also have another thing in common in that they assume time has an effect on our environment and therefore because modern scientific theories assume all effects have a cause we must assume that it does to.

For example Albert Einstein, in his General Theory of Relativity derived gravity in terms of a physical interaction of a time dimension with the three spatial dimensions.  He showed that one can understand it by assuming that it is a result of a curvature in a space-time dimension but he was unable to define how it physically interacts with space to cause that curvature.

This fact is made evident by the circular definition of gravity that Physicist John Wheeler gave when asked how it affects space and time “Matter tells space and time how to curve, while space and time tells matter how to move. 

However, the most notable problem in assigning time the physical properties of a dimension, as Albert Einstein did is that most of us do not observe or perceive it as having any of them.  For example we all associate the physical properties of a volume with space.   However, there are no observations that suggest that time has the physical properties many physicists associate with it.  Yet, as mentioned earlier there are many that suggest it is only a means of determining a before or after or a way of measuring the sequential ordering of change in our temporal environment.  Therefore, based on those observations one would assume that it has the nonphysical properties of all measurements. 

For example length is only a measure of the position of an object relative to another in space and therefore is not associated with any of its physical properties. 

Additionally the universal observation that time is irreversible or that it always moves in one direction forward also appears to contradict the concept that it has physical properties because we observe that it is possible to physically reverse the position of an object in space while, as just mentioned we cannot in time.  For example, one can move an object to a different position, reverse the process and move it back to its original position.  However one cannot reverse time or move an object back to its original position in temporal space.

Yet these same observations support the definition given in the article “Defining what is time?“ Sept. 20, 2007 that it is only a measure of the sequential ordering of change or the temporal “distance” between the casualty of events in our environment.  This would make it consistent with our perception of the irreversibility of time because one cannot reverse the causality of an event without creating a new event.  Therefore, it could never be reversed or moved back to a previous event because the sequential ordering of the causality of all events in the universe is unique.

This also provides the reason why events always appear to move forward in time even thought the laws physics indicate that they should be reversible because the act of reversing an event would define the next event in that sequence.

Therefore, defining it only in terms of a measure of the temporal “distance” between the sequential ordering of a change in our environment as was done in that article would seem to provide an unambiguous definition of time that is more consistent with both physical and mathematical observations of it than defining it in terms of the physical properties of a dimension.

Hence, because there is absolutely no observational evidence suggesting that time has any physical properties shouldn’t we require those who believe that an interaction of time with space is the causality of gravity to define a mechanism that can explain how a non-physically entity such as time can interact with the physical properties of a spatial dimension.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because that provided a method of converting a unit of space-time associated with energy to unit of space associated with position  in four spatial dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

However the fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with energy in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy and forces including gravitation can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This allows one to understand the causality of change is in an environment in terms of the observable properties of the spatial dimensions instead of the non physical one of a time or space-time dimension. 

In other words by defining change in terms of a displacement in the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time allows one to not only understand the causality of time in terms that more closely agrees with its observable properties but also allows one define all forces responsible for changes in terms of the physically observable properties of the spatial dimensions.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey Oâ€Callaghan 2011

The post The causality of time appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.