https://www.researchgate.net/post/Any_new_concept_of_motion_in_physics_beyond_those_of_STR_GTR_QM_and_QM-cosmology#view=642fe35f3f0890b7c306ad87

Traditional was anything that has mass and takes up space, maybe you could take that somewhere.

But in that case we need to assume the epistemic 'space' (and 'time') as conditional to attaining the definitions. Space and time are highly empirical. The theoretical aspect of it, in my considered opinion of more than 30 years, is merely epistemic. We need something more physical-ontological to define matter and energy, I believe.

mass and energy are concepts that are interdependently "circular" upon one another...................

This is not unlike Newtonian Force and Matter :

If you ever asked Newton what Mass is , he would most probably say it is the outcome of dividing Force by acceleration ..........

If , I guess , you asked him what Force spells ,he would most likely answer it is the multiplication of mass by acceleration ,,,,,,,,,,,

Reza Sanaye, what you said is true. I have been trying to differentiate matter and energy -- for a long time -- in definition. I failed....

I am now following a physical-ontological path, and trying ......

Thanks for the contribution.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Due to my other Masters Degree in pure philosophy , I might attempt and "take out" the circularity . . .. ......

As about energy OR quanta of energy preservation :

Spacetime itself is comprised of some foliation of sub-manifolds in which case spacetime turns out to be an entity of stationary nature which can be known only on those Locales where conservation of energy would no longer be deemed sacrosanct. The Many-Worlds interpretation on the energy flow within a certain universe links Noether (local) symmetries to explicit data flux that is acting equivalent to energy contributions. For instance, as of a spinning particle, we may “measure” a certain position or spin. However, measuring things in systems causes changes in wavefunctions. The measured spin mentioned above gets into ANOTHER amplitude of probability. As a consequence, the concept of energy in quantum physics differs relatively significantly from the ordinary one we generally bear in mind. This spells that there is likelihood of foliating spacetime with a time parameter corresponding to surfaces where energy is not conserved.

It is impossible to come to collapse of mathematical superpositions on energy levels where no prediction can be made of the number of times we may possibly decide to do measurements. And you certainly know that measurements do not corroborate each other.

Reza

I have replied in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_propagating_energy_wavicles_really_be_massless_or_at_relatively_massless/2

If an electron A at a specific spacetime loses a certain number of quanta of energy (say, 100 quanta), naturally its total energy has come down. Or, will anyone claim that it has thus increased or that it is in a constant state? Now imagine that it is accelerated later by other forces.

Consider another electron B at another spacetime. It has not lost so many quanta of energy (say, only 50 quanta). Like A, now B is also being accelerated with the same amount of energy.

Of course, whether our measurement of the acceleration energy in the two cases is absolutely exact is yet another ambiguous matter, but we suppose that they are equal.

Will the latter be at a better position in the total energy content than the former? Or, will it be claimed that their energy, mass, etc. After receiving equal acceleration from outside, are equal, merely because they are both electrons already taken to possess a certain mass?

Moreover, we know that in the path that both the electrons take there will be other physical influences which we do not determine and cannot. These influences must be at least slightly different from each other.

In short, the mass, energy, etc. of the two electrons will never be equal at any physical state, not have they been absolutely equal at any time. And we know that nothing in the world is in a static state. So, there is no reason to suppose that electrons will have a static mass, energy, etc.

Of course, we can calculate and fix them as supposedly static mass, energy, etc. These will be useful for practical purposes, but not as absolutes.

That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances. At normal circumstances within a specific chemical element, and when freed from it, the electron will have different values.

This shows that no electron (in itself) will be identical in all its properties with any other. Our description of these properties may be considered as identical. But this description in physics is meant merely for pragmatic purposes! One cannot now universalize it and say that the mass, energy, etc. of electrons are the same everywhere.

What about the said values (mass, energy, etc.) of other particles like photon, neutrino, etc.? I believe none can prove their case to be otherwise in the case of these particles / wavicles too.

That is, there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity.

WHAT ARE VIRTUALS IN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES?

CRITERIA TO DIFFERENTIATE THEM?

Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.

Existents in Extension and Change are physical, not virtual. Space and time are just the epistemic notions of the physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively.

A DENOTABLE has reference to something that either (1) has physical body (physically existent processes), or (2) is inherent in bodily processes but are not themselves a physical body (e.g., potential energy), or (3) is non-real, non-existent and just a mere notion (say, a non-physical possible world with wings, or one with all characteristics absolutely different from the existent physical world).

(1) belong to existents. They are existent Realities. They are matter-energy in content. (2) belong to non-existent but theoretically necessary Realities. (3) are nothing, vacuous!

DIFFERENCE between non-existent, real virtual, and existent denotables:

Non-existents have no real properties, and generate no ontological commitment. Real virtuals have the properties that theoretically belong to the denotables that are lacunae in theory, but need not have Categorial characteristics. Existent denotables have Categories (characteristics) and properties. These are Extension and Change.

Hence, virtuals are versions of reality different from actual existents. They are called unobservables. Some of them are non-existent. When they are proved to exist, they become observables and are removed from membership in virtuals.

Theories yield unobservables (elctrons, neutrinos, gravitons, Higgs boson, vacuum energy, spinors, strings, superstrings …). They may be proved to exist, involving detectable properties.

Note: properties are not physical-ontological (metaphysical) characteristics (Categories). Instead, they are concatenations of Ontological Universals.

Virtual unobservables fill the lacunae in theoretical explanations.

As is clear now, the tool to discover new unobservables is not physical properties, but the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change. Virtuals are non-existent as such, but are taken as solutions to lacunae in rational imagination.

Discussion in ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_Are_Virtuals_in_Scientific_Theories_Criteria_to_Differentiate_them

Raphael Neelamkavil

you say ( two times) that : Virtuals are non-existent as such, but are taken as solutions to lacunae in rational imagination.

Ought they to be very welcome into a truly rigorous / empirical and-or objectivist science of physics ??

Regards

REZA

Reza Sanaye, thanks.

I have differentiated existents and virtuals well there. But in theories, we cannot at times decide whether a theoretical entity is really existent. But physicists find ways of detecting these virtuals. They attribute properties to them. But my claim is that properties are also just physical virtuals if we do not have the unobservables (say, vacuum energy, dark energy, etc.) steeped in physical existence in terms of EXTENSION and CHANGE.

Hence, this is more than an empirical theory. But it takes as necessary ontological commitment to there being objectually and externally the referred objects with verifiable EXTENSION and CHANGE.

Take a look at the detailed discussions taking place1 here:

Are information and artificial and biological intelligence non-causal, not based on energy?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_information_and_artificial_and_biological_intelligence_non-causal_not_based_on_energy

Do electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are

(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and

(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.

An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!

This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?

ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA

If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.

Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.

If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.

Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.

But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.

In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).

The parity inversion makes it a rule that the transformation on all particles corresponds to the antiparticles. Sign changes of all (internal-parasymmetric) quantum numbers leave mass, momentum and energy front density absolutely unaffected. EM and strong interaction obey C*-para_symmetry, while weak interaction clearly violates C*-para_symmetry. It also occurs to me that one could derive parity from Maxwell's equations, although that might be a bit of a stretch, since they are of course classical. It also occurs to me that one could assign a value of -1 to the parity, which is merely a convention.

Experimentally, the parity of photons is a matter of convention and is not determined by experiment. Also that it is sometimes 1 and sometimes -1 and that it is actually undefined since {P, → } = 0 and the photon always has nonzero momentum. Parity inversion [para]symmetry, like most fundamental things in modern physics, arises from a symmetry principle, namely that of spatial reflections (usually in the sense of reflections of the spatial components of the position vector at the origin of the Cartesian coordinate system).

Then one describes the particles by relativistic quantum fields by building up a representation of the own orthochronous Poincare group extended by space reflections. For the hadrons, which can be described in the low energy regime by an effective (chiral) theory of strongly interacting hadrons (baryons and mesons). The strong interaction is P- (and even CP-) invariant (which is a mystery in itself), so parity is a well-defined quantum number of all hadrons as long as only the strong interaction is considered. There is even an approximate spontaneous broken symmetry between even and odd parity states, with the pions being the pseudo-Goldstone bosons of this broken symmetry. Since at the fundamental level of QCD the spontaneous breaking is due to the vacuum expectation value of the scalar order parameter describing the up and down quarks and their antiparticles, the quark condensate. The Goldstone modes are necessarily pseudoscalar modes, i.e., SU ( 2 ) L × SU ( 2 ) L is spontaneously broken to isovector symmetry SU ( 2 ) V . Therefore, the pseudo-Goldstone modes forming an isotriplet of mesons must be described by pseudoscalar fields, and all three pions must have the same parity (-). Now, naively, there is also an Abelian axial symmetry, U ( 1 ) A , if one considers the "classical" Lagrangian, but this symmetry is broken by an anomaly, especially also if one considers the electromagnetic interaction (which, by the way, also breaks the isospin symmetry). For this reason, the decay of the neutral pion into two photons is much larger than expected. The decay into 3 photons is strongly suppressed, if it occurs at all. In the Standard Model, it does not decay into 3 photons because this would violate the C-symmetry (charge conjugation) of the electromagnetic interaction.

If we EMPIRICALLY apply continuous geometric symmetries to conjugate particle charges, we find that conservation of momentum is a consequence of translational symmetry. In the parity and charge conjugation processualization of quantum mechanics, this means that the momentum operator is a translational generator. I assume that this means the following: there is a vector field

E (r ) in a Euclidean vector space,

r is the position vector (both are independent of a coordinate system-> invariant tensors) ON ENERGY FRONT with no reference to matter itself and we have chosen a Cartesian coordinate system in which the {x,y,z} coordinates are measured increasing in a certain direction, resulting in a local (covariant) basis at each point in space.

Thanks for the summary on symmetry. But I have been constantly finding difficulties in defining matter and energy independently of each other.

I did my best to help you ............ As I have usually done ,,,,,,,,,,,,

Thanks....

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

What is Matter

It is difficult to give a straightforward definition to “matter" .................

As mentioned above, matter has been traditionally described as “things that have mass and occupy space”. However, there are several issues with taking this to be a strict definition. For instance, in quantum mechanics there are situations where two particles could technically occupy the same space. On the other hand, there are force-exchange particles that have mass (such as W and Z bosons) which are not often thought of as “matter”. For the purpose of this article, we will consider matter to be things made of quarks and leptons (again, this should not be taken seriously because it potentially excludes dark matter!). Means Dark Matter is a totally different [ invented ] type of matter !!

https://pediaa.com/difference-between-energy-and-matter/#:~:text=These%20concepts%20are%20deep%20and,the%20ability%20to%20do%20work%E2%80%9D.

Very good. Thanks. I am still on this search of being able to define matter and energy either dependent on each other or independently -- even dependent on other notions. Currently I am working out a small document on the Ontology behind Physics. In 1 week or so I will be able to put it up as a discussion session, I think.

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

https://www.researchgate.net/post/LINGUISTIC_HERESY_BEHIND_SELF-ORGANIZATION_SELF-REFERENCE_INTENTIONALITY_PHYSICAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_SELF-INTERACTION_etc

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...

Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...

Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY

Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...

Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY

Preprint Chapter 6. COSMOGENESIS IN QUANTUM COSMOLOGY

Preprint Chapter 9. GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY Part I

Preprint GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (22 pp.) Part II