If anything is physically existent, it can well be considered (1) as matter and energy, because these two are inter-convertible, and (2) as either matter or energy, since these are the two most basic states of physical existents.
But the mass of matter-energy is considered as a quantity, and energy too is considered as a quantity. In these cases, the former manner of considering matter and energy as physical existents is kept away from consideration. Instead, the circumstantially possible measure of matter-energy together is taken as mass, and the circumstantially possible measure of energy alone is considered as energy. Thus, mass and energy may be considered as a pair of quantities too.
How to differentiate these two aspects of doing physical science? How to reconcile them? Note that existent matter and energy as such are not separately and respectively being treated to correspond to the quantitative concepts of mass and energy. We have, as a result, many confusions in physics and in the philosophy of physics. Famously, the difficulty to define mass and energy as quantities might issue from the above discrepancy.
I invite your well-considered viewpoints. Merely holding that physics is such and that we need not ask such questions at all -- such is not the attitude from which the above questions are asked here. Do we have fundamental solutions for these questions?
Raphael Neelamkavil
Quantum mechanics introduced good solutions according to wave function
Thanks, Preston Guynn. I will read this article.
Raphael Neelamkavil
“Matter and Energy are Existents. But Mass and Energy are Quantities! How to differentiate and connect the two pairs?”
- “Matter”, “Energy” , “Inertia”/ “Mass”, “Space” and “Time” [and not only, though] are really fundamental phenomena/notions, which so fundamentally cannot be scientifically defined in mainstream physics and science, including in physics, since in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions are principally transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so, say, in physics to these phenomena/notions/entities/physical objects/parameters, etc.,
- every of which can be scientifically defined only if all phenomena/notions above are scientifically defined, on fundamental level some transcendent/mystic properties and effects are - and fundamentally ad hoc - postulated.
The phenomena/notions above can be, and are already, scientifically defined only in in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- and, concretely relating to Matter, in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, see at least first dozen of pages in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko, thanks. In any case, no philosopher of science will accept your argument that the fundamental concepts of physics should be defined as you seem to insist upon. They will never accept your characterization that other forms of definition are irrational, transcendental, etc. If you really try to understand these terms, including what you call 'transcendental', you will read works in the philosophy of physics. They are, in any manner, not people who enter a transcendent or transcendental world of deities or divinity. Hence, I do not feel good of the comments you have made here.
Raphael Neelamkavil
To help obtain some more clarity on what we discuss here, I think the following discussion will be of use -- especially the question by Richard Marker and my reply:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position
AN ADDITIONAL POINT: ANYTHING EXISTENT AND ITS PARTS TOO ARE IN EXTENSION-CHANGE. HENCE, EVERY QUANTUM OF ENERGY, WHEN IN PROPAGATION, IS OF SOME NEAR-INFINITESIMAL AMOUNT OF EXTENSION AND CHANGE. AT NO POINT WILL IT HAVE ZERO OR INFINITE EXTENSION AND CHANGE, and hence at no point infinite or zero mass:
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.
A solid discussion is taking place here:
Criteria to Differentiate between Virtuals and Existents in Scientific Theories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories
See the discussion on the stuff of information:
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).
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.
I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.
Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations 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. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!
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
For further discussions on concepts related to Gravitation, Extension-Change Categories, General Theory of Relativity, Unobservables, etc., you may consult also:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruth-Castillo-6
Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.
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...
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 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
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/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 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
Ontological Universals, Virtual Worlds, and Linguistics: I create detailed concepts of universals as the inner constitution of what many thinkers and scientists have termed in a mutually confusing manner as universal, quality, and property. I define quality and property in terms of universals of three types. The basic type is ontological universals, but these are not meant in its traditional use of classifying the substance of entities with or devoid of accidents.
Ontological universals are the pure ways of being of beings, which (the ways) conglomerate and give rise to properties. Qualities, when meant in their ontological purity too are taken here as ontological universals. Hence, concepts like ‘tiger’, ‘man’, etc. are not ontological universals.
First of all, they are denotative terms with their conceptually pure connotative part in presupposedly pure consciousness. Denotative universals have their conceptual ingredients, i.e., the pure connotative universals, which are pure mental reflections of ontological universals. Denotative universals are either actual concepts (connotatives plus brain elements) in minds or linguistic terms or words (connotatives plus linguistic elements) in language. Actual tiger, man, etc. are token entities within the natural kinds termed tigers, humans, etc., classified under certain properties, not under universals.
These properties are what many analytic and scientific thinkers today term qualia. Some mean the perceptual or conceptual occurrences, some the linguistic terms, some their instantiations in existent processes, and some a mixture of some or all of them! This is a highly confused state in philosophy – in my opinion, causing much wastage of journal and monograph pages, as will be shown in Chapter --.
Thus, to achieve clarity briefly, a star consists of many indivisible ontological universals and the matter-energy proper to it. The latter in its totality alone does not make it a token in the natural kind. Each ontological universal in a star’s common property is present as a common pure quality in all the members of the star as a type. By reason of the property (not the ontological universal) in all tokens, the natural kind may be characterized to be a natural set under the pertinent set (property) of pure ways of being termed ontological universals.
Thus, a star as a token in a natural kind has many universals plus the finite matter-energy process involved. Anything denoted other than existents and their directly pertinent ontological universals may be termed perceptions, imaginations, emotions, thoughts, truths, quasi-truths, falsities, theories, etc. In this capacity as denotable but non-existent, these realities have existent counterparts that are not identifiable with the imaginations, emotions, etc.
These may variously be termed virtual worlds of various kinds in that they, in their concatenative nature, represent most of the time the states of affairs within the world or its parts. These are not the same as existent worlds or their directly pertinent pure “ontological universals”.
It is the work of science in general and of the science of verbs, nouns, and attributes to define and describe the primary nature of and connection with Reality-in-total, of what are termed perceptions, imaginations, emotions, thoughts, truths, quasi-truths, falsities, theories, etc.
Since these are not existent like things, but represent existent worlds in a theoretical manner, they may in general be termed virtual worlds – some of them with more conceptual representation capacity with respect to their objects outside the minds, and others with least representation capacity that reduces them to mere virtuals.
As regards the Causality in them, their matter-energy-type processual counterparts alone are causal. Language is a way of making least virtual and highly virtual worlds; although the occurrences of language and the virtual worlds in concepts are causal and are not themselves virtual worlds. In the present work I attempt to base universal-causally these virtual worlds in existent worlds.
- Badges
- Science topic