RE: Where spirituality and science meet

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Where spirituality and science meet

View the full context

lemouth (72)in #science • 7 years ago

There are similarities. But this should stop there. Pushing the comparison further is in my opinion ill-defined. You are indeed mixing many things that are not supposed to be mixed. Quantum field theory does not apply to macroscopic objects, like apples to quote your example.

Note that the relation between mass and energy you mention is also wrong. It only works for massive objects at rest.

Finally:

In this time, the matter has disappeared. In neo-physics, there is no unity called matter. The deeper the physicist entered the world of matter, the less matter was found.

4% of the universe is made of visible matter. There is thus matter. Your statement contradicts science...

7 years ago in #science by lemouth (72)

Sort:

n3bul4 (62) 7 years ago

Hey @lemouth, the apple was just an example for a particle, which is observed, to describe it for people who are absolutely not familiar with quantum fields etc. It was not meant to be applied to macroscopic objects, but more to explain, that only with measurement/observation we are able to see the properties.

Do you have any references for E=mc² only being valid for massive objects at rest? It's the first time I hear about this. Was Einstein wrong?

This is what Einstein once said about it:

I didn't write: "E=mc²". I wrote: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radioation, its mass diminishes by L/c²... the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content." To be fair though, they are both different ways of saying the same thing.

Finally, I was talking about neo-physics, where there is no matter at all:

There is no such thing as "matter" - matter is a curvature of the space-time continuum. What we considered to be a planet with its own gravitational field moving around the sun in an orbit created by the gravitational attraction (force) of the sun is actually a pronounced curvature of the space-time continuum finding its easiest path through the space-time continuum in the vicinity of a very pronounced curvature of the space-time continuum. There is nothing but space-time and motion and they, in effect, are the same thing.

Source: Neo-Classical Physics or Quantum Mechanics?: A New Theory of Physics

$0.00

[-]

lemouth (72) 7 years ago

Einstein didn't said E=mc^2. He actually said E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, where p is the momentum. The momentum vanishes for particles at rest and we get the famous E=mc^2.

$0.07

1 vote

[-]