P.D. Allen's Blog, page 53

February 10, 2012

Jig

Quantum Meditation #627

View more on P.D. Allen's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 10, 2012 06:34

February 9, 2012

We talk about its importance, we classify it into different types and we use it in virtually everything we do. But what really is energy? It is vital. We talk about how our industrial civilization will collapse simply because we don't have enough of it. Nothing can live without it. If energy is so fundamentally important, then wouldn't it serve us well to define it and come to some basic understanding about its nature? Yet, to my knowledge, in all the many books and articles about energy depletion and alternative energy, nobody has ever done this. So let's remedy the situation right now.

In physics, energy is defined not as a substance but as an ability. Energy is the ability to do work. It is an abstraction. But it is quantified and treated as a substance. So right from the start, our basic definition for energy does not lend itself to understanding, but instead intensifies our quandary. How can we hope to understand a verb that poses as a noun (but is not formed as a gerund)? Perhaps it would help if we looked at the history of how our concept of energy developed.

Western History of Energy

Etymology of energy—from the French énergie, which was derived from the Late Latin energia, which was in turn derived from the Greek word energiea and energo: en meaning in or at, and ergon meaning work; en + ergon = at work. In Epic Greek, meant 'divine action' or 'magical operation'.

Humans first learned to control fire about 1 million BC. Around 1200 BC, the Polynesians learned to use wind energy to propel their boats, through the use of sails. Magnetic energy was first discovered by the Chinese about 5,000 years ago. And about 1000 BC, the Chinese found coal and started using it as a fuel. It wasn't until 1275 that Marco Polo introduced coal to the western world after his travels to China. Western civilization, where our scientific definition of energy evolved, had a slow start at studying energy.

The concept of energy has its beginnings in Greek philosophy, though it was never fully defined. Like the Hundus and the Taoists, the ancient Greek philosophers believed that true reality (noumenon) was hidden by apparent reality (phenomenon). The question then arises: what is this true reality? There were a variety of answers which ranged between two extremes, which in turn gave birth to two schools of philosophy: materialism and idealism. According to materialism, this true reality is physical, made up of matter and energy. According to idealists, the basis of true reality is mental or spiritual, and it is constructed of ideas, ideals and feelings. For the moment, we will concern ourselves with materialism because it is this branch of philosophy that gave birth to science and our basic concept of energy. But, as we shall see, this argument is far from settled.

There was no early concept of energy. The closest thing to energy was fire, one of the four basic elements (earth, wind, fire and water). About 2500 years ago, the Greek philosopher Thales (624-526) discovered electric energy by rubbing fur against a piece of amber. Thales believed that everything in the universe was alive and that even stones and dirt had a soul. He believed that his experiment revealed the soul within the fur and the amber.

Heraclitus (540-475) believed that fire was the ultimate substance that unifies all reality. His most famous saying translates as: "All things flow; nothing abides." So, for him, change was the only constant. In his theory, fire is associated with mind and spirit, so it could be said that his philosophy embraced both the materialist and the idealist. Heraclitus believed that the ultimate reality was One, but the perceived world was built of duality with each pole requiring its opposite. Up requires down, in requires out, black requires white, etc. These oppositions, in Heraclitus's vision, were the source of harmony.

Though only a sentence or two of his actual teachings remains, Leucippus (fl. c. 440) is the man who invented the ideas of the atom, empty space, and cause and effect. His student, Democritus (460-370), developed these concepts into a complete philosophy. Democritus believed everything was made of atoms. Even the mind or soul was composed of round, smooth atoms similar to the atoms he supposed were the building blocks of fire.

The schism between materialism and idealism came to a head in the philosophies of Plato and his student Aristotle. Plato believed that ultimate reality was founded upon ideas and external forms that were knowable only through reflection and reason. Aristotle believed the basis of ultimate reality lay in physical objects, knowable through experience. Aristotle believed that all things were composed of a potential (its matter) and a reality (its form). Whether due to his position as Alexander the Great's teacher, his founding of the Lyceum, the survival of his writings, or the fact that his studies covered every possible subject available, Aristotle's philosophy became the dominant school of philosophy. He set the stage for what would develop into the empirical scientific method, and is considered to be the father of western science. Aristotle employed the term energos as a synonym for actuality or reality. But in all of his studies, he did not examine the nature of energy.

Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (c. 90 – c. 30) used the Greek word to denote the force of an engine, but he offered no further details. For a long time it was generally understood that energy was behind all changes. Over time, the concept of energy came to embrace the potential for change as well as change itself.

The concept of energy began to evolve in the 1600s with the exploration of the phenomena of heat and combustion. Francis Bacon (1561-1626) suggested that heat was related to motion. Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) dealt with the concepts of energy and heat in relation to his other work, but never tackled them directly. He developed the three fundamental laws of motion without ever addressing energy.

Newton's Laws

The 1st law states that a body that is not being pushed or pulled by some force will stay still, or will keep moving in a straight line at a steady speed. The tendency of a body to remain still, or to move in a straight line at a steady speed is called inertia.
The 2nd Law states that an object accelerates in the direction that a force is moving it. Force = mass x acceleration, f = ma.
The 3rd Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Note that nowhere in the Laws of Motion does energy enter directly into the picture. The laws are discussed in terms of mass (a fundamental property that measures the amount of matter an object contains; mass differs from weight because it is independent of the gravitational field exerted upon an object), force (a vector quantity defined in the equation of the 2nd Law) and acceleration (the second derivative of position, the change in velocity over time). The Three Laws of Motion are supplemented by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: every mass attracts every other mass in direct proportion to the product of the masses but inverse proportion to the square of the distance between the masses. The greater the mass the greater the attraction; but the greater the distance, the weaker the attraction by an order of magnitude.

The invention of steam engines spurred the development of formulas and concepts through which engineers could describe their systems thermally and mathematically. Over time, engineers and mathematicians developed the idea that the ability to move an object over a distance, called work, was related to the amount of energy in the system. There was a longstanding debate, however, about the nature of energy. There were, one the one hand, those who believed energy was a substance, and on the other, those who believed it was a physical quality.

Christiaan Huygens (1626-1695) was the first to develop the terminology of energy. He stated that energy is not like matter; it does not have size, shape or occupy space, and it does not have inertia. Instead, he defined energy as a measure of the ability of a physical system to do work. There the definition of energy stood for some time, while investigators worked on the phenomenon of heat and combustion.

In the late 17th century, J.J. Becher (1635-1682) developed the Phlogiston Theory. He believed that all combustible materials contained phlogiston (from the Greek philogistos, meaning combustible), a substance without any of the normal physical properties such as weight, color, odor, or taste. Combustion was the liberation of phlogistan from an object. A combustible substance was considered to be phlogisticated. Once all of the phlogiston was released by combustion, the resulting substance was dephlogisticated and was considered to be in its true form, the calx.

The Phlogiston Theory was successfully refuted by Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794), the father of modern chemistry. In its place, Lavoisier erected the Caloric Theory. This theory held that the substance of heat was a subtle fluid called a caloric. This substance was thought to flow from warmer to colder bodies. The quantity of caloric was held to be constant throughout the universe. The caloric theory was very consistent, it incorporated the atomic theory of the day, and it could explain both combustion and calorimetry (the heat in chemical reactions). The concept of the conservation of heat was a central assumption of the Caloric Theory. Incidentally, Lavoisier was beheaded during the French Revolution due to his position in the pre-revolution government.

The Caloric Theory was extremely successful and dominated thermodynamics for a long time. The Carnot cycle, which to this very day forms the basis of heat engine theory, was developed from the Caloric Theory by Nicolas Léonid Sadi Carnot (1796-1832). Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) used the Caloric Theory to correct Sir Isaac Newton's pulse equation. Into this equation, he added a constant that we refer to today as the adiabatic index of a gas. This addition corrected the theoretical prediction of the speed of sound.

Another theory that was proposed about the same time as the Caloric Theory was Daniel Bernoulli's (1700-1782) Kinetic Theory of Gases. The Kinetic Theory explained the phenomenon of heat as well as other properties of gases such as pressure and volume. Previously, the leading explanation of these properties had been Newton's conjecture that pressure was due to static repulsion between molecules. Bernoulli proposed that pressure, temperature and volume were macroscopic phenomena resulting from the microscopic collisions between molecules moving about with a certain velocity. At the time, this theory was considered to be equivalent to the Caloric Theory.

Count Rumford (1753-1814) was the first person to refute the Caloric Theory. During the manufacture of cannons, he observed that boring a cannon repeatedly does not result in a loss of its ability to produce heat, and thus no loss of caloric. He contended that heat, instead of the physical caloric, was a form of motion. The reception of his idea was very hostile. Many in the scientific community dismissed his explorations because of experimental inconsistencies. Others stated that his findings presented no threat to the Caloric Theory because his ideas were identical to the Kinetic Theory.

Rumford's experiments led to the work of James Joule (1818-1889) and others. Joule discovered the relationship of heat to mechanical work, which led to the Theory of the Conservation of Energy. The Caloric Theory was absorbed into modern physics after Rudolf Clausius (1822-1888) demonstrated that it was consistent with the theories of Joules and others if the calorist's principle of the conservation of heat was replaced by the principle of conservation of energy. The caloric soon fell by the wayside, remembered only in the unit of heat, the calorie.

Largely due to the work of Joule, Clausius, and Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), the Caloric Theory and the Kinetic Theory evolved into modern thermodynamics. Clausius formalized the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as originally proposed by Carnot. And in 1865, he introduced the concept of entropy. Lord Kelvin helped to unify the emerging discipline of physics into its modern form.

The Classic Definition of Energy

Out of all of this emerged the classical definition of energy as the ability to do work, and the mathematical definition equivalent to work where energy = force x distance (e = fd). In mathematical terms, force is a vector. Vectors are quantities that have a magnitude and a direction; they are represented by arrows. Distance is a scalar, a quantity characterized by a single numerical value. When you multiply a vector by a scalar, the result is another vector. Therefore, energy is a vector; it possesses a magnitude and a direction.

Substituting Newton's Second Law (f = ma) for force in the energy equation, we have e = mad, which is the mathematical definition of kinetic energy. Thus, when a mass is moved over a distance, work is performed and the energy necessary to do that work is directly proportional to the mass, the acceleration of the movement, and the distance. And, yes it is enough to drive one mad. In all of this, one feels that there is still something missing in the attempt to understand what energy actually is. It is very tempting to step back from the western definition of energy and take a look at the eastern perspective.

The Eastern Perspective: Prana and Qi

The concept of Prana was developed early on in Hinduism. In the Upanishads, prana is identified as the source of all energy. It suffuses all living form, sustains the body and is the mother of thought. The Prasña Upanishad sings praises to prana, claiming it to be the vital source behind all manifestation. Prana is placed within the physical realm, so that it is a part of Maya (illusion) and the shadow of Brahmin (the true, unitary self).

Prana is believed to circulate within the body through its own circulatory system of channels called nadis. Prana can be subdivided into five subcategories, each of which sustains vital processes within the body. These are:

Prana: motivates the respiratory and circulatory systems. It is taken in with breath and is sent to every cell by the circulatory system.
Apana: responsible for the elimination of wastes through the lungs and excretory systems.
Udana: produces sound through the vocal cords. It also represents the conscious energy necessary to produce language and imbue sounds with linguistic meaning.
Samana: motivates digestion and cell metabolism. It also motivates the heat regulating processes of the human body. Auras are considered to be a projection of this current.
Vyana: motivates the voluntary muscular system.

In India, various methods of yoga were developed to move these forms of prana through the body and keep them in balance, thus maintaining the health of the body, spirit and mind. The efficacy of these various yoga practices has been studied by western science but never adequately explained without referring to Hindu philosophy.

Contrary to western schools of knowledge, in China the concept of Qi or Chi dates back to the earliest recorded times and is very important within all Chinese philosophies, although their descriptions of qi are sometimes in conflict. Qi is most commonly viewed as air or breath; it is the life force or spiritual energy that is a part of everything that exists. The qi ideogram is composed of two figures, one meaning steam and the other meaning rice; which is translated as the steam from the rice as it cooks. This is interpreted to mean the link between matter and energy, which are said to be different states of the same fundamental substance.

Among the various Chinese philosophies, there is a debate as to whether qi exists separate from matter, whether matter arises from qi, or whether qi arises from matter. Neo-Confucians believe the latter, that qi arises from the properties of matter. Taoists tend toward the opposite belief, while they debate among themselves whether qi is independent of matter. Most Buddhists also believe that matter arises from qi, while maintaining that matter is illusion.

Traditional Chinese medicine asserts that the body has natural patterns of qi that flow through channels called meridians in English. When the flow of qi is imbalanced, when there are blockages or disruptions, then illness results. Chinese medicine attempts to adjust the flow of qi in order to correct imbalances. Over time, a variety of techniques have developed toward this end, including Qi-Gong, Chinese herbology, special diets, and acupuncture.

Traditional Chinese martial arts have also made a science of studying the flow of qi, either in the motions between two or more opponents as in the external arts, or in an effort to concentrate qi internally and then direct it either in combat or to ensure proper health, as in the internal arts. The external martial arts are exemplified by Karate and Judo, while the internal martial arts are exemplified by T'ai Chi and some forms of Kung Fu.

Attempts have been made to link qi to some phenomenon of western science. Most recently, there are efforts to identify qi with biophotons and interior energy flow. Most scientists are dubious of these links and remain skeptical of qi altogether. The success of various techniques for working with qi are generally attributed to the placebo effect, though this explanation seems to stretch rather thin.

The effectiveness of Qi-Gong, T'ai Chi, Chinese herbology and acupuncture cannot be denied. While true masters of the internal martial arts are rare, enough have been observed and demonstrations of their abilities have even videotaped to back up their assertions. The best of these examples cannot be explained through western science.

Those who scoff at these eastern concepts of energy should keep in mind that Indian and Chinese civilization achieved a high level of advancement while western civilization was still in its infancy. As stated earlier, the Chinese discovered magnetic energy and the uses of coal long before western civilization. Those who find fault in linking energy to breath would do well to study the biological process of metabolism. Oxygen is the most vital substance for maintaining life; without it we would die in a matter of minutes. Through respiration, we bring oxygen into our body, where it is picked up by hemoglobin to oxidize food and then transport energy to every cell in the body where it can be transformed into useful energy by ADP/ATP.

Relatively Speaking

The 20th century saw a revolution in physics that is still changing the way we perceive the world. This revolution came about because of problems with classical Newtonian physics. Scientists found that Newtonian physics breaks down when discussing bodies traveling at extremely high speeds, the energy of bodies at rest, and the behavior of the atom. In attempting to correct Newton's laws of motion and gravity, physicists found an entirely new view of reality.

The first major breakthrough was Einstein's famous equation: E = mc2. Einstein derived this famous equation while he was working on his special theory of relativity. Einstein was attempting to explain the dynamics of bodies traveling at high speeds. The theory of relativity is based upon two postulates. The first is Galileo's principle of relativity, which states that regardless of an observer's position or velocity in the universe all physical laws will appear constant. The second postulate states that the speed of light is a constant independent of the motion of the light source.

The theory replaces Newtonian notions of space and time and incorporates Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Maxwell's equations had led some physicists in the late 19th century to propose that the universe was filled with aether: a substance that transmitted electromagnetic waves. In contradiction to Galileo's principle of relativity (which can be interpreted to mean that there is no stationary reference point), aether was thought to be the only fixed and motionless thing in the universe, providing an absolute frame of reference against which speeds could be measured. The idea of aether resulted in a number of paradoxes. For example, experimentation indicated that the Earth would have to be stationary with regard to aether, though we know that the Earth is in orbit around the sun. This dilemma was resolved by rejecting the notion of aether and accepting Einstein's postulates. The speed of light is the only constant; all else is relative.

The theory was termed "special" because it applies the principle of relativity to a simplified model, where Newton's 1st and 2nd laws of motion are valid. Furthermore, this model is designed in flat space-time—that is the three dimensions of space combined with one dimension of time. The simplified model allows the effects of gravity to be ignored. Special relativity depends on a special reference frame—a point in space at rest or in uniform motion, from which position can be measured along three spatial axes (horizontal, vertical, and depth). Time can also be measured by a clock stationed or moving with the reference frame.

Examination of the special theory allows for very consistent results, yet predicts certain phenomena that would appear to be paradoxical and counterintuitive without knowledge of the special theory of relativity. Indeed, far from the quaint world of classical physics, we find ourselves in a place more akin to Lewis Carroll's wonderland, where relativity to the observer can lead to apparent differences in observation. Among these relative paradoxes are

Time Dilation — where the passage of time is dependent upon the relative speed of the observer's reference frame. This is known as the twin paradox, where one sibling travels in a ship at near the speed of light, returning to find that his or her twin has aged much more rapidly.
Lack of Absolute Simultaneity — events that appear to occur simultaneously to one observer may not be so to another observer.
Lorentz Contraction — the dimensions of an object as measured by one observer may not be the same as the dimensions measured by another observer.
Mass and Momentum — when gaining momentum, the apparent mass of an object will increase, as will the energy.

All of these phenomenon are fully explained and predicted by the special theory of relativity. The theory shows that space and time are interrelated and are dependent upon the reference point of the observer. Likewise, the last paradox mentioned above is possible because mass, momentum and energy are all different aspects of the same physical quantity. Working through the special theory of relativity, Einstein derived the equation E = mc2. (Actually, he originally wrote the equation in the form m = L/c2: the change in mass is equal to energy divided by the speed of light squared.)

This equation applies to a body at rest, in opposition to Newtonian mechanics. In Newtonian mechanics, it was held that a body at rest had no kinetic energy. It might have small amounts of stored chemical or thermal energy, and potential energy due to its position in a field of force (such as gravity). But it would have no kinetic energy; that is the energy a body possesses and a result of its motion, measured as the work required to accelerate a body from rest to its current velocity.

Einstein's equation, often referred to as the rest energy of a body, demonstrated that when a body has a mass (measured at rest), it possesses a large amount of energy associated with this mass. This equation means that if a mass disappears (as in a nuclear fission reaction) a specific amount of energy must appear in some other form (such as heat and light). Furthermore, the amount of energy is very large for each unit of matter, large by a factor of c2 (c = 299,792,458 meters per second).

Einstein's equation tells us that rest mass is proportional to energy by the proportion of the speed of light times itself. This equation makes mass and energy interchangeable. Rest mass is a form of energy. Energy is measured in joules; it is the measure of moving a weight a certain distance over time (the base units of a joule are kg · m2/s2, where kg is kilograms, m is meters and s is seconds). If you ask a high energy physicist what is the mass of an electron, you will be told that it is about 8.199 x 10-14 joules. In other words, mass is measured in units of energy!

The Quantum Conundrum

Though his theories of relativity (particularly the Theory of General Relativity) are held separate from quantum mechanics, Einstein was one of physicists and mathematicians whose work led to the development of quantum mechanics. Among other contributors were Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, John von Neumann, Paul Dirac, and Wolfgang Pauli. In fact, Einstein disagreed with some of the basic premises of quantum mechanics such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He is quoted as saying that "God does not play dice."

Quantum mechanics explains atomic phenomena where Newtonian mechanics fails. For instance, according to Newtonian mechanics, electrons should not be capable of orbiting around the nucleus of an atom. They should fly into the nucleus of the atom and collide. Instead, we observe that in the natural world, electrons maintain stable orbits around the nucleus (until we examine large and unstable radioactive elements).

While quantum mechanics is entirely consistent with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, this is not the case with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. The Theory of General Relativity is a much more elaborate description of nature than special relativity. General relativity incorporates gravity into the picture. Quantum mechanics is a theory of very small phenomena, while general relativity is a theory of very large phenomena. Since their inception, it has been a major goal of physics to combine the two into one grand unified theory of nature. While there have been great strides in this direction, physicists have not yet managed to derive a unified theory. One major obstacle is that the energies and conditions at which quantum gravity effects are likely to come into play are inaccessible to our current technology. So the scientists working on this problem are unable to make experimental observations that would provide clues as to how to combine the two.

Before we begin discussing quantum mechanics, let us first define the term quantum. Quantum is derived from the Latin adjective (quantus, quanta, quantum in masculine, feminine and neutral form, respectively) meaning how much or how many. It is defined as the smallest indivisible unit of a given quantity or quantifiable phenomenon. The term was introduced in physics by Max Planck in 1900 and was reinforced by Einstein in 1905. The term quantum theory was first recorded in 1912, and the term quantum mechanics was first used in 1922.

Quantum mechanics explains four classes of phenomena for which classical physics cannot account:

The quantization of certain physical quantities: Quantization is the process of converting a continuous phenomenon or range of values into discrete units. It was first used by Max Planck to measure the energy of a wave. Using the frequency of a wave to define energy, Max Planck discovered a constant (called Planck's constant) that when multiplied by the frequency of any wave gives the energy of the wave. This measurement breaks a wave into discrete packets of energy that resemble particles. The energy has been quantized.
Wave-particle duality: Microscopic objects such as atoms have been shown, under certain conditions, to exhibit particle-like behavior, in the sense of an object that can be localized to a particular position in space. Under other conditions, the same microscopic object will exhibit wave-like behavior, suggesting a disturbance that travels through some medium (such as space or matter) having amplitude and frequency, and transporting energy. We can only observe this object as either a particle or a wave, never both at the same time.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: We can never measure the position and momentum of a microscopic object precisely. If we define the object's position precisely, then the object's momentum can only be weakly constrained, and vice versa. We cannot simultaneously find the position and the momentum of an object. Because of this, we cannot predict where a microscopic object will be with 100% certainty. We can only define a probability cloud that will show where the particle is likely to be found.
Quantum Entanglement: In certain cases when the wavefunction of a system of particles cannot be separated into independent wave functions, the particles are said to be entangled. Quantum entanglement leads to many remarkable properties. For instance, through the collapse of the wavefunction, manipulation of one particle can instantaneously affect all of the particles that are entangled, even if they are far apart.

In quantum physics, the instantaneous state of a system is observed by measuring the probabilities of its measurable properties (energy, position, momentum, angular momentum, etc.). These properties are not given a definite assigned value; they are instead given a probability distribution. Let us consider the example of a free particle. Due to wave-particle duality, this particle can be described as a wave of arbitrary shape extending over all of space. Such a description would be called a wavefunction. The observable measurements of this wavefunction are position and momentum. However, position and momentum cannot both be known precisely at the same time. We can measure the position precisely with a wavefunction that is large at a certain position and zero elsewhere. A property with a definite value is called an eigenstate; so here we have an eigenstate of position. But if the particle is in an eigenstate of position, then its momentum will be completely unknown. Or if the free particle is in an eigenstate of momentum defined by a plane wave, then its position will be an indeterminate blur.

Normally, the system will not be in an eigenstate, but rather a probability distribution. However, when we make an observation of a property, the system will immediately undergo a process of wavefunction collapse and the wavefunction will become an eigenstate of that property. Our free particle can be described by a wavefunction centered around some mean value that is neither an eigenstate of position or momentum. It is impossible for us to predict with certainty the result when we measure the particle's position. It is most likely, but not certain, that the position will coincide with the value where the amplitude of the wavefunction is the largest. But when we perform the measurement, obtaining the resulting value, the wavefunction collapses into an eigenstate of position centered at that value.

It is the observer or the act of measurement that determines the exact value of the system's properties. The observer has a direct effect on the phenomenon being observed. This does away with the myth of the impartial observer. In this sense, quantum physics spells the end of objectivity. The universe is subjective; any appearance of objectivity is an illusion. On the other hand, while classical physics is completely deterministic, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics makes a little room for free will.

There have been many attempts to explain away this observer interaction and wavefunction collapse. Perhaps the most successful attempt has been the relative state interpretation formulated in 1957 by Hugh Everett while he was a student at Princeton. Everett proposed that for a composite system (such as the system formed by a particle interacting with a measuring apparatus) the subsystems' states are entangled. An observation or measurement of an object by an observer is modeled by applying the wave equation to the entire system comprising the observer and the object. No longer does the observer stand apart from the experiment; now the audience is an essential part of the performance. Every subsystem must be considered relative to all of the other subsystems with which it has interacted.

One consequence of relative state interpretation is that every observation causes the observer/object's wavefunction to change into a quantum superposition of two or more non-interacting branches. Because numerous observations have happened and are happening all the time, there is a virtually infinite and growing number of simultaneously existing states. This is why Everett's relative states interpretation is often called the many worlds interpretation.

In this interpretation there is no collapse of the wavefunction. All possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus and the observer exist in a real, physical quantum superposition—a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems. The probability cloud is the full physical description of the phenomenon. The result is a constantly expanding multiverse containing all probabilities. Taken in totality, the multiverse is deterministic. But we inhabit an apparently nondeterministic world governed by probabilities because we can only observe this universe—this consistent state contribution to the superposition.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), these parallel universes will never be physically accessible to us, according to the Theory of Quantum Decoherence. This is because once a measurement has been made, the measured system becomes entangled with a nearly infinite number of other systems, including the observer, all of which are in flux and immediately move on to other states of interrelationship. In order to prove the wave function did not collapse, you would have to reassemble all of these systems into the same state of interrelationship they held at the moment of observation. Even if this could be done, to do so would destroy any evidence that the original measurement took place, including the observer's memory.

This cursory examination of quantum mechanics has taken us rather far afield from the subject of our original enquiry: what is energy? However, as shown by Einstein's special theory of relativity, mass is equated with energy. Mass is the measure of the amount of matter a physical object contains. As we have seen, the mass of subatomic particles is measured in terms of units of energy. In broaching the topic of subatomic particles, we need some understanding of quantum mechanics. Likewise, energy moves through waves and, as Max Planck first observed, the frequency of a wave can be used to measure energy. This measurement then breaks down the wave into the first recognized quantum wave-particles. So the most discrete packages of energy possess the properties of a wave and a particle, and their state is dependent on the act of observation. Now we are approaching the whole underpinning of matter.

Subatomic Particles and Beyond

The Greek philosopher Leucippus (fl. c. 440) first conceived of the atom as the smallest, indivisible unit of matter. Today we define the atom as the smallest unit of an element that retains all of the chemical characteristics of that element. Atoms are the building blocks of matter, but they are not indivisible. Atoms are built of protons, neutrons and electrons. Most of the mass of an atom is made up of protons and neutrons, which are clustered together in the nucleus of the atom. Around the nucleus, the much smaller electrons orbit in a probability cloud defined by what can be loosely interpreted as orbitals or valence shells. Protons and neutrons are themselves made up of quarks, while electrons are a single subatomic particle of their own.

Below the levels of atoms, protons and neutrons, we arrive at a series of subatomic particles that are termed the elementary particles. These are the most fundamental particles; they are not known to have substructure. There are two classes of elementary particles: fermions and bosons. They are classified by their spin, as measured by their angular momentum.

Angular momentum is a measurement of the extent to which, and the direction in which, an object spins about its own internal reference point. The Earth has an angular momentum as it rotates about its axis. All elementary particles have a spin. Furthermore, all elementary particles possess either half-integer spin or integer spin, measured in multiples of Planck's constant (remember, Planck's constant is a measure of energy over time). Those particles having half-integer spin are classified as fermions, and are the fundamental particles associated with matter. Those particles that have integer spin are classified as bosons, and are associated with fundamental forces (electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction and gravity).

There are twelve flavours of fermions that are subdivided by the Theory of Quantum Chromodymanics (commonly known as the color force) into six quarks and six leptons. Quarks interact via the color force; leptons do not. Here we will only concern ourselves with the particles which build the atoms.

Quarks are the building blocks of protons and neutrons. Protons are composed of two up quarks (termed up because they have a positive charge of +2/3 of an elementary charge), and one down quark (termed down because it has a negative charge of -1/3 of an elementary charge). The combined charges of the quarks (2/3 + 2/3 – 1/3) gives the proton one positive elementary charge. Neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks (2/3 – 1/3 – 1/3) for an elementary charge of zero (thus the name neutron).

The only lepton of major concern to us in our discussion of the atom is the electron. Electrons are a single elementary particle unto themselves. They have a negative elementary charge of -1. We might also mention neutrinos, which are leptons that are emitted when a neutron decays into a proton and an electron.

The other major class of elementary particles is the bosons, which have an integer spin. Unlike fermions, bosons can share the same quantum state. It is this ability that allows lasers and masers to operate. According to modern quantum mechanics, the fundamental interactions (excluding gravity) are explained in terms of mediators. Fermions do not interact with each other directly, but rather carry a charge and exchange virtual particles: gauge bosons. These gauge bosons are the interaction carriers or mediators.

The gluon is the mediator of the strong (nuclear) interaction, W and Z bosons are the mediators of the weak (nuclear) interaction, photons are the mediators for electromagnetic interaction. It is widely held that in a theory of quantum gravity, gravitational interaction would be carried out by a boson known as a graviton. However, as of this writing, gravitons remain hypothetical, unobserved particles. An additional boson, termed the Higgs boson, is predicted by the Electroweak Theory, but has not been observed as of yet. The Higgs boson would be responsible for particles having intrinsic mass.

The bosons are sometimes thought of as the fundamental quanta of energy. However, as charge and angular momentum are properties of bosons, it would seem that they possess energy and are not the most fundamental form of energy. Energy, it would seem, remains an ability of the boson. Unfortunately, here our enquiry strains the limits of modern science. It has been suggested that there are particles even more fundamental than fermions and bosons, but the simplest models for these particles have not held up under experimentation.

Science is not entirely satisfied with the Standard Model of subatomics. While it has proven to be fully consistent with experimental evidence, the Standard Model is simply not neat enough for many physicists. On top of this, there is the non-observation of the Higgs boson and the problem of incorporating gravity into the theory. Several theories have been suggested to correct problems with the Classical Model. The strongest current contenders are Supersymmetry and String Theory. While both of these theories (and a crossbred Superstring Theory) have won a lot of support, neither one has been hammered out sufficiently to replace the Standard Model as of yet. The most advanced technology in existence is not quite up to the task of testing the predictions of these theories. But perhaps one day physicists will succeed in bringing gravity into the quantum fold. And maybe this new theory will shed a little more light onto the nature of energy.

Really Now, What is Energy?

Idle Speculation

Modern physics has found that mass is equivalent to energy. It has learned that the quantum units of matter are wave-particles, which only have substance when they interact with an observer. Finally, we find that the atoms are built of electromagnetically charged particles of energy that exist in a probability cloud that encompasses a virtual infinity of parallel universes. Here physics has paused to catch its breath and await the next advance that will take it entirely beyond the realm of matter.

It would appear that our entire world of matter is composed out of energy (which we define as an ability) and space. Matter is a choreographed dance of being and nothingness, pulsing through a wonderland of multiverses. But if we continue to break down these subatomic particles into smaller and smaller units, what will we find when we reach that most fundamental unit, beyond which there is nothing?

What would the most elemental unit of an energy particle be? What else could it be but a unit of existence. The most fundamental unit in the multiverse would have to be a unit of existence. What is more basic than existence? What is beyond existence? Nothing. It either exists or it doesn't.

Being and nothingness. Both are inseparably intertwined. Each is defined by the other. The measure of existence is nonexistence, and the measure of nonexistence is existence. It is the original binary code out of which is assembled the entire multiverse. Can nothingness exist without awarensss?

The big bang was the birth of existence. What came before it? Nothing. One infinitely minute fraction of a second of nonexistence that could not exist upon its own, but existed to give definition to the birth of existence. And what are the four fundamental forces but the attraction of existence, as everything that exists is connected to the rest of existence.

Living things require energy to continue living. And does this not make sense then? If energy is composed of units of existence, then isn't existence a prerequisite for life? And how else could we define life other than a conscious awareness of existence? We are conscious of our existence, and so we are alive. A rock is not conscious of its existence, so it is not alive. It exists, but it is not alive.

But doesn't existence imply awareness? After all, how could existence be distinguished from nonexistence except through awareness. So perhaps units of existence are not the basic units of energy. Rather, it might be that units of existence are the fundamental units of matter, while units of awareness are the fundamental units of energy. The four fundamental interactions (electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravity) could then be the effect of awareness defining existence from nonexistence.

In this case, everything that exists has an awareness. It could even be said that there are levels of awareness: atomic awareness, molecular awareness, structural awareness. Life, then, would be defined by conscious awareness—sort of a second level awareness of your own awareness. And rational thought could then be termed a tertiary form of awareness: being aware of your own conscious thoughts about awareness. And what would the fourth level of awareness be? Perhaps the conscious awareness of the interaction of all awareness of existence?

And does not existence and awareness imply the right to exist? We humans are still having trouble recognizing the rights of other living creatures and here we are theorizing a whole new right to exist. But isn't it our responsibility as rational thinking, conscious, aware beings to recognize and respect the right of everything to exist? And wouldn't this be the first step toward that fourth level of awareness? If so, then we need to bring about the big bang that will usher in that fourth level of awareness just as soon as possible, before we endanger our own tertiary awareness and our continued existence on this planet.

View more on P.D. Allen's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 09, 2012 09:54