Hi Guys, I have been thinking for a while now on which postulates of Energy is really correct.

Is it that Total Energy is really conservative or non-conservative

Is potential energy real Or is it just an unharvested form of Kinetic Energy which is equal to the Kinetic Energy in motion.

Can the Total Energy really be described just by;.
E = T + U. alone.


All that we do know about Energy starting from the classical view to a Quantum view, are they correct?


AgentofAllah Exciton Chemystery Johnydon22 Teempakguy

darkhorizon:
Hi Guys, I have been thinking for a while now on which postulates of Energy is really correct.

Is it that Total Energy is really conservative or non-conservative

Pretty much all physical laws are predicated on the notion that energy is conserved. This law is supported by every experiment carried out in closed systems. So theoretically, energy is bound to be conserved. But maybe your wonder is about whether the universe is a closed system. Here, the jury is still out, but it has proven useful to assume that it is so far. Such an assumption can adequately answer most of the questions after the fact of energy, but is limited in that it can never tell us if this energy has a source, and what this source may be. Basically, a closed system model is not designed to see beyond itself. Indeed, such systems may naturally exist. For example, picture yourself living inside an opaque bubble floating around. You may never be able to tell if your bubble has always existed, came from a bubble wand or from the soap lather of a very dirty pair of jeans. In that case, you are entitle to probe your bubble universe under the assumption that it is a closed system. You may very well be wrong, but if that assumption is useful during your entire existence, good for you! If not, you'll probably extinct before the bubble pops, so what difference will it make?

Is potential energy real Or is it just an unharvested form of Kinetic Energy which is equal to the Kinetic Energy in motion.

I am not really sure what you mean when you ask if potential energy is real. By definition, potential energy means useful energy that can be, but is not yet put to work (or kinetic energy). I guess the word "potential" conceptually describes what can be attained given any set of parameters. So if you find it useful to define potential energy as "unharvested kinetic energy", then define away. I personally am a philosophical descriptivist, so, while I freely admit that rigidified definitions help the vast majority understand things better, I don't get fixated on them. Conceptual understanding is more important to me.

Can the Total Energy really be described just by;.
E = T + U. alone.

Of course! This is just convention. Those symbols mask the many variables from the potential of the system in question to many-entity (force, matter, states) interactions within that system. It is these variables that permit us to probe if our simplification is all encompassing or not. The question isn't really if total energy is the sum of potential and kinetic, but whether the variables that affect them are wholly accounted for.

All that we do know about Energy starting from the classical view to a Quantum view, are they correct?

I wouldn't go as far as to claim they are correct. They are useful ways to understand our universe (or, at least, the parts of it that are perceptible to us). That said, there are nontrivial conflicts between the trio of classical, relativistic and quantum physics. The existence of these conflicts means our models are either incorrect or incomplete. It would therefore be incredibly presumptuous to claim they are correct. A model that cannot answer all the questions we throw at it cannot be said to be correct.

AgentofAllah

From my independent research I have come to conclude that the Total Energy can also be described as
E = 2T +B where (T is kinetic energy and B is constant of integration) this has quite worked in a few Quantum.systems I have used it for, I am hoping to expand its application.

Also from this result ( E = 2T + B ) I have been able to derive the Planck's energy law ( E = hf )devoid of previous known methods.

The Potential energy(unharvested kinetic energy) I got is equal to the actual Kinetic Energy, hence 2T.

I made three fundamental assumptions to arrive this ;

(1) The Total Energy is non-conservative hence it changes with time ( time derivative exists )
(2). The Total Energy is a function of both position and time ( hence it changes with increase in both )
(3). The Potential energy is constant everywhere.


According to assumption (3) potential wells in QM make the perfect example to test the theory on.

darkhorizon:
AgentofAllah

From my independent research I have come to conclude that the Total Energy can also be described as
E = 2T +B where (T is kinetic energy and B is constant of integration) this has quite worked in a few Quantum.systems I have used it for, I am hoping to expand its application.

Also from this result ( E = 2T + B ) I have been able to derive the Planck's energy law ( E = hf )devoid of previous known methods.

The Potential energy(unharvested kinetic energy) I got is equal to the actual Kinetic Energy, hence 2T.

I hope you've prepared your formulation for publication. I would really like to see how you arrived at this. Please share if already published. If not, I can wait.

Alright, I have a question about your formulation. You say B is a constant of integration, but its unit is a measure of energy, so I guess it should have a physical meaning.

In the standard formulations, including the famous Schrodinger equation, potential energy is usually some form of ground state energy that is an intrinsic property of the system in question. In condensed matter, it can be the time invariant sum of the energy in all existing particles or states in the matter under investigation, for instance. So how would you interpret the physical meaning of your constant? And, is it a universal constant like the speed of light, or is it conditional on specific parameters?

darkhorizon:
AgentofAllah

From my independent research I have come to conclude that the Total Energy can also be described as
E = 2T +B where (T is kinetic energy and B is constant of integration) this has quite worked in a few Quantum.systems I have used it for, I am hoping to expand its application.

Also from this result ( E = 2T + B ) I have been able to derive the Planck's energy law ( E = hf )devoid of previous known methods.

The Potential energy(unharvested kinetic energy) I got is equal to the actual Kinetic Energy, hence 2T.

I made three fundamental assumptions to arrive this ;

(1) The Total Energy is non-conservative hence it changes with time ( time derivative exists )
(2). The Total Energy is a function of both position and time ( hence it changes with increase in both )
(3). The Potential energy is constant everywhere.


According to assumption (3) potential wells in QM make the perfect example to test the theory on.

Okay, I just saw your assumptions, and I'm really eager to see how you arrived at your formulation.

Now I have more questions:
(1) If, in your first assumption, energy is not conserved, how were you able to derive E=hv? This is essentially energy based on the intrinsic properties of a photon. Since the frequency of any given photon is constant, this energy is conserved, hence, photons never experience red/blueshift, unless the observer's frame of reference is non-static. Even then, this is not due to change in frequency, but due to change in relative velocity.

(2) You mentioned that the total energy is a function of position and time in your second assumption. I don't fully understand what you mean. Isn't total energy an integration over all position and time? I mean, that's the meaning of total, right? If your energy varies with position and time it is not total energy anymore, it is just energy or power fluence/density.

(3) You mentioned that potential energy is constant everywhere. I am not sure what potential energy is in your case, since it is in a degenerate state with kinetic energy. In this state, how can you tell that it is constant? I mean, you can't even separate it from kinetic, right?

AgentOfAllah:


I hope you've prepared your formulation for publication. I would really like to see how you arrived at this. Please share if already published. If not, I can wait.

Alright, I have a question about your formulation. You say B is a constant of integration, but its unit is a measure of energy, so I guess it should have a physical meaning.

In the standard formulations, including the famous Schrodinger equation, potential energy is usually some form of ground state energy that is an intrinsic property of the system in question. In condensed matter, it can be the time invariant sum of the energy in all existing particles or states in the matter under investigation, for instance. So how would you interpret the physical meaning of your constant? And, is it a universal constant like the speed of light, or is it conditional on specific parameters?

No not yet published,still in the oven.

The Potential energy is an intrinsic property of the system ( ground state ), I have an hypothesis for the ground state potential tho.

The constant B is more of like an hidden variable which is not inculcated in previous energy equations, when I solved for E = hυ B was equal to zero( B = 0) which i think the general forms of energy we know of B is also equal to zero. So , I wonder what the total energy would be if B<0 or B>0 , I postulate that B<0 may lead to exotic energy(negative energy) but B> 0 I am quite not sure of for now.

AgentOfAllah:


Okay, I just saw your assumptions, and I'm really eager to see how you arrived at your formulation.

Now I have more questions:
(1) If, in your first assumption, energy is not conserved, how were you able to derive E=hv? This is essentially energy based on the intrinsic properties of a photon. Since the frequency of any given photon is constant, this energy is conserved, hence, photons never experience red/blueshift, unless the observer's frame of reference is non-static. Even then, this is not due to change in frequency, but due to change in relative velocity.

(2) You mentioned that the total energy is a function of position and time in your second assumption. I don't fully understand what you mean. Isn't total energy an integration over all position and time? I mean, that's the meaning of total, right? If your energy varies with position and time it is not total energy anymore, it is just energy or power fluence/density.

(3) You mentioned that potential energy is constant everywhere. I am not sure what potential energy is in your case, since it is in a degenerate state with kinetic energy. In this state, how can you tell that it is constant? I mean, you can't even separate it from kinetic, right?

For me to arrive at my result with a non-conservative force, I had to postulate two new physical constants ( one time dependent the other time and position dependent). From the time dependent I was able to derive an expression for the frequency and for the time and position dependent I was able to get momentum.
The rest from there is basic substitution.


The total energy is indeed an integration over all position and time. I didn't time derivative of energy but rather the above as explained.


You can't separate it from kinetic energy, but like I said earlier the potential energy is in form of ground state ( an intrinsic property ) subsequent increase is just an numeral (integral or decimal) multiple of the ground state potential(This is covered in the hypothesis I mentioned on Potential energy).

darkhorizon:

No not yet published,still in the oven.

Okay

The Potential energy is an intrinsic property of the system ( ground state ), I have an hypothesis for the ground state potential tho.

But this is generally well acknowledged, and not particularly original.

The constant B is more of like an hidden variable which is not inculcated in previous energy equations, when I solved for E = hυ B was equal to zero( B = 0) which i think the general forms of energy we know of B is also equal to zero. So , I wonder what the total energy would be if B<0 or B>0 , I postulate that B<0 may lead to exotic energy(negative energy) but B> 0 I am quite not sure of for now.

So if you can arrive at a well-known derivation without the use of a hidden variable, I wonder why you introduced a variable whose meaning you don't really know, to perform a function you don't really need? Sorry for my questions, maybe I don't fully understand your conception of energy.

darkhorizon:


For me to arrive at my result with a non-conservative force, I had to postulate two new physical constants ( one time dependent the other time and position dependent). From the time dependent I was able to derive an expression for the frequency and for the time and position dependent I was able to get momentum.
The rest from there is basic substitution.

If your constants are position and/or time dependent, then they aren't really constant anymore. Are their derivatives zero?

You can't separate it from kinetic energy, but like I said earlier the potential energy is in form of ground state ( an intrinsic property ) subsequent increase is just an numeral (integral or decimal) multiple of the ground state potential(This is covered in the hypothesis I mentioned on Potential energy).

Okay, so is the kinetic energy of an electron from an electron gun equivalent to the integral/decimal multiple of its intrinsic potential energy (electric field), even when the potential difference that causes it to accelerate is external to the the electron?

AgentOfAllah:
If your constants are position and/or time dependent, then they aren't really constant anymore. Are their derivatives zero?


Okay, so is the kinetic energy of an electron from an electron gun equivalent to the integral/decimal multiple of its intrinsic potential energy (electric field), even when the potential difference that causes it to accelerate is external to the the electron?

MY BAD ,I MEANT PHYSICAL PROPERTY

darkhorizon:


MY BAD ,I MEANT PHYSICAL PROPERTY

Ah okay...interesting.