MI collisions

Tom

then how do you think sound is produced and not only from the macroscopic level but also the microscopic level?

would not the conservation of energy be also in the form of sound waves at times?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />then how do you think sound is produced and not only from the macroscopic level but also the microscopic level?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't see the mystery here. Striking a target causes the target to vibrate. Those vibrations push on air molecules at regular intervals, thereby creating sound waves in the air. At a quantum level, protons and electrons in atoms repel one another, which is what causes the vibration.

But you already knew that, so I guess I didn't understand the question.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">would not the conservation of energy be also in the form of sound waves at times?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, if there is a medium to be pushed. In space, there is no medium, hence no sound waves. -|Tom|-

Can all the MIs the "don't really collide" be conceptually replaced by abstract numbers in a field representative of how a test mass' momentum should change at that point?

If so, how would one differentiate the one view from the other? Field from MIs?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Can all the MIs the "don't really collide" be conceptually replaced by abstract numbers in a field representative of how a test mass's momentum should change at that point? If so, how would one differentiate the one view from the other? Field from MIs?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sarcasm from Skarp notwithstanding, I remind you that collisions are a normal part of MM and that all forms are able to interact by collision. The point was that, when one is able to examine the event in microscopic detail, these are not contact collisions. For example, when two galaxies collide, none of their individual stars need ever make contact. The same can be said for all other types of collisions, even though we usually cannot examine them in microscopic detail.

I explained that MIs have no generality and no special role in MM. But ignoring that detail, yes, a field could be made up entirely of forms that are the size of matter ingredients (even if, like snowflakes, no two MIs are exactly alike). MM recognizes fields as a legitimate type of form. But MM insists on giving fields tangible, material properties, not mystical ones, because the latter can quickly lead to "fuzzy think" and drawing impossible conclusions that violate principles of physics.

It's that "discipline of logic" operating again in yet another guise. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />Can all the MIs the "don't really collide" be conceptually replaced by abstract numbers in a field representative of how a test mass's momentum should change at that point? If so, how would one differentiate the one view from the other? Field from MIs?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sarcasm from Skarp notwithstanding, I remind you that collisions are a normal part of MM and that all forms are able to interact by collision. The point was that, when one is able to examine the event in microscopic detail, these are not contact collisions. For example, when two galaxies collide, none of their individual stars need ever make contact. The same can be said for all other types of collisions, even though we usually cannot examine them in microscopic detail.

I explained that MIs have no generality and no special role in MM. But ignoring that detail, yes, a field could be made up entirely of forms that are the size of matter ingredients (even if, like snowflakes, no two MIs are exactly alike). MM recognizes fields as a legitimate type of form. But MM insists on giving fields tangible, material properties, not mystical ones, because the latter can quickly lead to "fuzzy think" and drawing impossible conclusions that violate principles of physics.

It's that "discipline of logic" operating again in yet another guise. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In MM does the energy exchange of collisions continue eternally since scale is infinate?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />In MM does the energy exchange of collisions continue eternally since scale is infinite?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not sure if you are asking about time (the only dimension that can be eternal) or about scale. So I'll try to address both.

Technically, momentum (the product of mass and velocity) is the fundamental, preserved quantity, not energy. But if both mass and velocity are always conserved (as they are in MM), then kinetic energy will be also. And a similar argument can be made for the preservation of potential energy.

When body A with mass m and velocity v (actually a vector) collides with body B (assumed at rest for simplicity), and the details are examined at a microscopic level, then every matter element of whatever size in A must transfer whatever velocity A loses into an equivalent matter element in B. The result will be that body B acquires some new velocity (part of what A lost) as a pressure wave moves through B. Whatever parts of A's velocity that B as a whole cannot absorb will go into molecule vibrations, or atoms, or elysons, or MIs, or gravitons, or ..., so that all the mass moving at the original velocity of A still exists in some new forms of matter. In that sense, momentum (mv) is eternal; i.e., it lasts forever.

But perhaps you simply meant that a momentum exchange must occur on all scales down to infinitesimal, albeit only briefly. That is true, but not at all strange. For example, when two galaxies collide, their stars intermingle. If our galaxy was colliding with another, one of the other galaxy's stars might pass near our Sun and cause our Sun to change its momentum through the exchange of gravitons. So we already see that the momentum exchange involves every scale down to the smallest we know about. But the gravitons too must be changed by the introduction of new momentum, so whatever creates forces between gravitons must be affected too, ad infinitum. Perhaps this is what you meant by "eternally". -|Tom|-