The entropy of systems

Stoat,

This is taken from "Wikipedia":

"The Planck constant has dimensions of energy multiplied by time, which are also the dimensions of <b>action</b>."


"(action)...The action principle can be extended to obtain the equations of motion for fields, such as the electromagnetic field or gravity.

The Einstein equation utilizes the Einstein-Hilbert action as constrained by a variational principle.

The path of a body in a gravitational field (i.e. free fall in space time, a so called geodesic) can be found using the action principle."

Stoat... I am going to take some time to digest all of this. This does not make sense to me.

Here we are talking about Planck's constant which is somehow linked to conservation principles, yet it also mentions motion and varying energy fields... How can something move if it is in equilibrium?

I'll be back...

By the way, Wikipedia showed two different values for "h": one taken in 2005 and the other in 2007. Probably the result of faulty instruments or not precise enough?

Hi GD, I don't think I answered your question about cinder stars. There has to be a lot of them but how many, must depend on the nature of stellar nurseries. They are stars which have burnt up all of their fuel in a couple of million years. All that's left is a cooling core. TVF might have a percentage value but I would have to guess at about ten percent of our nearest stars cannot be seen.

Let's look at our electron again. Half of its energy is given over to the creation of its own "space." The particle's space does not rotate but it will alter the frequency of light entering it. The electromagnetic mass part of the electron does rotate, in effect this mass is nothing more than the particle's angular momentum. This is the e = mc^2 bit. Now, a faster than light speed of gravity, has to mean that a portion of the energy of our electron is hidden gravitational energy.

Let's move our electron. We're pushing on a gyroscope, a flywheel. matter at rest has its energy half kinetic and half potential. Push on it and its kinetic energy rises and its potential energy decreases. Energy has to be conserved. What goes for the pushed, must also go for the thing pushing. Its potential energy increases and its kinetic energy goes down. Its internal frequency and hence energy rises for the thing pushing.

If e = mc^2 is all there is to an electron then we get major problems when we pop it into the Lorentzian equations. The closer we get to the speed of light the more its energy increases, in fact to infinity. What happened to the conservation of energy laws?

So let's say that the speed of light is not the limit. Then that number one in the Lorentzian becomes the speed of gravity squared, divided by the speed of gravity squared i.e. one. Then we would have the change of internal gravitational energy, at the speed of light, being barely touched. We simply couldn't measure the relativistic frequency change. The electromagnetic part of the electron's internal mass energy can fall to zero. It stops spinning round at the speed of light, it loses angular momentum. It electromagnetic ally decouples from any electromagnetic field that might be being used to push it. That energy has to go to the coils of the machine pushing. The last portion of the electron is its space, half of its energy. This does not have any angular momentum but it has an energy density. Push on it and we distort it. this will alter the refractive index of the electron's space. This will alter the absorption and emission of our electron.

All this before we even get to the idea that matter is a condensate, thought to be brought about by the sudden collapse of the speed of light from something much greater.

That last post got me thinking about a pub conversation. I was struck by how people would talk about the Lorentzian in slightly awe struck tones. So I talked about circles and then it just became school maths.

r^2 = x^2 + y^2 the equation of a circle. Change that round a bit,
y^2 = r^2 - x^2 take the square root.
y = sqrt ( r^2 - x^2) Divide that through by the square root of r^2. That's y / r = sqrt ( r^2 / r^2 - x^2 / r^2)
Move the left side r ever by multiplying it out, and tidy up right-hand side, r^ / r^2. To get,
y = r * sqrt ( 1 - x^2 / r^2)

(Edited) I've drank in the pub where George Stevenson invented his miner's safety lamp. The guy could barely read, he reasoned that the gas molecules were large, so he drilled holes through several boxes. Then he went into a mine shaft with each in turn. He blew himself up a few times before he had the right size holes for the job [8D][] One of my heroes []

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />

If e = mc^2 is all there is to an electron then we get major problems when we pop it into the Lorentzian equations. The closer we get to the speed of light the more its energy increases, in fact to infinity. What happened to the conservation of energy laws?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Stoat, could you imagine the electrons reaching the speed of light?
What would happen to the atoms in this case? Do you see examples in nature? Conservation of energy laws would remain o.k but something would happen to those atoms.

I'll have to get back on Planck's constant (which I believe <i>seems constant</i> because the position of the solar system with respect to the center of the galaxy varies ever so slowly.)

Planck's constant: ENERGY, TIME, and ACTION. This concept seems to be wrong according to me.
Here is how Wikipedia describe "action":

"The contemporary action approach for physical systems yields the same results as those found using differential equations to describe the system, but only requires the states of the physical variable to be specified at two points, called the initial and final states. The values of the physical variable at all intermediate points may then be determined by 'minimizing' the action."

If this world is in equilibrium, then one should rather use the term "non-action", or: the initial and final states remain the same.
Action signifies change with time.
In order to have change (requires energy), the speed of electrons has to vary, therefore the initial and final states also vary!

Hi GD, I think the problem is that we are not talking about physics in a vacuum; excuse the pun; but the politics of armistice. The "aether wars" never really ended. The compromise was proposed by Einstein. We now have a situation where lip service is given to the tenets of the armistice but people go on with their own agendas. A "don't mention the war" mentality has become institutional. Teasing apart the obligatory funding gobbledegook from the gist of the argument is something of an academic discipline in itself. I would like to have a pound for every paper I've looked at that starts with the genuflection, sign of the cross and fervent prayer to St. Einstein. I must stress that that's not Einstein's fault.

On the quiet though, I think there's a bit of a sea change going on. Unfortunately I don't think it's being done with any great integrity. BECs, neg r..i. ftl gravity and ZPE hold out the promise of heaps of money and status. Maybe I'm just being paranoid and cynical but could the recent flurry of interest in the, rather tawdry, sex life of Einstein be part of a hatchet job?

"Actions," I don't know, could this be some slight of hand, to wrong foot people into thinking that we are really talking about space-time events? Perhaps. It's not that people are consciously aware of the game rules, they most probably are fervent in their desire to get their ideas out there. It's sad but corporate science demands allegiance to the flag before the funding bones are thrown out. Of course they'd sharp run up another flag if they thought there was more loot to be had but that's human nature as they say.

Hell, I sound bitter! I'm not really, I still have a Pollyanna like faith, that some young Newton may be reading this board and will overturn the whole apple cart. [8D][}]

(Edited) Hm, being a total old curmudgeon there, made me forget to comment on the electron. I don't think we could ever get an isolated electron, or a stream of them, to the speed of light using some sort of intense electromagnetic device. Not least because the device is going to be in the "space" of the Earth.

I do believe though that ftl speeds are possible with aggregate matter. I think that we should keep an eye out for anomalous behaviour from the new generation of ion rockets.

hello Stoat,

Energy, time and action... would control the speed of electrons?

Could lightning be something caused by the electrons reaching the speed of light? Could this be a situation where the internal frequency of the atom tends to zero?

You probably think I'm nuts, how can something reach the speed of light and tend to zero at the same time...

I'll try to explain better, but I would like your opinion on what causes lightning...

Here are some web links on the concept of action. There is one which I found interesting: the principle of least action which states:

"the principle of least action or more accurately principle of stationary action is a variational principle which, when applied to the action of a mechanical system, can be used to obtain the equations of motion for that system..."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_%28physics%29

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_constant#..._Planck.27s_constant

Could you imagine? we started from Planck's constant which led to: ...action,...motion,...variational principle,....initial and final energy state,...

How can all of this happen if the energy state of the atom remains the same?