?Surely, as you suggest, a poetic thought. How lucky we are to live in this exciting time of discovery and have the memory of Charles Darwin?s modest greatness as inspiration.? ? John Archibald Wheeler (July 22, 1989)
"There is no magic formula that can be called upon to generate all the possible varieties of these attributes. They are never fully exhaustible. No program or equation can generate all beauty or all ugliness: indeed there is no sure way of recognizing either of these attributes when you see them. The restrictions of mathematics and logic prevent these prospective properties falling victim to mere technique even though we can habitually entertain notions of beauty or ugliness. The prospective properties of things cannot be trammeled up within any logical Theory of Everything. No non-poetic account of reality can be complete
There is no formula that can deliver all truth, all harmony, all simplicity. No Theory of Everything can ever provide total insight, for to see through everything would leave us seeing nothing at all."
The webpage is missing the period after "... reality can be complete."
"No non-poetic account of reality can be complete." -- John D. Barrow
This thread presents three derivations for the |MEforce> Paradox: 1. The play it backwards again Sam method (1993) 2. The cup is half empty, half full method (1994) 3. The original derivation (1987)
The paradox is: Why do F=pdot and E=mc^2, the two foundations of modern physics, result in this |meforce>? Purely accidental? I think not! Is Nature absurd? I hope not.
If you think any or all of this is BS (BullShit, not Before Sagan), then say so in writing. If you think it's just symbolic artifact with no basis in physics, math, philosophy, poetry, ... then say so. There are no ground rules. You won't hurt my feelings. The least you will do is change <ME>. Change is good. Change is unstoppable. Change is more than mere MOTION. Put your GUTs into it and try stomp on my TOE! Most of all, enjoy. It's a big Universe out there and somebody's gotta tame it.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2 c me %%% Method 1: Sometimes referred to as the Satanic Method.(1993)
Given Einstein's E=mc^2 equation. This is the famous popular representation. It's an icon of the twentieth century. Take this and just write it backwards...2^cm=E. 2 c m=E. Use the poetic artistic license and make the "=" vanishingly small. This leaves 2 c mE. Which reads as "To see ME", phonetically speaking. QED.
If you are the graphically animated video type, imagine the symbols dancing before your eyes. By some accident of entropy, the informational kind, the symbols converge to "2 c mE". Take the "mE" as a clue.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2 c me %%% Method 2: The cup is half matter and half energy.(1994)
Imagine a cup. It is a container of fluid, perhaps TEA. Let this cup represent the Space which is the Universe. Space is occupied by matter and energy. This space is a cup of sorts. Since there is only matter and energy that the cup can contain, let it.
E=(gamma)m=m taking gamma=1 if v=0. There is no velocity if time is assumed to be frozen still. The thought experiment does assume time is frozen so as to paint a instantaneous picture of the Universe. This is really not a big assumption. Osculating Time may be a name for this process. But I digress and have introduced unnecessary complexity. The cup (i.e., space) contains some matter and some energy. The law of conservation of mass-energy is applicable as always. Besides matter and energy, what else is there to occupy space? Nothing, I imagine. So the state of the cup with some matter and some energy represents an arbitrary state for the Universe. Let time move forward by a quantifiably measurable amount. Be sure to avoid bumping into Zeno's Paradox or nothing will change.
At this new time, the state of matter and energy has changed. This change is due to the natural processes that obey E=m. This means fusion, photosynthesis, particle-antiparticle pair productions and annihilations, expansion of the Universe, etc. You name it, E=m applies to it.
Conclusion: ME changes from time a to time b.
It's a fact. It's observable, measurable, and a daily reality. Some of you "pure" physicist types should be glad and thankful that I didn't include the natural feeling that humans experience as change into the argument. Consciousness and cognizance and language borders that "ME" crosses haven't even been addressed. That's why this thread is cross-posted. I'm a writer, I gotta find readers where ever they may actually be. So call ME selfish. I am. It's a ME-Centric Universe. The likes of which hasn't even been conceived before.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2 c me %%% Method 3: The original derivation (1987)
Targeted to mathematicians in particular. Differential Calculus is an acquired art, after all. No one is born knowing self-adjointness.
Axiom: E=mc^2 where v=0 for only simplicity's sake.
Since E=mc^2, taking the derivative of both sides yields dE=(c^2)dm+0 since c=constant.
But c^2=E/m. Substituting, yields dE=(E/m)dm. Rearranging, mdE=Edm mdE-Edm=0
Imagine the MATHEMATICS if this equation were mdE+Edm=0
Note the assumed sign change. (No flames yet).
Which means that d(mE)=0. This is the self-adjoint form. [Aside. Self? Get it? ME and Self? Do you see ME as yourself there?]
But this is an erroneous result since actually mdE-Edm=0. So since d(mE)=0 is wrong it LOGICALLY means that d(mE)!=0 (not equal zero; C/C++ notation) is "correct".
This is also an experimentally observed fact of the Universe. d(mE)!=0 means that the change in mE is not zero. Or mE changes. Specifically, "mE always changes"==Virdy's law.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2 c me %%% End of derivations. Discussion and speculation follows...
What is mE? Besides the english "ME", mE is mass times energy. <mE> is the "mean Me", just joking... <mE> is a product of the Universe. My Mom told "me" so.
Dimensionally mE is momentum squared. Verify by yourself. Oh alright, I'll do it. (kg)(J)=(kg)(N)(m)=(kg)(kg)(m/s^2)(m)=[(kg)(m/s)]^2.
If momentum changes then, it changes due to an applied force.
Newton's second law. |force>=|d(mv)/dt>. Dirac's notation on vectors. |force>=|d(momentum)/dt>
So what? Be patient. Apply Newton's rule to get |force>=|d(sqrt(mE))/dt>.
A real equation for a "hypothetical" force which acts across time. New idea (at least to <mE>).
Time. Force. TimeForce. Just for the sound of it: Force Across Ti<ME>. A force across different slices of time? That's crazy... is it really? Therefore, next time you see E=mc^2 think "2 c <mE>" Virdy's law. Or just say "mE always changes" and there's a force causing the change.
"May the |force>=|<mE>force> be with you alwa(y)s."
As proof of "me always changes", when you think of <me>, think of: 1) A caterpillar's incredible transformation into a butterfly... 2) The matter*energy product of all our shining suns... 3) You, from even before your moment of conception, until NOW...