Collision experiments have demonstrated how the energy contained in two colliding particles is redistributed in exchanges that form new patterns, even new particles. The whole classical concept of a force is now believed to be the visible effect of multiple energy exchanges mediated through particles, such as the photon for electromagnetic interactions and the theoretical graviton for gravity.
Field theory would advance further if individual gravitons were detectible. But the ability to verify their existence experimentally is beyond the horizon given the relative weakness of gravity at the quantum level.
Yet, even in the absence of this, field theory's ability to accurately model particle interactions is quite compelling. Consider this... if the kinetic energy associated with the "force" of a collision is high enough, new particles manifest from this pure energy.
So it appears force is an energy ripple that propagates through an energy continuum.
"Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the realm of nothing."
- Tao Te Ching
9 comments:
Nice meeting you n2 :)
Paul Martin said that we need to clarify what we mean by "God". Well, everything is energy, everything is made of the same stuff...we and everything is just parts of the whole. so if the whole is the Tao and Tao is God...then God is part of us and us is part of God. It makes sense to me...does that make sense? help me if you like :)
William Henry Channing's "Symphony" no I haven't read it. thanks for mentioning it.
It is really nice to have met you.
I don't get a lot of opportunity to talk "Tao". In a sense, this blog compensates.
I see Tao (God for some) as essentially ungraspable. Even energy doesn't quite express it, though it is the closest thing that most can "grasp".
And yes, we are it and it is us.
An interesting philosophical question is whether the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Of which, I have no firm opinion. I guess it just adds to the mystery.
Yes that is an interesting philosophical question.. and yes it does add to the mystery. Thanks n2
ps
I love the quote you left at my blog.
N2: So are particles and energy thought to be two forms of the same thing or two ways of looking at the same thing - or is one thought to be more fundamental?
Kathy and N2: I love St. Paul's reference to God as the one in whom we live and move and have our being.
Christian mysticism is at home with what we're talking about here. I wish Christianity's contemplative traditions found greater emphasis outside of monasteries.
He who defines himself can't know who he really is. - Tao Te Ching
Then who s gonna define ME..
Its very interesting topic and i wish if we jkan sit together to discuss about this topic because this space may fall too short of words to understand this simple but amazing line.
Or ita can be understood in a single sentence. But i love to do brainstorming andsometimes even if its not required ;-)
Take care..
Paul: Good question. Is there a physicist in the house?
I would say they are the same, and they are not. It’s kinda like asking whether a car is blue.
For instance, light, a form of electromagnetic energy, sometimes behaves like a particle and sometimes behaves like a wave. It depends on what perspective you take in the form of a measurement. In physics, this is known as wave-particle duality, and physicists are still coming to grips with this paradox.
This notion has had a strong influence on me, which made its way into the early stages of this blog.
Regarding St. Paul, I’ve seen that quote used in reference to panentheism. I came across it in the book The God We Never Knew by Marcus Borg.
Prashant, you brought a smile to my face. I look forward to the journey together.
Prashant: I agree with you, there are some lines you come across that are so profound.
The short answer I've found to "who is gonna define me" is "circumstances".
I was struck by that. It makes me appreciate both "good" and "bad" experiences, for, in the end, these define who we are.
Post a Comment