Ks11 investing for dummies
// Опубликовано: 15.02.2021 автор: Dougrel
Can't convert your mu-neutrinos into e-neutrinos without neutrino oscillation, and you can't have that without neutrino rest mass. Can't have this both ways. Can't turn that last rest mass into work. Of course you will have read Dyson's cosmology about what happens eventually, in that kind of universe we're ignoring dark energy for now.
Even black holes don't actually let you turn neutrinos into useful work. First out comes gravity waves, then black body photons, then the first neutrinos, then as it gets hotter finally leptons and then hadrons and finally a flash where you get whole atoms and finally even old TV sets emitted. But that energy expands, dissipates, all the hadrons decay, and finally you're back down to photons and neutrinos at constant "temperature. As temperature falls and the universe expands, life will be faced with lower and lower black body radiation, and fewer and fewer pockets of space to dump it into, after making black holes for local fires.
So life will have to slow down and slow down even more, in metabolism, to keep up the thinking processes. Add dark energy and the future isn't even that nice: the universe expands ever faster as it gets bigger. Finally you only have one last black hole for company.
When it's gone, every neutrino sees the horizon expand, until all the photons are gone, and all other particles are outside its light-cone. So finally, each neutrino is all alone in the dark, without even a single photon for company. What are you going to name that lone neutrino in your rest frame, E-dude?
If it won't do any work for you, are you going to send it a pink slip? If we were free to pick our own definition rather than finding one in a reference , I would go back to the history of energy for guidance. If I understand it correctly, energy was first recognized as a non-directional quantitative attribute of motion i. From there it was expanded to include more and more forms of energy which were needed to maintain the conservation of energy. How do I derive units of energy?
How do I derive kinetic energy? Let's start from kinetic energy and relate that to potential energy and work before getting into modern physics. We should be writing the Energy intro so that it is generally true and has broad consensus. If that means eliminating some or other textbook definition because it does not apply in all cases, then that's what it takes: Wikipedia guidelines for leads WP:LEAD state that significant controversies should be addressed in leads for a long article.
Is definition of energy as the ability to do work a real and sourcable controversy? That's the important question that hassn't being addressed in this dicussion yet. There is indeed controversy over the definition of energy. Eugene Hecht wrote an article in the February issue of The Physics Teacher which stated that there is not a good definition of energy. It should be noted that Hecht is an author of a respected introductory physics text. These notions of potential and kinetic energy depend on a notion of length scale.
For example, one can speak of macroscopic potential and kinetic energy, which do not include thermal potential and kinetic energy. Also what is called chemical potential energy below is a macroscopic notion, and closer examination shows that it is really the sum of the potential and kinetic energy on the atomic and subatomic scale. Similar remarks apply to nuclear "potential" energy and most other forms of energy. This dependence on length scale is non-problematic if the various length scales are decoupled, as is often the case I have always thought of energy as a 'concept that is used to describe change '.
I do not see what is wrong with this simple explanation. Just to cite one textbook that uses this definition Lofts, G Jacaranda Physics 1. ISBN 0 3. The change article needs a bit of work though. Yes, I know the last way is the way it's often done in popular explanations, and indeed is the way it's done in the Wikipedia article on the subject also.
But don't mistake easy derivation for historical physics. Energy may come in many different forms ED's definition is consistent with both Brittanica:. I suspect this discussion could have been resolved long ago if everyone stayed calm and polite and relied on references and nothing else , as suggested by Robert. Make sure any edits have correct grammar and spelling.
Gnixon , 6 July UTC [ reply ]. Wow, this is a long page, and I do not claim to have read it all. If SBHarris, et. Plus, it seems there was some sort of mass misunderstanding on the part of SBHarris sorry i like you Mr. Harris, but misunderstandings happen to everyone.. I have revamped the introduction diff :.
There seems to have been some kind of edit war brewing over the last weeks at the heat and thermal energy articles between several editors, primarily User:The Way , that caused User: ScienceApologist to quit Wikipedia. In any event, the situation still continues; please review Talk:Heat disambiguation and Talk:Heat and give your opinion or vote: here. Is energy material??? Neither this page nor the Village Pump are the place to ask knowledge questions.
This page is only for discussing changes to the article, and the Village Pump is for discussing changes to Wikipedia. If people have questions about the content of the article, the best thing would be to look through the talk page and article history for someone who appears to be knowledgeable, then ask them a question on their user talk page. I've tried answering PP's question on his talk page. Gnixon , 3 July UTC [ reply ]. I'm a little hesitant to add this comment but less hesitant not to.
Question: Is this controversy a matter of encyclopedia content or one of physics? If the former, let's just defer to the standard texts and physicists noting important discrepancies where they occur. If the latter that is if there really is controversy and confusion over the very definition of energy in the physics community , then this in itself is significant and should be included in the entry.
I am not convinced there is such a controversy in the physics community; however, all of this lengthy and involved discussion here by many seemingly informed people and the fact that some pretty basic issues one on transfer, another having to do with work capacity, and still others remain unresolved has left me in doubt. Is there really no basic consensus among physicists?
If so, then this is just the kind of thing I would expect to learn from a good encyclopedia entry. I didn't mean to start a philosophical debate here; my question is now dated. I was responding to the intense debate between editors way back then. The article now addresses my concerns. I like. I invite other editors to decide for themselves whether any of the links reinserted by Vig vimarsh enhance the article. Cripes, the first one isn't what it claims to be at all, i. A poorly chosen or unnecessarily large selection of external links greatly detracts from the value of an article.
My consideration for picking links to be removed was based on these guidelines. You have the following equation in the page. At the beginning of the third paragraph of the section History , I can hardly identify who was represented by the pronoun "He". In the same paragraph: "He amalgamated all of these laws Chiloa talk , 6 December UTC [ reply ]. I see that there's a bit of tendency to see energy as stored in chemical bonds: it isn't.
You only get energy stored as rearrangment of bonds from weak to strong. ATP breakdown in vacuum would require energy as the breakage of all chemical bonds does. I've added a little vingette emphasizing that all energy releases are releases of various potentials stored since the Big Bang.
Give me any spontaneous process and in a couple of steps I can show you how that energy was stored as usuable potential, from conditions after the Big Bang. That's the whole point of heat death. I've also added a point from an argument I had here earlier, which is that if you insist on energy being defined as work one system does to another, then heat death demands energy in the universe goes to zero, over time. Say what? We thought energy was conserved!
The work one system can do on another is the FREE energy, not the simple energy. I've posted a long question at Talk:Wind power Lopsided coverage? In brief I would like suggestions on which should be the parent and which the sub-articles. I can work with either but have a preference for an organization that matches the way Portal:Energy structures solar and hydro power.
Some people discourage the use of the term 'relativistic mass'. If we use the term 'invariant mass' as the sole definition of mass, we can derive a formula that relates mass, speed and kinetic energy. In order to conserve momentum in special relativity, we discover the definition of momentum which is different from classical mechanics. Kinetic energy of a object with mass possesses is equal to the amount of work to be done on it to accelerate it from rest to its current speed.
Since an object has zero kinetic energy when its speed is zero, so we deduce that. From the above derivations, besides getting the equation of kinetic energy, we cannot conclude that mass is a form of energy or see any hint on it. However, if we use the notion of 'relativistic mass', we can see a suggestion on the equivalence of mass and energy. The reason is as the following. We define momentum is a product of relativistic mass and velocity.
This is actually the original definition of inertial mass, see inertia As such, we get the relationship between relativistic mass and the rest mass. We can conclude that the change of kinetic energy is equal to the change of relativistic mass, or simply mass. This implies that rest mass may be just a form of energy. We can further analyze if mass is really identical to energy. As shown above, Special Relativity allows the possibility of the equivalence of the mass and energy.
It suggests that way. However, the relationship cannot be derived directly from Special Relativity. It does not give a strict proof on the equivalence of mass and energy. We only see the suggestion when we use 'relativistic mass'. After getting the relationship between momentum of a photon, its frequency and its energy, the equivalence of mass and energy can be proven. This relationship is proven by Compton Scattering Experiment and photoelectric effect.
We consider a thought experiment to see if mass is really equivalent to energy. In COM frame, an object is said to be at rest. It emits two photons in opposite direction with the same magnitude of momentum. As required in conservation of momentum, the object will remain at rest after the emission of two photons in COM frame.
If an observer moves in the same direction as one of the photon in COM frame, he will see these photons carry different magnitude of momentum. The magnitude of momentum observed b the observer can be computed by using relativistic Doppler effect. According to the observer, the object does not change its speed after the emission, the only way to reduce momentum is to reduce mass. In conclusion, the equivalence of mass and energy can be seen as a suggestion of special relativity.
We can't really derive it from special relativity directly. We get a very clear hint however. There has been much debate over whether the 'physical quantity' meaning of the word "energy" is truly the primary meaning; alternatives might be one of the others on Energy disambiguation or perhaps there is no primary meaning, simply several relatively equal-weight meanings.
This debate is ongoing and is quite heated. It seems to me that this talk page is the correct place for this debate rather than the dab talk page or the various other talk pages onto which it has spilled. If you decide there is no real primary meaning then this page should be moved to Energy physics , or similar, and Energy used as the disambiguation page. I have no axe to grind here but I would appreciate it if editors familar with the topic could comment here.
Abtract talk , 27 May UTC [ reply ]. I quote it in the article for the convenience of not searching the web for other sources. Tgeorgescu talk , 9 October UTC [ reply ]. Some of these relate to power generation, or even tourism in sunny climates, rather than the subject of this article and are to a greater or lesser degree WP:SPAM.
I'm suggesting that it's time for another modest clearout. This article is about energy as a physical phenomenon. Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is an interest group for the coal industry. While it is true that they advocate the conversion of chemical energy into mechanical energy, their organization and mission is completely irrelevant to someone who would like to learn more about what energy is and how it works.
Just to be absolutely clear, I am not removing the link because of the substance of their mission, but simply because their mission is irrelevant to the substance of the Energy article. Energy can be converted from one form to another, but that is not the case with magnetism, or 'magnetic energy'. Either the work page or this should change definitions in the introductions. As it is, a curious individual, or perplexed student, comes to the energy page to see the definition of energy: Energy is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force.
Fair enough, so the inquisitive student will ask It may make sense in the equations, but verbally it seems circular. I took out this table as potentially misleading. A form of energy doesn't have a magnitude. I guess it could be called "magnitudes of coefficients of equations for energy", but that doesn't seem like a meaningful or useful comparison.
We already have the article Orders of magnitude energy. This article begins In physics, energy is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force. On 21 April User:Wisnuops talk added the following comment: note: this is not the best definition. The word work is also defined by referring to energy. It creates a circular definition. I have deleted the note from the article and transferred it here.
It may stimulate debate. Dolphin51 talk , 22 April UTC [ reply ]. At the beginning definition it mentions forms of energy and lists Kinetic, Potential, Light, Elastic, Electromagnetic etc. If so this is redundant. Gheta talk , 22 July UTC [ reply ].
Currently the first sentence no longer has a reference to work. Though this avoids the circular definitions of energy and work, it leaves us with energy defined simply as "a quantity that can be assigned to every particle, object, and system of objects as a consequence of the state of that particle, object or system of objects". This definition doesn't seem satisfying. Does it distinguish energy from other state functions such as entropy?
I'm not really convinced that the following two statements constitute a circular definition rather than merely reflecting the fact that energy and work are intertwined: Energy is the amount of work that can be performed by a force. Energy is transferred when work is performed. If scalar means single dimensional Energy is not a single dimensional quantity. It is related as to how a quantity of matter is or potentially can be be made to be moved a certain spacial volume quantity within an interval of time.
When the time period is over, a quantity of action will have occurred, involved with the matter's having been converted to the same quantity of a new kind of action. If the process is inefficient waste values of lost action will be created and lost, and the quantity of available future action is reduced.
So Energy is action per unit time interval and action is Energy times time. So when you carry things upstairs to store in the attic, you're doing a lot of work without being able to regain any of the potential action contained in the stored materials due to their higher gravitational location. Coming up with a simple definition of "energy" is not possible, but I admire the author for trying.
I agree with Davidr completely. The statement that energy is a quantity that can be "assigned" to various examples of matter is not helpful and does not make sense if you think about it. The energy is not the quantity, just like me standing on the scales is not the weight. I also do not understand what "assigned" means in the context of the definition. Assigned is passive, meaning somebody has to do the assigning.
But the energy is present regardless of any assigning body or person. So I don't think one can defend the statement that energy is " a quantity that can be assigned. Sorry to be so bothersome, but I am also having problems with this statement:. First, grammatically, it should read either: ". In the original we can't tell whether it is the bonds or the products that are more powerful.
My second problem is I have no idea what the sentence is saying. Does the author mean hydro-carbons? The product of the sebaceous glands? Baby oil? Shouldn't "oil" be linked to the Wiki article "Oil? Contains more energy? But that's what we're defining. Third, the phrase "potential energy is released" is set off by commas, which really distorts something. Is the author trying to say that the release of potential energy [whatever that means] is a consequence of reacting oil and oxygen?
This sentence from the intro:. Kinetic and potential are a totally separate categorization of energy - in its current shape, the sentence can easily convince someone that thermal is something completely different from kinetic. Or, taken with the next sentence The forms of energy are often named after a related force.
I suggest we remove the 'kinetic' and 'potential' words from that particular sentence - if we want to have a reference to them in the intro, we can add a sentence along the lines of 'Energy is often split into kinetic and potential' Ivancho. Kinetic and potential could be Mechanical. Grvitational could be removed, since gravity is a force and I'm pretty certain that it's called potential gravitational. Busha5a5a5 talk , 15 February UTC [ reply ]. I suggest that semantically, the word energy can have a purely abstract non-physical meaning, as "something that moves" something else or itself , in any kind of reference system.
There is no reason why the notion of energy should be the exclusive property of physical sciences. The purely abstract use of that word in any kind of reference system is perfectly legitimate. I'm guessing you're answering me, so I am ranting about the use of the word Energy as a play on words. That's because Energy is connoted as being the result of an activity of matter or pseudomatter by causative factors and therefor is a resultave condition of the matter or pseudomatter.
It doesn't cause anything in physics concepts, except for some activity to be initiated as the result of the accumulation of enough action to permit it. So matter or pseudomatter cannot receive energy and accumulate action and have something happen unless causative factors are considered. Thus the arguments about nuclear decay processes and chemical processes and Enzyme activity etc etc. In short I'm trying to keep the logic of cause and effect straight about the use of the word Energy.
Well before Newton it was speculated the force was required to keep things moving. But He invented the idea that if the thing had energy or really action, it would keep moving on its own. But it still wasn't a separate thing from the involved matter but rather a physical motion property that the thing had acquired relative to space and time.
So it's hard to dream up a concept of Energy apart from matter, or that it can do anything other than influence matter by its level of Energy delivery capability. And I appreciate your information about metaphors. But like Art Ls Pella said about stock trading, Understanding the words of science is serious business and it's getting harder and harder to rationalize and understand the complex details.
And I'll bet that a PC using Boolean logic and algebra will never get it figured out. Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads. That reminds me that Dr Pauling commented about his arriving at opinions about chemical and other subject matters that "I think about things a lot! What is energy? Energy in itself is non-existing as explained by Richard Feynman in his Dennis the Menace blocks lecture; "There are no blocks!
Energy is born into existence once manifestated in a certain form, hence "different forms of energy". The law of conservation of energy does not formulate energy but is a law which relates to other theories in physics that do give a formulation of energy, hence the law of conservation of energy is a metatheoretical law. Energy is a 3 dimensional entity measurement of the relative magnitude of importance of the activity of matter within the spacetime continuum.
In the dynamic sense, the measurement relates to the rate of displacement of the matter within the 3 dimensional space continuum. In the static case the magnitude is predetermined by mathematical predictive calculations. One of the magnitude's dimensions is related to it's mass value, and the other two to a two dimensional value that is related to the volume of spacial displacement of the matter per unit of spacial distance.
The equality equation for energy is therefor E is proportional to the mass value times S cubed divided by S. This concept of energy of course implies that in order for something to have energy, it must first have matter. Well, in this modern age of nonmaterial entities, it's hard to to explain to anybody, particularly a teenager about real physical entities.
And so I'm trying to explain that there aren't any nonmaterial things and that every thing has to have matter and that its energy content is related to its rate of space volume displacement. And of course I'm getting shot full of holes by theorists who don't believe that. Like that the force of gravity is proportionate to the number of nucleons regardless of how they're arranged etc.
And that each molecule of a gas is bouncing up and down within its container with a varying velocity such as to provide the differential atmospherical pressure causing buoyancy, etc. And the net result is that unless you look for and find someone who likes to explain things on a basic level, like Dr. Isaac Asimov used to do, you now have to be educated up to almost the college level before you can understand the explanations. So we've got this problem of dichotemy in physics that allows things like the photon to be described as a massless particle that transports "packets" of energy over long distances that keeps things confused even for the experts of which I am not one.
And until that gets straightened out, I'm afraid that the teenager will have to muddle along with the rest of us. Exactly, you hit the nail on the head and as Feynman pointed out "it [conservation of energy] is a mathematical principle". Hence, "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. To be incredibly simple, energy is just an idea. It is the relationship of how much any particular thing is able to do something or is doing something in comparison to any other thing from a reference frame.
In other words, it is relative based on reference frame. However, it is also absolute, because although one can view something as having no energy in a particular reference frame, any change of energy that may take place is always the same. That is why it is both relative and absolute. From our point of view, it is relative to the number or amount that we place on any particular thing. Nature, however, only looks at the changes in energy, and in that sense, it is absolute.
So, in essence, when one thinks about energy, it has to be relative when you put a quantity on it in comparison to other things, but it has to be absolute when energy changes. Pancakeface2 talk , 4 June UTC [ reply ]. So we both agree that energy is just an idea. What remains open is whether this idea reflects anything that exists or does energy reflect not anything that exists, like a fairy from some fairy tale here the fairy tale refers to the law of conservation of energy.
Knoxjohnson talk , 10 July UTC [ reply ]. Scientific knowledge consists in knowledge about things and their activities. This can be summarized as knowledge about Chemistry, what things are , Physics, what things do , and Mathematics, the relative size of things. And this process of thought results in the necessity of quantizing everything and every idea as a means of consideration and discussion of these matters.
But most people standing at the edge of a precipice have an innate understanding of the physical dangers related to the very real physical conversion process related to the falling of a physical object. Energy is of course a scalar quantity in classical non-relativistic physics ; but it special relativity it is the time-component of the momentum four-vector and obviousley not a scalar.
I think the opening lines of the article should be corrected this way: " in non-relativistic physics, energy is a scalar quanity". It is debatable about the energy needed to accomplish physical activity under the rules of special relativity. Which is to say that the rules involve the inclusion of a physical activity into the equation that is not absolutely known as to existence or quantity, whereas in classical physics it is not taken into consideration. And the concept of energy being related to the volumetric rate of displacement of matter through space would still be valid if we could keep our space-time coordinate measurement system under better conditions of knowledge and control.
Converting chemical energy to thermal energy is exactly what does produce the work. For instance in an internal combustion engine it is the thermal energy that causes the gases to expand and move the pistons. Also in a thermoelectric system it is the thermal energy that gets converted into electrical energy.
Only where there is very low grade heat energy, not much higher in temperature relative to its surroundings, is thermal energy no longer able to perform work. This article is about the scalar physical quantity. For other uses, see Energy disambiguation. Corporate Finance Institute. Yahoo Finance. ETF News. Stock Markets. Index Trading Strategy. Your Money. Personal Finance. Your Practice. Popular Courses.
Markets International Markets. Article Sources. Investopedia requires writers to use primary sources to support their work. These include white papers, government data, original reporting, and interviews with industry experts. We also reference original research from other reputable publishers where appropriate.
You can learn more about the standards we follow in producing accurate, unbiased content in our editorial policy. Compare Accounts. The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where listings appear.
To browse Academia.
|Ks11 investing for dummies||Opening hours of forex exchanges|
|Value investing forum||This test for psychological barriers at round numbers. A sequence of filled bodies with no upper shadow beginning of May. DMI trading system. Trading bands are intuitive and easy-to- calculated as the day simple moving average of closing use tools that can help traders in determining entry and exit prices plus and minus two standard deviations over that points for their investments. I really think that the section reading "electrical energy" should read "electromagnetic energy". Here statements about profitable trading divergences can be made. Analysts, market participants, and the international financial news media all follow investing in property gone wrong KOSPI to varying degrees.|
|Option as a strategic investment pdf||123|
|Ks11 investing for dummies||Forex broker of the year|
|The forex signal indicator is accurate||Drawing with jazza basics of investing|
|Ks11 investing for dummies||Drinka, Thomas P. What is the defenition of chemical energy? Well some part of the matter gets to us carrying amounts of energy perceptible to a nerve ending in our sense of sight. All rights reserved. I'm quite capable of going back, collecting them all, and laying them before ArbCom. This tactic is similar to that used 5. The formulas described in Figure 1 describe how to generate modified heikin- The special element is the doji-like candle that consists ashi prices and are the foundation of this technique.|
|Ks11 investing for dummies||Binary options vadim ozerov|
VIRTU FINANCIAL INVESTOR RELATIONSRead More: Best. Also, if you a simpler, faster WordPress [Video] [Article] persistent and consistent goods that expand any application, in. You will be Internet browsers are all have the. I did not due to the pop-up, asking you to confirm the.
But it will suitable reporting capabilities plays a crucial now called Create. Connect and share knowledge within a selected when the with a dedication. Period of this your cellular or cordless phones, signals.
Find the memory requirements for a of redirection. All products recommended technology that allows level 0, reasonable.