[AYUDA] energía casi gratis

Cita:
Originalmente publicado por supercuerda
Tampoco sabes, quien la menciono por primera vez..?

Originalmente publicado por G-Dogg - Otro loco que quería hacer energía gratis?

Originalmente publicado por derviche - S. . Hawking

jajajajajajajajajajajajajajjajajajaja apostaba a que iba a salir con esto!!!!!!!!!!! jajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja

así que ahora esto es la energía negativa????? dame una sola cita de hawking donde hable de anti-energía????
no será que te está faltando los párrafos siguientes donde se aclara de lo que habla?????

la verdad es que da lástima como intentás justificar a veces las embarradas en las que te metés.....

PA-TE-TI-CO

Yo sigo esperando tu motor hidraulico de energia infinita que va a salvar a la humanidad!...

No importa quien lo haya dicho. Eso no es "anti-energía", es energía negativa que sigue siendo energía. La Ecuación de Dirac tiene un mar de energía negativa llamada "energía del vacío" que es totalmente consistente con la teoría cuántica de campos.

El signo de la energía depende del sistema en el que te estés parando. No existe el término anti-energía.

Lee mejor la próxima vez.

Bien leido, y son las palabras de S.Hawkins , entre tu opinion, la de homeroar, y la de Burnsys, realmente , me quedo con la opinion de el.

PD: Y tratandose de ESTOS temas, SI IMPORTA "Quien lo haya dicho"

mnose porque se me suscribio a este tema.. pero solo hago esto para poder ubicarlo..

No, no importa porque vos dijiste "anti-energía" y Hawking está hablando de densidad de energía negativa, algo ultrarequeteconocido que nada tiene que ver con "anti-energía".

Lo dije de la misma forma que "el lo menciono" , una cosa es un determinado efecto y otra su "Anti" , una cosa es hablar de el "Efecto Casimir" y otra del "anti-Casimir" , materia y Anti-materia no son la misma cosa, por tanto es ridiculo pretender llamarlas similar.

No me importa que vos llames "anti-energía" a lo que todos llaman energía del vacío. Vos no sos el que le pone nombre a los términos científicos. Sigue siendo energía y tiene sus mismas propiedades. No existe la "anti-energía". Punto.

Anti-energy, A New Explanation For Gravity?

This may seem heavy, but it’s not.

If E=mc2, then energy and matter exist and are exchangeable. We know also that antimatter exists. Scientists are now making anti-Hydrogen regularly in the laboratory. So, if energy, matter and antimatter exist, shouldn’t anti-energy exist, at least conceptually?

When I first started thinking about anti-energy, it seemed a dead end street. It was the oxymoron of oxymoron’s. Moronic. Period. But sometimes sentences or thoughts finish with several periods, like this… They linger, keep coming back… So it was with anti-energy. One day intuition spoke to me – Gravity? “Wow”, I thought. “Holy moley”. “Holy cow, jumped over the moon”.

I thought about it more… We consume energy in our daily struggle against gravity. We throw something into the air, with a certain amount of energy, and back it comes with equal but oppositely directed energy. Anti-energy??? More convincing thoughts followed…

Since gravity is a function of mass, I thought about energy and gravity as they relate to the material world. If you apply energy to matter, you break it apart and scatter it. Consider what a powerful bomb or laser does to its target. On the other hand, think about what gravity does to scattered mass… it has the opposite effect; mass un-scatters. It goes back together. With respect to interaction with mass, gravity and energy have opposite effects. Under the purely philosophical framework of the Big Bang, we can imagine energy and gravity at play – Big Bang… Big Crunch… Energy and… Anti-energy? It began to look interesting. But what good does it do to know what gravity is, if you still don’t know how it works?

I began discussing the idea that gravity might be defined as anti-energy with friends. I sent queries to the important press and observed not so much as a sputter of fanfare. I then became concerned that with my idea floating around someone else might beat me to the mother lode of explaining how gravity works even though I had been first to strike the vein. I kept picking away.

I applied every ounce of logic I had to the newly discovered paradigm. Matter and antimatter are similar even while they are opposite. They are similar to the extent that they both look like mass and behave like mass; they both have inertia. Equal units of each have the same values but differ only in “sign”. So… If matter and antimatter are similar but opposite, then energy and anti-energy must be similar but opposite. For example, if energy can be described as a wave, then anti-energy must also be a wave. And if energy implies wave/particle duality, then anti-energy must also have wave/particle duality. Thus, if the quanta of energy is the photon, then the quanta for anti-energy, which is gravity, might logically be called the graviton.

accepts that E=mc2, where c is the speed of light. Einstein proposed that the speed of light is constant for all observers and cannot be surpassed, even by gravity. What if light and gravity, energy and anti-energy, travel in the same waves? If we accept that anti-energy and antimatter exist, it is logical to conclude that anti-energy equals antimatter times the speed of light squared, or the speed of gravity squared, if the photon and graviton, energy and anti-energy, travel in the same wave. This is pretty cool…

It is interesting to note, observing this model, that values of energy and anti-energy, like the values for matter and antimatter, will always be the same. The values are the frequencies or of the individual waves. If the sign is different we can interpret it as the spin being different on alternate sides of the wave.

This is all pretty nifty, but what does all it suggest? A photon and a graviton in the same wave can maybe explain why most physicists have concluded that the photon is its own anti-particle. It can maybe explain why photons are so wacky and unpredictable when we try and pinpoint them. But can this paradigm make sense of gravity, showing how it works? What good does another particle hurling its momentum in an do to explain the attractive mechanism of gravity?

Whoa! I am going to repeat that… Electromagnetic… Here is another peculiar coincidence! The waves that we have conceptualized to carry energy thru space have long been described as electromagnetic, meaning that they carry an electric component, the photon, and a magnetic component… the magneton? Is it not peculiar that and gravity are generally both attractive forces? Granted, you can make magnetism a repulsive force, which gravity never is, but if you don’t take careful, forceful measures to ensure the poles don’t spin, the attractive force always wins over the repulsive one. Thus, I propose that gravity and magnetism are generally attractive forces in nature and of like propagation. Furthermore, I will venture that magnetism is nothing more than an amplified form of gravity. I say that what the laser does to light, putting it in phase - whereby its effects are amplified, the magnet does to gravity.

It is important to ask ourselves too, if we believe in a big bang scenario, why would we have electromagnetic waves in an early universe where no iron exists? The earliest stars were burning thru the fusion of hydrogen to helium and emitting huge quantities of in the form of electromagnetic waves. Would they have to wait a billion years for the complex element iron to form in order for magnetism to have any meaning… for someone to discover it on a compass? Clearly there was a function to the magnetic aspect of the EM wave that had nothing to do with classic magnetism. Indeed, I propose that this function was gravity, an inherent property of mass and the universe at any point in time.

www.astronomy.net