Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / January 2007

Let's look at:

1) E = K.E. + P.E.

the classical "energy equals kinetic energy plus potential
energy".   Next, look at:

2) Probable Influence/Causation = K.E. - P.E. + 1

The first equation for an energy-conservative system
has E on the left hand side mostly fixed or constant, say
Eo:

3) Eo = K.E. + P.E.

but K.E. and P.E. vary in "opposite directions" (increasing
or decreasing).

The second equation, (2), believe it or not doesn't require
Probable Influence/Causation, or P(A-->B), to be
constant.  It also says more than (1) in some ways, since
it says according to the definitions in PI that P.E. causes
or probably causes K.E., if both are normalized.

If we look at vibrations, as in springs or strings, we can
find a sequence of alternating causations between
potential and kinetic energies, which under various
conditions either damp out or continue or even increase.
So equation (2) captures one of these sequences of
Cause and Effect and with it some time, while equation
(1) resembles more a correlation or even negative
correlation in which K.E. and P.E. go in opposite
directions to each other.

What do I mean by "potential energy causes kinetic
energy"?   Well, intuitively potential energy stores
energy based on relative positions in space, and this
eventually with the right "trigger" turns into kinetic energy
of motion in time.  One might argue that kinetic energy
also causes potential energy and that a "trigger" means
that neither kinetic nor potential energy are the whole
story of causation, and in fact none of these criticisms
makes (2) false.   (2) is a snapshot of one part of the
mutual Causation between P.E. and K.E.   I could take
a snapshot of two parts by using P(A<-->B) which has
its own equation P(A<-->B) = P(AB) + P(A' B' ), but
there is much knowledge to be gained from (2) as it
stands.

We could, of course, use all the equations numbered
above, so that P(A-->B) = K.E. - P.E. + 1 and Eo =
K.E. + P.E.   We could then, for example, add the two
equations to eliminate P.E., or subtract them to eliminate
K.E., and so on.   But what is surprising is that nobody
thought to write down the P(A-->B) part of the general
classical Energy scenario until now.  And yet everyone
so to speak is attempting to solve Quantum Gravity,
having failed to write down the most elementary Causation
in energy!   So the scientific method may be clear, but
we could all use a little more practice in looking at our
most fundamental assumptions.

Osher Doctorow