Register to reply

Do we have a theory as to what energy is?

by Larry Farmer
Tags: energy, theory
Share this thread:
Bandersnatch
#19
Apr23-14, 03:28 AM
P: 696
Quote Quote by Larry Farmer View Post
Atoms are made of energy and everting below an atom is made of energy.
Quote Quote by Larry Farmer View Post
Maybe, I was just doing a little SciFi type speculation as to energy and intelligence.
Quote Quote by Larry Farmer View Post
Physics sprang from philosophy after all. They are not totally different.
Have you, perchance, read the forum rules regarding unsupported claims, personal speculation and philosophical discussion?
A.T.
#20
Apr23-14, 03:31 AM
P: 3,914
Quote Quote by Larry Farmer View Post
A.T. its not the same.
Of course not. The definitions of velocity and energy differ. But in both cases they are human made definitions, which say what velocity and energy are.
Larry Farmer
#21
Apr23-14, 03:38 AM
P: 13
String theory speculates vibrating strings of energy are what atoms are made of.
If you have philosophy that the earth revolves around the sun. Then you prove your theory by physics.
But oh please forgive the SciFi energy intelligence reference. Bandersnatch.
craigi
#22
Apr23-14, 03:50 AM
P: 419
Quote Quote by Larry Farmer View Post
Physics sprang from philosophy after all. They are not totally different.
Nevetheless, you should read the forum rules.

Under the traditional definition, physics is a subset of philosophy. A more contemporary definition, defining academic disciplines, renders them as distinct subjects. Inevitably, there are areas which do crossover, but the forum is for discussing physics. Bostrom's simulation argument is better described as metaphysics. That isn't to say that we can say with certainty cosmology will never apply it, but without a physical reason to do so, it remains philosophy.
russ_watters
#23
Apr23-14, 05:29 AM
Mentor
P: 22,239
Quote Quote by Larry Farmer View Post
We have a understanding of what velocity is.
So, what is velocity?
MikeGomez
#24
Apr23-14, 06:04 AM
MikeGomez's Avatar
P: 211
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
So, what is velocity?
A seemingly magical quality possessed by objects which causes them to continuously disappear from one location and reappear in another.
Frank Weil
#25
Apr23-14, 06:09 AM
Frank Weil's Avatar
P: 38
With respect to everyone involved in the above discussion upon energy.
I add a little light hearted banter with an air of philosophy:

Einstein:
'You know Henri, I once studied mathematics, but I gave it up for physics'.

Poincare:
'Oh, really, Albert, why is that?'

Einstein:
'Because although I could tell the true statements from the false, I just couldn't tell which fact were the important ones.'

Poincare:
'That is very interesting, Albert, because, I originally studied physics, but left the field for mathematics.'

Einstein:
'Really, why?'

Poincare:

'Because I couldn't tell which of the important facts were true.'

The definition of energy has been very well discussed, illuminating(!) and highly enjoyable.

Planck's pivot: hv=E=mc^2 (v=f=frequency).
sophiecentaur
#26
Apr23-14, 07:12 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,923
We just go over a thread about "What is mass", a week or so ago. Nothing "is anything". We just attribute a regularly observed relationship between other 'things' and give this new 'thing' a name.
If you have a problem with this then consider the whacky ideas (as we would call them) about Science that were bandied about in History. The 'quantities' and 'entities' that were used to describe experiences were just as real to thinking people and were used by them to build models of the World. It's the same with the quantities we use today - only we hope they are a bit more reliable. Time will tell.
Shyan
#27
Apr23-14, 07:33 AM
Shyan's Avatar
P: 771
Larry, the ones who answered all want to make a point clear for you, and that is you either already know what is energy, or you know just a little amount of physics and should study more.

I want to extend Modus's good example:
Your comparison to the dictionary is not completely inaccurate. All words are defined by other words and you can only get a sense of the language and meanings of words after relating many of them together. Similarly, all scientific concepts and entities are defined in terms of other scientific concepts and entities. You can only get a sense of their meaning by relating them to each other.
Imagine a baby who still can't talk. S/he starts learning his/her first language by just observing how words are used. S/he gets no definition, no explantion, there is only observation. In this way, S/he gets some feeling for a number of words. Then other words are thought to him/her using the words that S/he has some feeling for.
As Modus said, physical concepts,like any other word are defined in relation to other words. And if you go down the ladder you reach to concepts that you need no definition for understanding them or you just accept them and know them by examples. If there were no such words and everything needed a definition, there would be no end to any logical structure and everything would be useless. You should understand the existence of down-ladder things and energy is one of them.
dauto
#28
Apr23-14, 08:53 AM
Thanks
P: 1,948
I think the moderators ought to close that thread. Clearly the OP didn't come here to learn anything.
Larry Farmer
#29
Apr23-14, 10:15 AM
P: 13
Think you shyan, I agree there is no answer that will satisfy me at this time. So I will move on from this discussion.
gmax137
#30
Apr23-14, 01:41 PM
P: 844
Energy is a calculated value: a number. Not only that, it is a frame-dependent value. In other words, a different number for different observers. It isn't "really" anything else.
ChrisVer
#31
Apr23-14, 06:23 PM
P: 754
you are taking the topic away of physics by speaking of some selfconsiousness of a quantity.
There are many quantities in physics that we can measure, but asking what they are makes no sense.
If someone asks you what water is, and you reply "atoms" you are just going into a more "fundamental" thing, yet you don't answer what water is.
"Atoms are made of energy and everything below an atom is made of energy"
this again makes no sense. How can you make such a statement if you don't know what energy is?
Energy is a measurable quantity, which happens to be conserved, that's all...

What is for example the charge? (if you get the point)


Also don't say that thing about strings and vibrating energy... It's not so simple.... and of course not-verified experimentally ...
Frank Weil
#32
Apr23-14, 07:30 PM
Frank Weil's Avatar
P: 38
Quote Quote by gmax137 View Post
Energy is a calculated value: a number. Not only that, it is a frame-dependent value. In other words, a different number for different observers. It isn't "really" anything else.
I think that I have an idea what you are referencing to when you suggest frame-dragging as the resultant...?
Relativistic energy and (angular) momentum?
Recall the way that space and time become united in relativity theory to become the single entity 'space-time', the time coordinate t being adjoined to the
3-space position vector
x=(x^1,x^2,x^3) to give the 4-vector:
(x^0,x^1,x^2,X^3) = (t,x)
We should then find that momentum and energy become similarity united.
Any finite system in special relativity will have a total energy E and a total momentum 2-vector p.
These unite into what is called the energy-momentum 4-vector, whose spacial components are
(p^1,p^2,p^3) = c^2p,
and whose time component p^0 measures not only the total energy but also, equivalently, the total mass of the system according to
p^0 = mc^2,
which incorporates Einstein's mass-energy relation.
Correct me if I am wrong or on another tac....
ZapperZ
#33
Apr23-14, 07:54 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,239
It seems as if you have never heard of Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics.

Zz.
Frank Weil
#34
Apr23-14, 08:08 PM
Frank Weil's Avatar
P: 38
Hello ZapperZ,
Yes I have..
But If you would like a discussion on the merits of the Penrosian v L/H approach I would sincerely like to have your opinion.
DaleSpam
#35
Apr24-14, 03:17 PM
Mentor
P: 16,978
Quote Quote by Larry Farmer View Post
What if energy its self is intelligent
The substance of your question has been fully and completely answered (even if you choose to ignore it), and further discussion will lead to nothing more than this sort of speculation. Thread closed.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Theory of low-energy strings? Beyond the Standard Model 23
Energy Theory Questions Classical Physics 1
Energy Band Theory Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics 6
A theory for all the energy. General Physics 50
Theory of conduction of electrical energy not a quantum theory. General Physics 17