Does the type of energy depend on the particle carying it?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hexhunter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Particle Type
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around whether the type of energy is dependent on the particle carrying it, exploring concepts such as the relationship between energy and matter, and the classification of different types of energy like chemical, electrical, light, and thermal energy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether all types of energy rely on matter to exist, with one participant asserting that energy does not necessarily have anything to do with particles or mass.
  • There is a distinction made between different forms of energy, such as chemical, electrical, light, and thermal, with some participants suggesting these refer to roles rather than distinct types.
  • One participant argues that light is described in terms of photons but is not carried by them, while another emphasizes that photons do not have mass, suggesting that not all energy requires mass.
  • Concerns are raised about the ambiguity of the term "electricity," which can refer to various concepts including current, voltage, and charge.
  • Another participant asserts that it is acceptable to refer to various forms of energy, such as chemical potential and gravitational potential, as "types" of energy.
  • Discussion includes the idea that energy can exist in systems that do not involve matter, such as magnetic fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether energy types are dependent on the particles carrying them, with no consensus reached on the definitions and classifications of energy.

Contextual Notes

Some participants acknowledge their limited knowledge or experience, which may affect their understanding of the concepts discussed. The discussion also highlights the ambiguity in terminology related to energy and electricity.

hexhunter
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
does the type of energy depend on the particle carying it?

assuming that electricity is carried by electrons and light is carried by photons, do all types of energy rely on matter to exist?

and can one type of particle carry several types of energy?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
"types of energy"?

i've never heard such thing before.
 
Electricity is a very loose definition. Do you mean Current? Voltage? Charge?

I wouldn't say light is carried by photons either. Rather, light/em radiation can be described in terms of photons.

Also a photon is not matter. Matter has mass, and as far as we know, photons have no mass.

So by this logic, no energy does not rely on matter to exist.
But I do not know what you mean by types of energy.

A particle can have energy from it's momentum(kinetic energy), and it would have a zero point energy. If it was in a potential well, that would also be taken into account. But they are not distinguishable in the sense you can say "Ah look at that, it's Kinetic Energy!"
 
by types i meant chemical/electrical/light/thermal

sorry I am only 15, so anything i don't get i probably haven't been taught, but from what I've picked up, energy is 'carried' by electrons in circuits
 
hexhunter said:
by types i meant chemical/electrical/light/thermal

i see... these names refer to the "role"s of energy, closely related to affects of the energy, not types of energy.

there has been different discussions on nature of energy, such as existence of negative energy, dark matter, etc. but these topics are beyond my current knowledge (well, I'm a student, not a prof).
 
fdarkangel,

You are incorrect. It is perfectly acceptable to call chemical potential, gravitational potential, sound, heat, etc. "types" of energy.

hexhunter,

There are two issues. One, the term "energy" means only "the ability to do work." Energy does not necessarily have anything to do with particles, mass, or matter. Sure, bowling balls have mass, and they carry kinetic energy when they're thrown down a lane, but that doesn't mean all energy requires mass. Light, for example, has no mass, but certainly has energy. Magnetic fields can store energy, but they're made of neither atoms nor photons nor particles of any kind -- they have nothing to do with matter at all, but they can still store energy. If a system has energy, it just means that the system is configured in a way that work can be done, and that's the most definite definition that anyone can give you.

The second issue, which kirovman pointed out, is that the word "electricity" is a sloppy word commonly used to mean any of at least six different precise things.

- Warren
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K