Do we have a theory as to what energy is?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Larry Farmer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of energy, exploring whether it is a fundamental substance or merely a useful concept in physics. Participants examine various theories, including string theory and Noether's theorem, while questioning the deeper meaning of energy and its relationship to matter and other physical quantities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that energy is simply a number that can be calculated and is conserved in physical systems, as described by Noether's theorem.
  • Others argue that energy should be understood as a more fundamental concept, potentially related to the structure of matter, such as atoms and strings.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the relationship between energy and matter, proposing that everything is fundamentally energy.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that atoms are made of energy, comparing it to saying humans are made of length.
  • Some participants mention the Holographic Principle and simulation theory, speculating on the nature of energy and its potential intelligence.
  • There is a discussion about the difficulty of defining what energy "is," with some suggesting that it is better described by its properties and behaviors rather than a singular definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of energy, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the utility of energy as a defined property, while others seek a deeper understanding of its essence, leading to ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in definitions and the challenges of articulating the fundamental nature of energy, with various assumptions and interpretations present among participants.

  • #31
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 ...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
gmax137 said:
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 spatial 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...
 
Last edited:
  • #33
It seems as if you have never heard of Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics.

Zz.
 
  • #34
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Larry Farmer said:
What if energy itself 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.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Unifying string theory and loop quantum gravity
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
High School The building blocks of strings
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Is loop quantum gravity dual to CFT?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Undergrad Energy conservation in String Theory
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Uncovering the Combinatorial Origins of Yang-Mills Theory?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
High School What exists between Strings in String Theory?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
High School Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
Graduate Different symmetries or no symmetries in string theory?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate A couple of long questions on positivity bounds for UV-complete EFTs
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate What Are the Dual Low Energy Limits of Superstring Theory?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K