In other words:
Is there a form of energy that is NOT continuously changing its place?
Potential Energy - for example, snow hanging from a mountain side before the avalanche.
I don't understand the premise of the question. Why should energy be moving?
Does temperature move? Does force move? Does frequency move? If not, why you think that energy moves?
Because all matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller (moving) subatomic particles
Amongst other things I think that perhaps mark! is thinking of energy movement in terms of energy changes. These changes are constantly going on all around us just one example being mechanical energy being converted to heat energy which spreads (moves) to the surroundings
And how does that answer my question? Energy is not a thing, it's a property of matter. Properties don't move, they change. Energy can be transfered, but calling that "movement" can cause misunderstandings
You're right, but than my question was not quite right, I meant to say all FORMS of energy existing in nature. Not 'energy' itself
There is this thing that is important in science, and it is called a sequence of logic, in which there is a rational connection between one to the next. This is why, for example, why arranging your furniture in such a way that will result in prosperity is not science, because there is no established connection on where you place your couch and you becoming rich.
So here, you need to make the logical and rational connection between "... matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller subatomic particles... " to "... does all energy move?..." Why would matter being made of smaller particles equate to you thinking that ALL (not some, all) energy moves? What does "move" even mean, considering that I can always transform myself to the frame of reference of the moving particle and all my physics remains the same? That particle is now no longer moving according to me.
And is this even a "Quantum Physics" question?
Do you now see why we are puzzled by your explanation?
I thought it was an easy question :')
It's not about easy/not easy. It's about whether your question makes sense or not. Stating "I meant to say all FORMS of energy existing in nature. Not 'energy' itself" does not make it better. Energy is a property, not a "thing" with a position that can move in an ordinary sense.
It is only "easy" if you ask this to a 2-year old who hasn't learned anything about physics. But you came here, to a physics forum. Do you think this forum is populated by amateurs?
We also do not know to what extent of complexity and to what level of thoroughness you want the answer. That is why we have been quizzing you on these things because there are things you are connecting together that simply do not make any sense. It is like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?". A number of things that you had already assumed simply have not been established yet ("matter made up of smaller particles" and "energy moving").
Unfortunately, you haven't offered a proper response to my previous post, but instead, made a comment on the apparent simplicity of your question. There is no such thing as a "simple" question if you strip away all the assumptions and superficial understanding.
I'll try to rephrase my question: the Standard Model shows what 'stuff' around us is made of. Light, atoms, everything. All fermions and bosons, which means all 'forms of energy'. In Feynman diagrams you can see how these particles always 'move', so I was wondering if this is true, do all subatomic particles always at any time when they're in existence 'move'?
Of course, there's dark matter and dark energy, but my question was only regarding the 'normal' Standard Model, the stuff that the scientific world fully understands
They move because it is extremely unusual for us to be in the same reference frame to anything, despite the fact that we know that we are at rest with the earth. But what is to prevent us from being in the same reference frame of a moving electron, for example? There's no physics that prevents us from this. In fact, I can transform to the reference frame of electron bunches moving in a particle accelerator, solve for the beam physics problem there, and transform back out to the lab frame. Weren't the electrons "stationary" when I transform myself to their frame?
And what does this have anything to do with energy moving? Is the gravitational potential energy moving with respect to you right now?
Do you mean that, if we would change our reference frame, there could be something considered stationary, something that is NOT moving? Quite interesting, I haven't looked at it that way.
But what I'm curious about, is whether there exists anything in nature right now, in reference to us humans, that has no movement. I guess not, but if so, could you tell me what it is?
(PS Do you consider 'gravitational potential energy' a form of energy, and therefore something that 'exists'?)
Which part of the example for the earth gravitational potential that made you completely dismissed and ignored it?
Not in the classical sense, no, and that isn necessarily related to many forms of energy.
It is an easy question: the answer is no. But if you want to learn why...
@ZapperZ Gravity is not part of the Standard Model. I already pointed out that my question was "only regarding the 'normal' Standard Model, the stuff that the scientific world fully understands".
Why? Is this your only definition of "energy"?
The title of this thread is then no longer accurate.
Interactions in the standard model also have potential energies associated with them. A charged particle in an electric field has electric potential energy. Nucleons in a nucleus have binding energy associated with the strong and electromagnetic interactions. A stretched spring has elastic potential energy due to EM interactions between its constituent atoms. There's chemical potential energy.
Then there's rest mass - the energy of a particle at rest.
Are any of these energies 'moving'? What would that even mean?
Separate names with a comma.