B Is Energy Constantly Changing Its Location?

[mark!]

In other words:
Is there a form of energy that is NOT continuously changing its place?

 

[.Scott]

Potential Energy - for example, snow hanging from a mountain side before the avalanche.

 

[DrClaude]

I don't understand the premise of the question. Why should energy be moving?

 

[weirdoguy]

Does temperature move? Does force move? Does frequency move? If not, why you think that energy moves?

 

[mark!]

Because all matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller (moving) subatomic particles

 

[Dadface]

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

 

[weirdoguy]

Because all matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller (moving) subatomic particles

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

 

[mark!]

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

 

[ZapperZ]

Because all matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller (moving) subatomic particles

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?

Zz.

 

[mark!]

I thought it was an easy question :')

 

[weirdoguy]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

I thought it was an easy question :')

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.

Zz.

 

[mark!]

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

 

[ZapperZ]

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?

Zz.

 

[mark!]

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'?)

 

[ZapperZ]

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?

Which part of the example for the Earth gravitational potential that made you completely dismissed and ignored it?

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Because all matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller (moving) subatomic particles

Not in the classical sense, no, and that isn necessarily related to many forms of energy.

I thought it was an easy question :')

It is an easy question: the answer is no. But if you want to learn why...

 

[mark!]

@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".

 

[ZapperZ]

@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.

Zz.

 

[Bandersnatch]

@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",

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?

 

[.Scott]

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

Let's take the case of an D2 molecule - two Deuterium atoms connected with a regular Hydrogen bond. We can bring that molecule down to absolute zero - and it will become as stationary as you can get. We can even put it in a zero-G vacuum and let it drift about. Certainly within its own reference frame, it will be stationary.
But does it include energy? If you fuse those two atoms, you will discover there was quite a bit of energy.
So perhaps that would satisfy your example of energy that is stationary - entirely devoid of motion.

But there is another problem. There is actually no such thing as "entirely devoid of motion" - whether energetic or not. "Entirely devoid of motion" happens to describe a velocity to a greater precision than is allowed. It's against one of the basic rules of the universe - the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to be exact. So that Deuterium molecule that we thought was motionless, will eventually turn up someplace other than where we put it. And the molecule itself, after many zillions of years, will eventually change - perhaps decay, perhaps fuse.

So there you have it. Energy doesn't have to move any more than anything else. When there is change (movement), it's not necessarily because it is energy.

 

[RonL]

Being close to the simple end of humanity, I would have answered yes and used this as my answer material...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

 

[anorlunda]

Energy is not a thing, it's a property of matter

No. It is a property of matter and fields. A static field, like that of a permanent magnet, has energy but does not move.

The Higgs field is also in the standard model. It has energy but does not move around with subatomic particles.

 

[mark!]

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?

What is the nature of these types of energy? And how are they related to the Standard Model?

 

[weirdoguy]

No. It is a property of matter and fields.

And what does that change for OP? Does that help him in his understanding of basic principles? I would say that not, but that's just me.

 

[cosmic onion]

I like the description by Lev Okun a great theoretical physicist, 'ENERGY IS THE CAPACITY TO CAUSE MOVEMENT' ,this is the most basic definition that I agree with. But after thinking the matter through I ended up appreciating that energy is force acting over a distance. You could loosely say where there is MOVEMENT there is energy and where there is energy there is MOVEMENT.

 

[anorlunda]

And what does that change for OP? Does that help him in his understanding of basic principles? I would say that not, but that's just me.

It seems like a pretty direct response to me. My interpretation is that the OP believed energy to be always tied to particles. Therefore if the particles move the energy moves with them. Pointing out that some energy is not tied to particles, directly counters that misconception.

 

[mark!]

@Bandersnatch Thanks for your comment. I did some research on the examples you gave.

On the question if all forms of energy are moving, you gave me examples of possible nonmoving forms of energy, namely 'potential energy and 'rest mass'. I did some googling (because I don't really understand these terms) and I found out that chemical potential energy, just like elastic potential energy, is being released in the form of HEAT (that must also be the reason why an elastic rubber band feels warm when it's being stretched, that's the the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy, at work). So this potential energy is in fact energy as science knows it from the Standard Model, and thus by nature still something that is moving. Only, it was being conserved at the time. It couldn't have 'gone away' and then appeared heat, out of nothing.

Then you mentioned 'rest mass' as another example of being a not moving form of energy, but this can be released by heat as well. And the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so that must serve as proof for the fact that, even though we can't see exactly what going on the quantum level, the potential energy of this rest mass is a conserved form of energy as it's known to science, from the Standard Model.

Einstein told us that matter is energy and energy is matter, so this 'rest mass' in matter must be therefore a form of energy as well, which is moving by nature. Energy doesn't exist in a stationary state.

Do you agree on this? It sounds logical to me, but I'm not 100% sure because I'm not a scientist myself ;)

 

[DrGreg]

chemical potential energy, just like elastic potential energy, is being released in the form of HEAT

After it has been released, it could be associated with motion, but before it has been released, there need not be any moion.

Energy comes in many forms, and can be converted from one form to another. Some forms are associated with motion, and some forms, such as potential energy and rest mass, are not.

 

[Bandersnatch]

So this potential energy is in fact energy as science knows it from the Standard Model, and thus by nature still something that is moving.

This is a non sequitur. You've asserted in your mind that anything that has anything to do with the SM is related to motion, which is a false premise.

This is actually pretty simple - the only type of energy that is related to motion is the energy with motion in its name: the kinetic energy (where thermal energy is a form of KE).

Einstein told us that matter is energy and energy is matter, so this 'rest mass' in matter must be therefore a form of energy as well, which is moving by nature. Energy doesn't exist in a stationary state.

Again, you a priori assert something false as being true (energy is moving by nature), and then use it to support your assertion, which is circular reasoning.
Does a neutron lose its mass in its rest frame? No. Does the potential energy of two magnets disappear when they're not moving? No. Is there no voltage (=difference in electric potential energy) when current is not flowing? There is. So energy does exist in stationary state.
The only energy that disappears when there's no motion is the kinetic energy.

 

[ZapperZ]

@Bandersnatch Thanks for your comment. I did some research on the examples you gave.

On the question if all forms of energy are moving, you gave me examples of possible nonmoving forms of energy, namely 'potential energy and 'rest mass'. I did some googling (because I don't really understand these terms) and I found out that chemical potential energy, just like elastic potential energy, is being released in the form of HEAT (that must also be the reason why an elastic rubber band feels warm when it's being stretched, that's the the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy, at work). So this potential energy is in fact energy as science knows it from the Standard Model, and thus by nature still something that is moving. Only, it was being conserved at the time. It couldn't have 'gone away' and then appeared heat, out of nothing.

Then you mentioned 'rest mass' as another example of being a not moving form of energy, but this can be released by heat as well. And the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so that must serve as proof for the fact that, even though we can't see exactly what going on the quantum level, the potential energy of this rest mass is a conserved form of energy as it's known to science, from the Standard Model.

Einstein told us that matter is energy and energy is matter, so this 'rest mass' in matter must be therefore a form of energy as well, which is moving by nature. Energy doesn't exist in a stationary state.

Do you agree on this? It sounds logical to me, but I'm not 100% sure because I'm not a scientist myself ;)

You seem to keep referring to this "Standard Model", and seems obsessed with it. And yet, you barely understood the rest of physics.

What do you think is this beast called The Standard Model? Do you think it is just a table of particles, and that's that? You want everything to be "explained" and compared to the standard model. Have you fully understood what it is? Is it rational to want everything to be explained via something you barely understand?

Secondly, you also seem to think that just because something can be converted into something means that they are the same thing. I can convert many vegetables that I buy from the farmer's market, and turn it into a delicious Ratatouille. Does that mean that the zucchini that I used as an ingredient is identical to the Ratatouille that I produced at the end? This makes no sense.

Zz.

 

[mark!]

After it has been released, it could be associated with motion, but before it has been released, there need not be any motion.

Energy comes in many forms, and can be converted from one form to another. Some forms are associated with motion, and some forms, such as potential energy and rest mass, are not.

Then where and how does the energy reside, before it can be released?

 

[mark!]

You seem to keep referring to this "Standard Model", and seems obsessed with it. And yet, you barely understood the rest of physics.

What do you think is this beast called The Standard Model? Do you think it is just a table of particles, and that's that? You want everything to be "explained" and compared to the standard model. Have you fully understood what it is? Is it rational to want everything to be explained via something you barely understand?

Secondly, you also seem to think that just because something can be converted into something means that they are the same thing. I can convert many vegetables that I buy from the farmer's market, and turn it into a delicious Ratatouille. Does that mean that the zucchini that I used as an ingredient is identical to the Ratatouille that I produced at the end? This makes no sense.

Zz.

Yes, actually, I think it's essentially the same, you only rearranged it, but you didn't create, nor made anything disappear. Conserved energy might be lost, yes, but it's still around somewhere. Just like gaseous water is essentially the same as ice. That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

I don't claim to understand the Standard Model, but the Standard Model is the only thing that science does understand, right? Or is there something you understand about the world/energy, that can't be related back to subatomic particles? I'd like to hear that.

About your comment (and other comments before as well), I didn't expect to be attacked the way you did, by telling me that I "barely understand" it. I did a bit of research on 'potential energy' 'rest mass' before I came back to this forum, so that's why I asked a second question. You didn't react on the content of my question though, but rather on me as a person, ad hominem, being an amateur. Well, I am one! And I'm not ashamed of that, I'm asking questions in order to increase my knowledge about the natural world. So if there's something I don't understand, I ask a question about it, and I really try not to ask a stupid question, but if I do, that's because I'm an amateur, not a scientist at all.

If you could help me with my question, that would be great (Lumbergh would say :P) but I really don't think I deserve to be treated like an idiot just by asking questions that seem to be stupid in your opinion.

 

[jbriggs444]

if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

Energy is not "stuff". [As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread]

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, actually, I think it's essentially the same, you only rearranged it, but you didn't create, nor made anything disappear. Conserved energy might be lost, yes, but it's still around somewhere. Just like gaseous water is essentially the same as ice. That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

No, they are NOT the same. Rest mass energy is different than kinetic energy. The conversion (not "conservation") of one form or energy requires many things, the same way when I cook those vegetables, it took other ingredients to turn all of them into a dish. There are other conservation laws that come into play here, not just conservation of energy, during the conversion of one form to another.

I don't claim to understand the Standard Model, but the Standard Model is the only thing that science does understand, right? Or is there something you understand about the world/energy, that can't be related back to subatomic particles? I'd like to hear that.

What makes you say that? There are so many wrong ideas in this paragraph alone. Our universe is actually described NOT by the Standard Model, but rather by symmetry rules, and by broken symmetry principles. The standard model does NOT explain Special and General relativity. The elementary particle physics have NOT been used to derive the phenomenon of superconductivity (look up the concept of "emergent phenomenon"). So to say that this is the ONLY thing that science does understand is completely false!

About your comment (and other comments before as well), I didn't expect to be attacked the way you did, by telling me that I "barely understand" it. I did a bit of research on 'potential energy' 'rest mass' before I came back to this forum, so that's why I asked a second question. You didn't react on the content of my question though, but rather on me as a person, ad hominem, being an amateur. Well, I am one! And I'm not ashamed of that, I'm asking questions in order to increase my knowledge about the natural world. So if there's something I don't understand, I ask a question about it, and I really try not to ask a stupid question, but if I do, that's because I'm an amateur, not a scientist at all.

If you could help me with my question, that would be great (Lumbergh would say :P) but I really don't think I deserve to be treated like an idiot just by asking questions that seem to be stupid in your opinion.

I did not attack you. I attacked your STRATEGY in countering the various responses you were given. Every time you were given something, you used your "standard model" clutch to argue on why you disagree with the responses, as IF you understood what the standard model is. This is what I attacked. It is impossible to correct a faulty idea when you are using a unicorn to support your argument. It might as well be a non-existing concept.

I asked you what you think the Standard Model is, you never responded. I described to you why one can always transform to a stationary reference frame of any elementary particle and thus, make the particle be at rest in that frame, but somehow this didn't click in. I told you that a gravitational potential energy field is often "stationary", but you somehow think that it can be transformed into some moving particle based on your puzzling understanding of the standard model.

Unless you first establish some foundational knowledge that you know and that is CORRECT, there is no way to build anything on top of something that has never been shown to be valid. Look at what is going on here. Every time we try to move one step forward, we have to take 2 or 3 steps back!

Zz.

 

[mark!]

Energy is not "stuff". [As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread]

The word "it" in my sentence 'if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?' is referring to 'this conserved heat energy', not to 'energy' in general. Here's the full sentence:

That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

 

[davenn]

That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

that doesn't really make a lot of sense

what are you referring to as "stuff" ?

 

[Biker]

Uh the one thing that upset me is that we "fully understand". 19s century is a good example. There will be always more to a thing than what it seems to be

 

[ZapperZ]

The word "it" in my sentence 'if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?' is referring to 'this conserved heat energy', not to 'energy' in general. Here's the full sentence:

That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

You still have not reveal what you understand as the "Standard Model".

Zz.

 

[mark!]

You still have not reveal what you understand as the "Standard Model".

Zz.

Could you perhaps be a bit more specific, otherwise you'll get a very extended answer

 

[ZapperZ]

Could you perhaps be a bit more specific, otherwise you'll get a very long answer

I thought I was already specific enough. What exactly do you understand as the "Standard Model"? I'm not looking for references (I know what it is already). I want to know what you know as being this thing called the Standard Model.

Zz.

 

[mark!]

I know which subatomic particles are in it, and I understand the basics of how they interact.

 

[ZapperZ]

I know which subatomic particles are in it, and I understand the basics of how they interact.

That's it? I thought you said that this could be very long or extensive.

And you think that this is all there is to this thing that physicists call "The Standard Model"?

Zz.

 

[mark!]

There's also dark energy/matter and gravity, but they don't seem to have a particle (yet?)

 

[jbriggs444]

There's also dark energy/matter and gravity, but they don't seem to have a particle (yet?)

So it seems that you agree that not everything that qualifies as "energy" is embodied in a particle identified by the standard model?

 

[mark!]

So it seems that you agree that not everything that qualifies as "energy" is embodied in a particle identified by the standard model?

I've already acknowledged that (see post #13). But I wasn't talking about this type of unknown energy, nobody knows what it is, let alone how it behaves/moves, so I asked a question about 'normal' energy, what life and stuff around us is made of. But it seems that 'normal' energy can be in a nonmoving state as well! Because DrGreg said in post #32:

After it has been released, it could be associated with motion, but before it has been released, there need not be any moion.

Energy comes in many forms, and can be converted from one form to another. Some forms are associated with motion, and some forms, such as potential energy and rest mass, are not.

Then where and how does the energy reside, before it can be released?

So it seems that 'normal' heat energy can reside in a nonmoving phase before it's released (because he clearly isn't talking about dark energy/matter, that would be impossible). Is this true, can energy be in a (potential) energetic state without having any movement? It seems impossible to me.

 

[davenn]

Is this true, can energy be in a (potential) energetic state without having any movement? It seems impossible to me.

of course it can ... you have already been told this several times, including your quote of what DrGreg said.

After it has been released, it could be associated with motion, but before it has been released, there need not be any motion.

Energy comes in many forms, and can be converted from one form to another. Some forms are associated with motion, and some forms, such as potential energy and rest mass, are not.

What part of his description are you finding difficult to understand ?

If I hold a brick up (not moving) above the floor, it has potential energy. If I drop it, it has kinetic energy, which will be released when it hits the floor

 

[Drakkith]

Is this true, can energy be in a (potential) energetic state without having any movement? It seems impossible to me.

Why? We have many different forms of potential energy which aren't associated with movement.

 

[mark!]

Why? We have many different forms of potential energy which aren't associated with movement.

Then how/where does it reside?

 

[jerromyjon]

You could have a spring under tension. Most of the atoms in the spring are collectively containing a net potential force. They don't move relative to each other...