# Does energy have a position?

• Stephen Tashi
In summary, energy can have a position and can change position, as seen in the examples of kinetic and heat energy. However, the concept of potential energy is more complex and is always associated with the system as a whole rather than a single particle. The extent and definition of potential energy in a time-varying gravitational field is still a topic of debate. Overall, understanding the position and distribution of different forms of energy requires considering the system as a whole and taking into account the motion and interactions of all its components.

#### Stephen Tashi

In classical physics, does energy have a position?

It seems rather obvious that kinetic energy can be regarded as a property of a moving mass.. If carry a cup of hot coffee from one room to another, it seems clear that I have transported heat energy. That indicates that energy can also change position.

However, there is the problem of whether mass has a position. An idealized "point mass" can have a position and move. A real mass needs to have a mass density function. Moving a real mass through space moves its density function. So if I want to talk about the position of kinetic or heat energy in real objects, it appears I need an energy density function.

Then there is the problem of potential energy. If a point mass m is at height h above the surface of the Earth we say it "has" potential energy mgh, as if the energy is "in" the mass. But the hope of getting back (m)(g)(h) worth of work if it falls depends on the gravitation field exerting the force (m)(g) throughout the fall. You could say the potential energy depends on the potential of the gravitational field at the specific location of the point mass. However, the fact that a potential function exists depends on the global properties of the gravitational field.

Suppose a mass is at rest in a time-varying graviational field. It seems it ought to have potential energy since a stationary mass in a constant force field does. We could say the mass has a time varying potential energy, but how exactly is its potential energy defined? If its potential energy has a position, where is it? If the potential energy has a density function, what is the extent of it in space?

• arpon
Stephen Tashi said:
It seems rather obvious that kinetic energy can be regarded as a property of a moving mass.. If carry a cup of hot coffee from one room to another, it seems clear that I have transported heat energy. That indicates that energy can also change position.

However, there is the problem of whether mass has a position. An idealized "point mass" can have a position and move. A real mass needs to have a mass density function. Moving a real mass through space moves its density function. So if I want to talk about the position of kinetic or heat energy in real objects, it appears I need an energy density function.

At first you should note that a "real mass" is composed of atoms and molecules so its not a continuum down to any size. Those atoms and molecules are actually carrying the energy whether thermal or kinetic(now these two are somehow the same and somehow different).

About the kinetic energy, when you're moving the mass, of course all of its atoms and molecules are moving with it and all have the same "drift" speed as the speed of the mass as a whole and that "drift" speed can be used to evaluate the kinetic energy of each atom or molecule and the sum of kinetic energies of all of the atoms and molecules becomes the kinetic energy of the mass as a whole. So if your mass is e.g. rotating around an axis, those atoms further from the axis are carrying more of the kinetic energy than the ones nearer the axis.

Now notice I used "drift" speed for kinetic energy by which I meant the speed with which they have a net motion. So you may ask is there another kind of motion? Now this brings us to the thermal energy you asked about. Another kind of motion the atoms and molecules have is called thermal motion and it is the random vibration(of the constituents of a molecule w.r.t. each other) or rotation or oscillation of the atoms or molecules as a whole. If considered for an individual atom or molecule, it is simply called kinetic energy but when considered for a large number of atoms or molecules, it is seen as the random jiggling of them that each of them is doing on its own and has no simple correlation with other ones. This kind of kinetic energy, when considered for the mass as a whole and summed over, is called thermal energy is the kind of energy which we quantify by associating a temperature with the mass.

Stephen Tashi said:
Then there is the problem of potential energy. If a point mass m is at height h above the surface of the Earth we say it "has" potential energy mgh, as if the energy is "in" the mass. But the hope of getting back (m)(g)(h) worth of work if it falls depends on the gravitation field exerting the force (m)(g) throughout the fall. You could say the potential energy depends on the potential of the gravitational field at the specific location of the point mass. However, the fact that a potential function exists depends on the global properties of the gravitational field.

Suppose a mass is at rest in a time-varying graviational field. It seems it ought to have potential energy since a stationary mass in a constant force field does. We could say the mass has a time varying potential energy, but how exactly is its potential energy defined? If its potential energy has a position, where is it? If the potential energy has a density function, what is the extent of it in space?

Here I think you're missing an important point. The potential energy isn't for a particle. It is always for the system as a whole. So if I have the Earth and an apple(the only things that exists) then there is a gravitational energy coming from the mutual gravitational attraction between them. But this energy is not just for the apple or just for the earth. Its for both of them as a system. The only fact that causes the confusion that its for the apple, is that we consider Earth to be fixed and so in such considerations, only the position and velocity of the apple come into equations.

Now comes the question where the system stores its potential energy. Now that's a tough one. It also arises when we work with electromagnetic fields. We say electromagnetic energy density is given by $u=\frac 1 2 (\vec E \cdot \vec D+\vec B \cdot \vec H)$, but where is this energy stored? I remember reading somewhere that if we can measure the gravitational field of an EM field, then its possible to say where is this energy but the typical EM fields we know and can generate, produce so much of a weak gravitational field that we can't measure.
Anyway, I think about the Newtonian gravitational field, we have no answer to the question of where is its energy. But this shouldn't worry us because its not a correct theory and we have GR.

In GR and classical EM, distortions-and so energy-move with finite velocity and so there are moments where there is energy in spacetime(in GR case) and EM field. So we consider EM field and spacetime as real physical entities(even if emergent ones). So we can say energy is in those two "fields". In the case of classical EM, $u=\frac 1 2 (\vec E \cdot \vec D+\vec B \cdot \vec H)$ tells us how that energy is distributed in the field exactly(at least it seems to me). But in the GR case, there is a peculiarity. Because of the equivalence principle, you can't localize the energy in spacetime and so you can't have something like u that tells you how much gravitational energy is at any "event" of spacetime. But there are may ways of associating energy to a system of masses and the part of spacetime they're living in.

Although I explained things and I think it should be more clear to you now(if its not, tell me where I wasn't good at explaining it), I should confess that what you're asking is actually one of the peculiar things in physics so I don't think I can completely clarify things for you. I think the best you can do is updating your knowledge to the current state of the art(is it what people call it?). But I can't do that too. I just think I gave you a background for others to explain more advanced things or for you to study more.

Last edited:
• arpon
Shyan said:
Although I explained things and I think it should be more clear to you now(if its not, tell me where I wasn't good at explaining it), I should confess that what you're asking is actually one of the peculiar things in physics so I don't think I can completely clarify things for you. I think the best you can do is updating your knowledge to the current state of the art(is it what people call it?). But I can't do that too. I just think I gave you a background for others to explain more advanced things or for you to study more.

You explained things well by going beyond classical physics. I'm curious how far much progress can be made within classical physics. Within classical physics, introducting atoms and molecules would require still defining an energy density for them as material bodies. (Once it was realized that a material body isn't a satisfactory model for atoms, we began to go beyond classical physics).

Last edited:
Stephen Tashi said:
You explained things well by going beyond classical physics. I'm curious how far much progress can be made within classical physics. Within classical physics, introducting atoms and molecules would require still defining an energy density for them as material bodies. (Once it was realized that a material body isn't a satisfactory model for atoms, we began to go beyond classical physics).
I think I should explain a little bit about the word "classical" and what physicists mean when they use it. Because you said I went beyond classical physics which means, by classical physics, you mean physics before 1900. When physicists say classical physics, they mean pre-quantum physics and so relativity(special or general) is a classical theory too. If you want to talk about physics before both relativity and QM, you should say Newtonian physics I guess.
It seems you're talking about a classical model of atom when we say its just another Keplerian system with gravitational force replaced by electrostatic force and its constituents are a positively charged sphere at the centre and some much smaller negatively charged spheres rotating around the central big sphere. In this model, the atom is just another "real mass". So its energy is its kinetic energy as a whole+all external potential energies+the kinetic energy of its constituents+the potential energy of its constituents regarding its internal interactions. And its kinetic energy as a whole, is just the sum of the kinetic energies of its constituents regarding only that part of their velocity that is the result of the motion of the atom as a whole. And also its external potential as a whole, is just the sum of the potentials of its constituents regarding the external interactions. And again we are led to consider the distribution of energy in those spheres i.e. nucleus and electrons. But if you consider them as fundamental, then it has no meaning to talk about the distribution of energy in them. And if you say they're not fundamental, it means they are again a system with some constituents which are fundamental and so on and so fourth. So there is somewhere that we stop associating an energy density and just say that thing has this much energy.

My model for classical physics is what is (or used to be) taught in classical mechanics courses and physics classes that rely on a continuum - like elementary theromodynamics. I don't know the history of physics well enough define classical mechanics in historical terms. In my model of classical physics there is no conceptual difficulty thinking of real masses as being defined by a mass density. Perhaps the detailed mechanism for heat can't adequately be explained, but there is no difficulty in thinking of heat within matter being defined by a density function.

There is, as far as I can see, great difficulty in putting potential energy on the same footing other energies. If we think of heat and kinetic energy has being co-located with mass and don't assign potential energy a specific location then we have a rather mysterious picture. "Energy" is conserved, but this involves kinetic energy which has a location changing to potential energy, which doesn't - and vice versa. To make an analogy, it's like a river changing into democracy. Rivers have a location. Democracy seems an abstract property that can't be assigned one.

Stephen Tashi said:
My model for classical physics is what is (or used to be) taught in classical mechanics courses and physics classes that rely on a continuum - like elementary theromodynamics. I don't know the history of physics well enough define classical mechanics in historical terms. In my model of classical physics there is no conceptual difficulty thinking of real masses as being defined by a mass density. Perhaps the detailed mechanism for heat can't adequately be explained, but there is no difficulty in thinking of heat within matter being defined by a density function.

I'm not sure what you mean here. But I think you'll be better if you know that like continuity equation for charge density, mass density and EM energy density, we also have a continuity equation for heat. Then when we add the fact that heat flux is in the opposite direction of the heat gradient, we get the heat equation. But this is, as you mentioned, in the continuum regime of treating real masses. So here we're actually defining a temperature field on the background matter continuum so we have a case similar to GR and classical EM with the difference that temperature field is a scalar field.

Stephen Tashi said:
There is, as far as I can see, great difficulty in putting potential energy on the same footing other energies. If we think of heat and kinetic energy has being co-located with mass and don't assign potential energy a specific location then we have a rather mysterious picture. "Energy" is conserved, but this involves kinetic energy which has a location changing to potential energy, which doesn't - and vice versa. To make an analogy, it's like a river changing into democracy. Rivers have a location. Democracy seems an abstract property that can't be assigned one.

Yeah, it seems strange at first but you should consider that in the case of GR and classical EM, because waves have a finite speed, we can think that the fields are physical and real. So as I said, the energy is in those fields and we should accept that the space between the point particles or other masses is also part of the system and energy is distributed in that space(either spacetime or EM field). And GR and Maxwell's equations tell us how energy is distributed in space(time) but with the distinction that in GR, we can only say that that gravitational wave is carrying this much energy and we can't say how much energy is stored at each point. So I guess they are somehow unified but with the difference that one kind of energy is in particles and the other is in fields. But in QFT, we associate fields with even what we previously called particles and so kinetic and potential energy get more unified because they are both now energies of fields.

No, not really. Maybe with a theory of quantum gravity, it will be possible, but with classical physics, there is no way to assign a position to gravitational potential energy. It is also impossible to totally separate the energy of the electromagnetic field (which covers all space) from the self-energy of a charged particle (which is presumably localized). But we can't really talk about particles in classical physics.

Maybe I spoke too soon. You can assign a classical energy density of the gravitational field in the same way you can assign an energy density to the electromagnetic field. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/possible_scalar_terms.htm
Of course there are a fair number of problems with this approach. The gravitational self energy of a point particle is infinite, and you need some kind of renormalization to make sense of anything. Also the energy of a massive particle extends over all space due to the gravitational field.

It's interesting to visualize what happens when two masses move toward each under due to gravitational force. While they are moving, their combined gravitational field should be losing energy as the masses gain kinetic energy. Is there a qualitative way to see why their combined field is losing energy ?

Because the gravitational potential energy is negative. As the amplitude of the field increases (simple superposition of the fields of two masses), the energy density becomes more negative.

Khashishi said:
Because the gravitational potential energy is negative. As the amplitude of the field increases (simple superposition of the fields of two masses), the energy density becomes more negative.

I can't visualize that yet. Is the combined field weaking at all locations in space? I'd think that if we are at a point in space where one of the moving masses passes close to us that the field would become stronger. [Edit:] and then weaker as the mass moves away.

I'm not sure what you meant by "weaking". For Newtonian gravity, the gravitational field obeys the superposition principle. The gravitational potential is the sum of the gravitational potential coming from each source. The gravitational field is the vector sum of the field from each source.

Khashishi said:
I'm not sure what you meant by "weaking". For Newtonian gravity, the gravitational field obeys the superposition principle. The gravitational potential is the sum of the gravitational potential coming from each source. The gravitational field is the vector sum of the field from each source.

I'm familiar with superposition. I think the increase the kinetic energy of two masses moving toward each other under gravitational attraction should be accompanied by the loss of potential energy in their combined gravitational field. Isn't that the way it should work?

Stephen Tashi said:
I'm familiar with superposition. I think the increase the kinetic energy of two masses moving toward each other under gravitational attraction should be accompanied by the loss of potential energy in their combined gravitational field. Isn't that the way it should work?

The gravitational field itself is not an energy, as can be seen by simply looking at the units. The gravitational potential ##\phi## doesn't have units of energy, but energy per mass. In order to actually have a potential energy, you need to have an interaction between masses.

In this case, the gravitational potential energy is ##U=-\frac{GM_1M_1}{r}## and indeed this quantity will become more negative as the masses get closer (and r-shrinks) and the 2 kinetic energies will exactly account for this.

Matterwave said:
The gravitational field itself is not an energy, as can be seen by simply looking at the units. The gravitational potential ##\phi## doesn't have units of energy, but energy per mass.

Yes, but the link in post #8 defines an energy density for the gravitaional field in units of joules per cubic meter.

Stephen Tashi said:
Yes, but the link in post #8 defines an energy density for the gravitaional field in units of joules per cubic meter.

There is no need to introduce a field structure for Newtonian gravity since all forces are instantaneous. Newtonian gravitation has no gravitational waves. As such, you will not lose energy to fields when considering the motion of bodies in gravitational fields. I don't see how the fact that you can define the quantity mentioned in post #8 changes anything.

Matterwave said:
I don't see how the fact that you can define the quantity mentioned in post #8 changes anything.

It gives potential energy a spatial density, so (with reference to the original post) potential energy has a position - at least it has a position in the same sense as mass (which is also a scalar) has an associated position.

My simplistic reasoning is that if the field has energy density, then it has a total energy found by integrating the density over all space. My further simplistic reasoning is that (perhaps) if two masses are moving and accelerating due to their gravitational fields then their combined field would be losing the potential energy that is converted into kinetic energy.

An alternative view is that the potential energy being used up was "in" the masses themselves. Yet another view is that the potential energy of the bodies is just an scalar that describes an "aspect" of the entire situation, so it has no particular location and density function.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Stephen Tashi said:
It gives potential energy a spatial density, so (with reference to the original post) potential energy has a position - at least it has a position in the same sense as mass (which is also a scalar) has an associated position.

My simplistic reasoning is that if the field has energy density, then it has a total energy found by integrating the density over all space. My further simplistic reasoning is that (perhaps) if two masses are moving and accelerating due to their gravitational fields then their combined field would be losing the potential energy that is converted into kinetic energy.

An alternative view is that the potential energy being used up was "in" the masses themselves. Yet another view is that the potential energy of the bodies is just an scalar that describes an "aspect" of the entire situation, so it has no particular location and density function.

Like I said, you can't lose energy to these fields since they don't radiate...so what's the point of doing this? Why are you making things 10 times more complicated than you need to? You can solve the Newtonian equations of motions completely by considering just the 2 masses and the force between them. If you want to do energetics, then you can solve the energetics problem completely by considering just the kinetic energies and potential energy that I wrote down in post #14. Why do you want to have to integrate this arbitrary function that was defined in post #8?

Khashishi said:
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I'm not making an assertion. I'm actually trying to answer a question a high school student asked me years ago. "Where is the potential energy of a mass m at height h above the surface of the earth? Is it in the mass?" (I forget how I weaseled my way through an answer.) This is a conceptual question. I'm not in need of new problem solving techniques. To solve problems, you say "Don't worry about it kid. Just use the formulas."

Mass is a scalar quantity. We think of mass as having an associated position. For real masses the association of mass to position is given by a density function. For idealized point masses, the position is a single point in space. If someone says "I have a mass of 10 kg then asking "Where is it?" is a meaningful question. Asking "Is it democratic?" isn't a meaningful question (in physics) since being democratic isn't a property that mass must have or lack.

Energy is a scalar quantity. Does it have an associated position? (I have no axe to grind on whether does or doesn't, I'm just curious about what the conventional view is (or was) in classical physics.) If someone says "I have 10 joules of energy", is asking "Where is it? " a meaninful question? Or is this like asking "Is it democratic?"

We say energy is conserved and that this may involve the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy. If energy has a position then potential energy at some location can be converted to kinetic energy at some perhaps different location. In the case of two bodies moving toward each other due to mutual gravitational attraction, how do we describe the location of the energies involved?

I was wondering if we could say that some potential energy "in the field" is converted to kinetic energy "in the bodies".

If not, maybe we have to give up on the idea that energy has position.

Matterwave said:
Why are you making things 10 times more complicated than you need to? You can solve the Newtonian equations of motions completely by considering just the 2 masses and the force between them.

As I said, I'm not worried about problem solving techniques. Yes, it is 10 times harder to have a precise conceptual understanding of energy than to use it in equations.

The problem with asking the question "where is it?" when someone tells you that "I have 10 joules of energy" is that the statement "I have 10 joules of energy" makes no sense. (Whereas the corresponding "I have 10 kg of mass" does make sense).

As we all have learned, only differences in energy matter. As such, a ball may have 10 joules, or 1000 joules of energy, depending on where you measure 0. Kinetic energy, for example, is frame dependent. Potential energy is similarly so. So what is your question exactly?

You quoted only the first part of my previous post. I believe the second part is more pertinent to the question you had previously. The definition given in post #8 can not "lose" energy in the fields, because gravitational radiation is not a thing in Newtonian gravity. So, if it is a good definition of the potential energy, it can not differ in physical predictions from the definition I gave in post #14, since the one in post #14 along with the kinetic energies give you all you need to know about the energetics of the problem. Hence my question asking why you are attempting to make things harder by working with the definition given in post #8.

Since position and velocity is relative, I guess the best we can say for energy defined by those is that the system has energy. Take away the Earth and the potential energy of the Moon disappears. But what about chemical energy and heat? Are those "system" concepts also?

Matterwave said:
The problem with asking the question "where is it?" when someone tells you that "I have 10 joules of energy" is that the statement "I have 10 joules of energy" makes no sense. (Whereas the corresponding "I have 10 kg of mass" does make sense).

As we all have learned, only differences in energy matter. As such, a ball may have 10 joules, or 1000 joules of energy, depending on where you measure 0. Kinetic energy, for example, is frame dependent. Potential energy is similarly so.

As FactChecker mentions, by the same line of reasoning it makes no sense to say that a mass "has" a specific velocity or acceleration since these are frame dependent. Does it makes no sense to associate "the" velocity of a mass with the position of the mass? (Perhaps it doesn't ! ) To meet the objection of reference frames, let's say a person defines a frame of reference and then says that in that frame he (or something) has 10 Joules of energy, is that meaningless? May we ask where the energy is?

You quoted only the first part of my previous post. I believe the second part is more pertinent to the question you had previously.

I agree that the definition you gave is a good one, but I don't agree that it sheds any light on whether one can define a location for the potential energy that is calculated. My impression is that you assert that is meaningless to talk about the potential energy having an associated position. I'm not claiming there is any logical or experimental contradiction to your definition.. But the fact that it defines something doesn't imply that nothing further can be defined. Your point of view (I think) is that defining potential energy by that formula is all that is needed to solve problems and that one need not define a location for the potential energy for that purpose. The lack of a need to do something, doesn't deter theoretical investigations! If there is something inherently paradoxical about giving potential energy a position or if there is something that makes a position of potential energy theoretically unmeasurable then these would be strong objections to defining a position for it.

The energy density $\frac{1}{8 \pi G} |g(x,y,z) | ^2$ is not a linear function of the magnitude of the field vector $g(x,y,z)$, so I don't see that the energy density of the superposition of two fields at $(x,y,z)$ is the sum of their respective energy densities there. I think that posters are telling me that the total energy in the combined gravitational field of two masses does not depend on the relative position of the two masses. I don't understand why the superposition principle for fields explains this if the density function is not linear.

Stephen Tashi said:
As FactChecker mentions, by the same line of reasoning it makes no sense to say that a mass "has" a specific velocity or acceleration since these are frame dependent. Does it makes no sense to associate "the" velocity of a mass with the position of the mass? (Perhaps it doesn't ! ) To meet the objection of reference frames, let's say a person defines a frame of reference and then says that in that frame he (or something) has 10 Joules of energy, is that meaningless? May we ask where the energy is?

It is still meaningless, even given a reference frame, for one to say "I have 10 Joules of energy", because the 0 is still arbitrary. Gravitational potential energy between two masses is usually given as a negative number because the 0 is defined for 2 masses at infinity, and as the masses get closer to each other, they lose gravitational potential energy. This is the most convenient choice and makes all our formulas easier by not needing to add any constants to it. But it is not the only choice. Of course, your line of reasoning will quickly run into the fundamental problem, which is how we actually define energy. Not just different types of energy, but really what is energy. This is a very deep question in physics.

I agree that the definition you gave is a good one, but I don't agree that it sheds any light on whether one can define a location for the potential energy that is calculated. My impression is that you assert that is meaningless to talk about the potential energy having an associated position. I'm not claiming there is any logical or experimental contradiction to your definition.. But the fact that it defines something doesn't imply that nothing further can be defined. Your point of view (I think) is that defining potential energy by that formula is all that is needed to solve problems and that one need not define a location for the potential energy for that purpose. The lack of a need to do something, doesn't deter theoretical investigations! If there is something inherently paradoxical about giving potential energy a position or if there is something that makes a position of potential energy theoretically unmeasurable then these would be strong objections to defining a position for it.

The energy density $\frac{1}{8 \pi G} |g(x,y,z) | ^2$ is not a linear function of the magnitude of the field vector $g(x,y,z)$, so I don't see that the energy density of the superposition of two fields at $(x,y,z)$ is the sum of their respective energy densities there. I think that posters are telling me that the total energy in the combined gravitational field of two masses does not depend on the relative position of the two masses. I don't understand why the superposition principle for fields explains this if the density function is not linear.

It's not only that you need not define a field in order to do problems and predict E.O.M., it's also that this field, whatever it is, can't steal energy from your system. Unlike in the E&M field where energy (and momentum) can be lost to the field (through EM radiation), the gravity field in classical mechanics CAN NOT radiate. If I can't "give energy to the field", and really all that this field can do is mediate transfer of energy to OBJECTS, which by the way is done fully correctly by simply considering the potential energy function ##E=-\frac{GM_1 M_2}{r}##, then why am I considering this field at all when I am considering energetics? What is the point other than making things harder on yourself?

So let's say we give the following different answers, and consider ONLY classical mechanics. How would you propose we differentiate between the situations?

1) The gravitational interaction energy between two objects is stored in neither object alone, but is a property of the system (2 objects) as a whole.

2) The gravitational interaction energy between two objects is stored in the object with smaller mass. In the case of equal mass, it is stored equally between the two objects.

3) The gravitational interaction energy between two objects is stored in the gravitational field as defined in post #8.

the fact is , for the gravitational potential energy , field is the cause of energy being stored but it is not what stores the energy , gravitational potential energy is always stored in the object itself . . if you think that the gravitational P.E is stored in the field then you are wrong
because as we see the Earth is moving so a point in space on the orbit of the Earth has a different potential energy in different moments ( if you think gravitational PE is stored in the field ) so its always radiating energy or absorbing which is not the case ... it is the object which has relative distance from the center of earth

and for the cup you have talked about , yes of course heat energy radiates from a molecule so it has an original point or ... the molecule has the thermal energy so it has a specific position ( it's stored in the molecule or an object ) ... same goes with kinetic energy ...
and there are lots of things that can't be counted with linear equations but doesn't mean that they are vectors ( i hope you don't mean that energy has a vector part )
again, the boy who asks ,where is the mgh is stored ? the answer is it's in the object itself not in the field ...
i think you know what i am saying and you understand . it is what we were taught in the elementary level .. please don't try to make it complex willingly

I just want to repeat Matterwave's point because I think he's actually very right. But I want to repeat it because maybe I can clarify it further.
In Newtonian physics, the interactions are instantaneous and so particles can interact directly. This means whatever field we define in Newtonian physics, is superfluous and we can easily do without it. So let's think without fields. A system of masses have a potential energy as a whole and each mass has its own kinetic energy. When the configuration changes, kinetic energy and potential energy get converted to each other but because interactions are instantaneous, we can say that the potential energy is distributed among particles, maybe we can say particles with larger mass,carry more of the energy and vice versa. So we can say each particle has a "gas tank" with two parts: 1) My kinetic energy 2) My share of potential energy. So whenever the configuration is changing, the particles are just exchanging energy with each other from their gas tanks now either from the kinetic part or from the potential part. Now because interactions are instantaneous, at all moments, energy is in the particles and there is no time that energy is out of the particles and so its wrong to define a potential energy density function for space. This is superfluous. Now it may seem strange but this is because Newtonian physics is wrong in that it associates an infinite speed for interactions. So when we do the transition from Newtonian physics to SR (classical EM and GR), things get straightened out because now we can say the energy of the system as a whole is stored in the field(spacetime or EM field) and each particle has its own kinetic energy.

Shyan said:
Now it may seem strange but this is because Newtonian physics is wrong in that it associates an infinite speed for interactions.
heard it for the first time ... highest speed that we can get for an iterection is the speed of the light

THE HARLEQUIN said:
heard it for the first time ... highest speed that we can get for an iterection is the speed of the light
You never heard this?! So you never studied Newtonian physics!
Its with the introduction of SR that we assume there is a maximum speed for everything. Before SR, there was not such a thing.

an instantaneous process which happen within a negligible time interval doesn't necessarily mean that it happens with infinite speed ... i think it that way

THE HARLEQUIN said:
an instantaneous process which happen within a negligible time interval doesn't necessarily mean that it happens with infinite speed ... i think it that way
But this is inconsistent, because this way, the speed of interaction will be different for different distances between particles!

i don't know what type of interaction you are talking about , but interactions happen to all particles simultaneously within the range of interaction

THE HARLEQUIN said:
i don't know what type of interaction you are talking about , but interactions happen to all particles simultaneously within the range of interaction
I'm talking about Newton's law of gravitation and Coloumb's law! You're simply wrong. Let me demonstrate it for you.
Let's say there is a universal negligible time $\varepsilon$ that its takes only this time for particles to interact(yeah, you didn't say the time interval is universal but you said its negligible so its to a extremely perfect approximation the same for all pair of particles with any distance).
So now I have two particles with the distance between them equal to $D_1$ and two other particles with the distance between them equal to $D_2$ which we know $D_2 \neq D_1$. So the speed of interaction between them is $v_1=\frac{D_1}{\varepsilon}$ and $v_2=\frac{D_2}{\varepsilon}$. Now these two speeds are equal only when $D_2=D_1$ which we know is not the case so we have $v_2\neq v_1$.

it's not like what you think it is that an object enters in a field and after a while it feels a pull ... as soon as the object enters the field then within a fraction of time it feels the pull ... the object that is D distance away from the field feels the pull after it enters ... after they enter the field the pull they feel remains all the time ... its not like from nowhere you can bring any object close to the Earth ... first you have to enter the field ... think it that way ... that's an easier way to look at it

THE HARLEQUIN said:
it's not like what you think it is that an object enters in a field and after a while it feels a pull ... as soon as the object enters the field then within a fraction of time it feels the pull ... the object that is D distance away from the field feels the pull after it enters ... after they enter the field the pull they feel remains all the time ... its not like from nowhere you can bring any object close to the Earth ... first you have to enter the field ... think it that way ... that's an easier way to look at it
That's wrong too. Because for inverse-square forces, there is no "entering" or "quitting" the field. Because $F=-\frac{k}{r_{12}^2}\hat r_{12}$ is never zero and there is no part of space which is out of the field.