Is Energy Size-Dependent? Exploring the Relationship Between Energy and Space

[Pjpic]

Does energy take up space? In other words; if one particle has more energy than another, does the more energetic particle have to be larger in size?

 

[hackhard]

mass is a form of potential energy so energy sometimes takes up space.
but

if one particle has more energy than another, does the more energetic particle have to be larger in size?

is never true even if one particle has more mass than another, heavier particle can by much smaller in size

 

[Isaac0427]

It depends on what type of energy you are talking about. You can have:
-Kinetic energy (E=.5*mv²)
-Potential energy (E=mkx)
-Mass energy (E=mc²)
-Momentum energy (E=pc)
-Heat energy (there is no exact equation that I know of, but it can be defined as the average kinetic energy of many particles)
Each of those (except for potential energy), UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS can make something larger, and under other conditions, they do not.

 

[Isaac0427]

mass is a form of potential energy so energy sometimes takes up space.

I'm pretty sure it is its own type of energy (I generally call it combined with momentum energy "relativistic energy", as the energy is described in relativity however I don't know if that is an accepted name).

is never true even if one particle has more mass than another, heavier particle can by much smaller in size

It is not never true, it is just not always true, or sometimes true.

 

[brainpushups]

Does energy take up space? In other words; if one particle has more energy than another, does the more energetic particle have to be larger in size?

No. Energy is an abstract physical concept and can only be measured or calculated indirectly.

mass is a form of potential energy so energy sometimes takes up space.

Mass is not size/volume. Having more mass does not mean the object takes up more space. Also, this is under the 'classical' forum so I think we can safely ignore relativistic characterizations of energy.

 

[hackhard]

f one particle has more energy than another

it can never be said that a particle has more total energy than another since total energy of body in not measurable
but loss in total energy is theoritically measurable and we can say a body has lost more energy than other

 

[jtbell]

Does energy take up space? In other words; if one particle has more energy than another, does the more energetic particle have to be larger in size?

Why do you think this might be the case?

 

[Pjpic]

Why do you think this might be the case?

Things take up space. If energy (if that is a thing) is added to an electron; it would seem that the electron would either have to get bigger or that there was empty space inside of the electron where the additional energy could fit. On the other hand, if electrons are dimensionless points; maybe my question isn't valid.

 

[jtbell]

Energy isn't a "thing" in itself. It's a property of a "thing," or system. You can't isolate "pure energy", just as you can't isolate "pure color".

 

[Pjpic]

Energy isn't a "thing" in itself. It's a property of a "thing," or system. You can't isolate "pure energy", just as you can't isolate "pure color".

So energy is one property of a force carrying particle?

 

[NathanaelNolk]

So energy is one property of a force carrying particle?

Not necessarily a force carrying particle, it can be a property of a system for instance.

 

[nasu]

So energy is one property of a force carrying particle?

"force carrying particle" does not make sense.
Force is a measure of interaction between particles, not something that a particle will "carry". It is not a property of a particle or of any other object..

 

[David Lewis]

I suppose an electron carries an electric force field with it, and every particle of mass carries with it a gravitational field, in a manner of speaking.

Einstein implied that space and time are intertwined and, although we can't say energy takes up space, we can say that energy and time are complementary physical properties.

 

[Khashishi]

"take up space" is not something that is clearly defined in physics.

 

[Isaac0427]

"take up space" is not something that is clearly defined in physics.

I find the concept of volume to be perfectly defined in physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

Photons - light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation - do not normally interact. They can pass right through each other. You cannot fill a box "full" with light. In that sense, energy does not take up space.

Matter, on the other hand, obeys the Pauli Exclusion Principle. It does take up space, and you can fill a box full with it.

 

[256bits]

Why do you think this might be the case?

That is a representation of a hydrogen atom in its ground state, and in two different exited states.
Seems bigger when exited.

Energy level at ground state E_o= -13.6eV
Energy level at first exited state = -3-4eV
At infinity, E_∞ = 0 eV

It seems as energy is added to the electron-protron system, it does get bigger.

 

[Drakkith]

It seems as energy is added to the electron-protron system, it does get bigger.

Sure, because the addition of energy excites the electron to an orbital with a larger average radius. But it is the electron that takes up space, not the energy itself.

 

[256bits]

Sure, because the addition of energy excites the electron to an orbital with a larger average radius. But it is the electron that takes up space, not the energy itself.

Object, or particle, in question is the electron-proton composite, not just the electron nor the proton each individually. And this composite has the gain in potential energy when the atom is excited. The excited atom as a particle takes up extra space.

 

[Drakkith]

Object, or particle, in question is the electron-proton composite, not just the electron nor the proton each individually. And this composite has the gain in potential energy when the atom is excited. The excited atom as a particle takes up extra space.

Yes it does. So what?

 

[256bits]

Yes it does. So what?

So What, what?.
Refer to the original posting.

Does energy take up space? In other words; if one particle has more energy than another, does the more energetic particle have to be larger in size?

 

[krater]

So that's one system described as a particle which does increase in size. But not everything one could classify as a particle. So it doesn't have to be larger in size.

But let me ask you this, if you were to take a box which was completely full of particles you described, then separate them into a second box sized to be completely filled with the particles and a third box with the energy that gave them the size needed to completely fill the volume of the first box... what is the volume of the third box "filled" only with energy expected to be? Or, how much space would it take up?

 

[Isaac0427]

I want to reiterate my first comment (#3). Different types of energy under different circumstances can or can not take up space.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I want to reiterate my first comment (#3). Different types of energy under different circumstances can or can not take up space.

And it's as wrong now as it was the first time you said it.

Energy is not a thing. It does not take up space. Configurations of objects take up space, and their energy may depend on their configuration.

 

[nasu]

That is a representation of a hydrogen atom in its ground state, and in two different exited states.
Seems bigger when exited.

Energy level at ground state E_o= -13.6eV
Energy level at first exited state = -3-4eV
At infinity, E_∞ = 0 eV

It seems as energy is added to the electron-protron system, it does get bigger.

But is that space really "taken"?
Other particles can go through that space . The nucleus is actually in the middle and "takes" some of the same space. Neutrons can easily pass through many of these "taken" spaces. Even charged particles can do it. An adding an electron with opposite spin to the same orbital does increase the space "taken"?

The problem is, as mentioned before, that the notion of "taking space" is use very loosely in the discussion and so the argument is quite irrelevant.
Even the idea that adding energy to a system will make the system to take more space is not generally true.
Extracting thermal energy from water until it freezes makes it to "take more space". So this energy will take some negative space? :)

As for "energy taking space" is statement without meaning, as mentioned several times.

 

[Isaac0427]

And it's as wrong now as it was the first time you said it.

Energy is not a thing. It does not take up space. Configurations of objects take up space, and their energy may depend on their configuration.

What I meant was a particle with more energy.

Example: keeping density constant, more mass energy means more space is taken up.

Example 2: keeping the same amount of a particular gas, if more heat is added to the gas its volume increases, and as heat is taken away, its volume decreases.

I will say, however, it does depend on what you mean by take up space, and by energy. I interpreted the question as energy meaning "a particle/particles with energy" and taking up more space as having a larger volume.

EDIT:
The reason for the interpretation was that the OP said:

In other words; if one particle has more energy than another, does the more energetic particle have to be larger in size?

 

[jbriggs444]

What I meant was a particle with more energy.
Example: keeping density constant, more mass energy means more space is taken up.

But that just begs the question. Does density have to remain constant when adding energy?

 

[Isaac0427]

But that just begs the question. Does density have to remain constant when adding energy?

That is why I said certain circumstances. The circumstance for that example was a constant density.

 

[Drakkith]

So What, what?.
Refer to the original posting.

Okay. Now I would like you to elaborate on your answer. How does the excitation of an electron mean that energy takes up space given that a hydrogen atom is a system of more than one particle?

 

[256bits]

Okay. Now I would like you to elaborate on your answer. How does the excitation of an electron mean that energy takes up space given that a hydrogen atom is a system of more than one particle?

Fair enough question, but not exactly what I had said or think, but anyways.
Getting back to this.

In reference to the original post

if one particle has more energy than another, does the more energetic particle have to be larger in size?

Particle has not been defined here as being elementary.
Neither is there a rigorous definition of space.
I used the hydrogen atom as being the particle, which is just as valid a choice as any other.

One could also use the example of heating a volume of mass.
If unconstrained, the volume expands. If constrained, the increase in energy will display itself as a pressure.
For a range of temperature, we can say that the extra energy is manifested as the atom doing more rigorous wiggling, rotating, and translating.
The atom, even though it itself does not become larger, will "attempt to occupy more space" in the same duration of time as before.

( Kind of like dancers on a floor - doing the jitterbug requires the dancing partners to occupy more space with their arms and legs flailing about, spinning and fast movements, compared to a close slow dance )

So, what has not been explained, is with the excited atom, who has the increased energy - the electron, the atom, and how? increased kinetic energy of the electron in outer shells?

 

[jbriggs444]

If unconstrained, the volume expands. If constrained, the increase in energy will display itself as a pressure.

Can you apply this claim to a volume of water at 1 degree Celsius?

 

[256bits]

But is that space really "taken"?
...
.

Thanks for the reply.
See the previous post to Drakith about who and what has the energy in an excited atom.

( I wrote that ages ago and forgot to PUSH the send button )

 

[256bits]

Can you apply this claim to a volume of water at 1 degree Celsius?

Perhaps I put my qualifier "For a range of temperature " , in a place where it does not cover the basic theme I was trying to present, which was for when a material undergoes a positive thermal expansion ( with increase in temperature ).

I think this has already been mentioned in post 25 nasu.

Extracting thermal energy from water until it freezes makes it to "take more space". So this energy will take some negative space? :)

As for every general rule, there is an exception.

For the record, even though most materials expand upon heating, there are other exceptions besides H20 which display negative thermal expansion, with liquid water having its greatest density at around 4, and ice at --200 C. The Wiki offers some others such as

Perhaps one of the most studied materials to exhibit negative thermal expansion is https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/Cubic_Zirconium_Tungstate (ZrW2O8). This compound contracts continuously over a temperature range of 0.3 to 1050 K

 

[Drakkith]

Well, I don't have any answers for you. I agree with the the idea that energy is an abstract quantity that cannot take up space.