Does the type of energy depend on the particle carying it?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the type of energy depends on the particles carrying it, with participants debating the relationship between energy and matter. It is clarified that energy does not inherently rely on matter, as light (carried by massless photons) and magnetic fields can store energy without being composed of particles. The term "energy" is defined as the ability to do work, independent of mass or matter. Various forms of energy, such as chemical, electrical, and thermal, are acknowledged as roles rather than distinct types. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexity of energy and its association with different physical phenomena.
hexhunter
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
does the type of energy depend on the particle carying it?

assuming that electricity is carried by electrons and light is carried by photons, do all types of energy rely on matter to exist?

and can one type of particle carry several types of energy?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
"types of energy"?

i've never heard such thing before.
 
Electricity is a very loose definition. Do you mean Current? Voltage? Charge?

I wouldn't say light is carried by photons either. Rather, light/em radiation can be described in terms of photons.

Also a photon is not matter. Matter has mass, and as far as we know, photons have no mass.

So by this logic, no energy does not rely on matter to exist.
But I do not know what you mean by types of energy.

A particle can have energy from it's momentum(kinetic energy), and it would have a zero point energy. If it was in a potential well, that would also be taken into account. But they are not distinguishable in the sense you can say "Ah look at that, it's Kinetic Energy!"
 
by types i meant chemical/electrical/light/thermal

sorry I am only 15, so anything i don't get i probably haven't been taught, but from what I've picked up, energy is 'carried' by electrons in circuits
 
hexhunter said:
by types i meant chemical/electrical/light/thermal

i see... these names refer to the "role"s of energy, closely related to affects of the energy, not types of energy.

there has been different discussions on nature of energy, such as existence of negative energy, dark matter, etc. but these topics are beyond my current knowledge (well, I'm a student, not a prof).
 
fdarkangel,

You are incorrect. It is perfectly acceptable to call chemical potential, gravitational potential, sound, heat, etc. "types" of energy.

hexhunter,

There are two issues. One, the term "energy" means only "the ability to do work." Energy does not necessarily have anything to do with particles, mass, or matter. Sure, bowling balls have mass, and they carry kinetic energy when they're thrown down a lane, but that doesn't mean all energy requires mass. Light, for example, has no mass, but certainly has energy. Magnetic fields can store energy, but they're made of neither atoms nor photons nor particles of any kind -- they have nothing to do with matter at all, but they can still store energy. If a system has energy, it just means that the system is configured in a way that work can be done, and that's the most definite definition that anyone can give you.

The second issue, which kirovman pointed out, is that the word "electricity" is a sloppy word commonly used to mean any of at least six different precise things.

- Warren
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top