B Energy: Abstract Concept or Entity?

[Dale]

Excellent, thank you @physics pfan for providing an actual reference which defines entity. The definition in this reference is “ an entity is something physically real (i.e., of mass or energy) that has a presence in a dimension”

'Entity' is an assumption all physicists make about reality

Let’s not go overboard here. It is a definition in one obscure reference used by a single author, hardly “all physicists”. But at least it is a published definition of the term.

an entity is something measurable and quantized that resides (extends) in a dimension.

Please don’t misquote your own source.

Can energy be defined as an entity?

So according to the above definition, no, energy is not an entity. It is a property of entities.

 

[Anko]

Is a property of a physical entity information about the entity? Is the information encoded?

In physics can the encoding be arbitrary or is it restricted by the properties themselves?I would answer yes to the first question and yes to the second.
Answering the third question would mean thinking about physical units and how these are encoded so I can distinguish different units. Ahem

 

[Vanadium 50]

You all know this is a "hit and run" thread; the OP didn't stick around to see the answer to his questions.

 

[Drakkith]

Is a property of a physical entity information about the entity?

Yes.

Is the information encoded?

I don't know what this means in this context.

In physics can the encoding be arbitrary or is it restricted by the properties themselves?

Same as above.

 

[Anko]

I don't know what this means in this context.

Encoding is an information-theoretic term.
Without an encoding there is exactly zero information.

Physical units in standard form are what we use to decide what is or how to decode physical information.

 

[physics pfan]

Again - do you have any professional scientific reference that defines the term “entity” that way? I'm a physicist and the only thing I can say about what you write is "nonsense". Sorry.

I believe "entity" is being used abstractly in that article for a class of objects. Substituting one gets: "a particle is something measurable and quantized that resides (extends) in a dimension." Do you object to that statement?

This becomes a test for reality modeled after the particle. Can a particle be physically real and lack one of these requirements: measurable, quantized and space-extending? I think not.

But a photon is as physically real as a rest mass particle; it's just that it is mysterious to us (e.g., photon dualism). The point of the article is to apply this test to inquire which dimension is required to make the following true. "The photon is something measurable and quantized that resides (extends) in a dimension."

I suggest reading the article fully and substitute “object” wherever it reads “entity.”

 

[Dale]

This becomes a test for reality modeled after the particle. Can a particle be physically real and lack one of these requirements: measurable, quantized and space-extending? I think not.

”Real” is a question of metaphysics, not physics. We do not discuss philosophy here. Your listed requirements are objectionable, but this forum is emphatically not the place for it.