Is energy considered to be physical?

In summary, the conversation revolves around the concept of a non-physical energy source in relation to the creation of the universe. The speaker believes that any discussion about this topic would be futile because it cannot be explained through current scientific knowledge. They also suggest exploring mathematical concepts to gain a better understanding. However, they caution against accepting claims without solid scientific evidence or philosophical arguments.
  • #1
Robert P
19
1
If someone were to talk about "a non-physical energy source" would you consider that a contradiction in terms?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Probably.

Context is important, though. If you can give a reference for what you are talking about without violating PF rules (see the Acceptable Sources section here) on acceptable sources then we can look. If you can't find such a reference then you can safely conclude that it's rubbish.
 
  • #3
Ibix said:
Probably.

Context is important, though. If you can give a reference for what you are talking about without violating PF rules (see the Acceptable Sources section here) on acceptable sources then we can look. If you can't find such a reference then you can safely conclude that it's rubbish.
It involves a discussion related to the creation of the universe - "where'd all the 'stuff' come from" - elsewhere, where someone references a "non-physical energy source". My initial reaction is that it's a contradiction in terms but I wanted to make sure I was correct related to terminology and principles.
 
  • #4
You'd be better asking in the cosmology forum if you want to know about real theories related to the early universe, but I don't think we have an answer to where everything comes from.

I would expect that anybody talking about a "non-physical energy source" in that context is peddling non-scientific rubbish, yes. So ask for references discussing it. If they have a solid scientific source for the claim then we can discuss it here (or cosmology, better). If they have a serious philosophical argument then you'll have to make your own judgement (philosophy is off topic here). If they have neither, see my previous post.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #5
Robert P said:
It involves a discussion related to the creation of the universe - "where'd all the 'stuff' come from" - elsewhere, where someone references a "non-physical energy source". My initial reaction is that it's a contradiction in terms but I wanted to make sure I was correct related to terminology and principles.
Any such discussion is really pretty fruitless because the 'answer' cannot be in terms of the Science we use today. That term " non-physical energy source" is actually implying that - i.e. where all the stuff came from cannot be described in 'Physical' terms alone.

It's down to Mathematics to try to show that our world could be there because of some logical reasoning about possible dimensions that a Universe can have. This link makes good reading and discusses something about how things are what they are. It's an attempt, as I see it, to use present ideas to take us back a step further in a possible history of things.
Not a direct answer to the OP, of course but it is perhaps a way in that doesn't need to answer that awkward question.
 

1. Is energy considered a physical quantity?

Yes, energy is considered a physical quantity because it has measurable properties such as mass and velocity, and it can be observed and interacted with in the physical world.

2. What is the difference between energy and matter?

Energy and matter are two distinct concepts in physics. Matter refers to physical substances that have mass and occupy space, while energy is the ability to do work or cause change. Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa, but they are not interchangeable.

3. Can energy be created or destroyed?

According to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form to another. This means that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.

4. Is energy a tangible substance?

No, energy is not a tangible substance. It is a property or characteristic of matter. While we can observe and measure the effects of energy, we cannot physically touch or hold it.

5. How is energy related to motion?

Energy is closely related to motion. In fact, energy is required to cause any change in the motion of an object. The amount of energy an object has depends on its mass and velocity, and this energy can be converted into different forms, such as kinetic energy or potential energy.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
907
Replies
1
Views
681
Replies
4
Views
586
Replies
9
Views
984
Replies
10
Views
799
Replies
12
Views
746
  • Classical Physics
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
22
Views
810
Replies
16
Views
862
Replies
51
Views
1K
Back
Top