Is energy considered to be physical?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert P
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Physical
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of "non-physical energy sources" and whether this term is a contradiction. Participants agree that without credible references, claims of non-physical energy are likely unfounded. The conversation highlights the importance of context, particularly in discussions about the universe's origins, where scientific terminology must be adhered to. It is suggested that inquiries into such topics are better suited for cosmology forums, as they delve into the complexities of the universe's creation beyond current scientific understanding.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics principles
  • Familiarity with cosmology concepts
  • Knowledge of acceptable sources in scientific discussions
  • Ability to differentiate between scientific and philosophical arguments
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of cosmology and the origins of the universe
  • Explore the role of mathematics in theoretical physics
  • Investigate credible sources on energy definitions in physics
  • Study the implications of dimensions in the universe's existence
USEFUL FOR

Individuals interested in physics, cosmology enthusiasts, and anyone seeking to understand the scientific basis for energy concepts and the universe's origins.

Robert P
Messages
19
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
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   Reactions: sophiecentaur
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
881
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K