Is Energy Constantly Changing Its Location?

[mark!]

In other words:
Is there a form of energy that is NOT continuously changing its place?

 

[.Scott]

Potential Energy - for example, snow hanging from a mountain side before the avalanche.

 

[DrClaude]

I don't understand the premise of the question. Why should energy be moving?

 

[weirdoguy]

Does temperature move? Does force move? Does frequency move? If not, why you think that energy moves?

 

[mark!]

Because all matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller (moving) subatomic particles

 

[Dadface]

Amongst other things I think that perhaps mark! is thinking of energy movement in terms of energy changes. These changes are constantly going on all around us just one example being mechanical energy being converted to heat energy which spreads (moves) to the surroundings

 

[weirdoguy]

Because all matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller (moving) subatomic particles

And how does that answer my question? Energy is not a thing, it's a property of matter. Properties don't move, they change. Energy can be transfered, but calling that "movement" can cause misunderstandings

 

[mark!]

You're right, but than my question was not quite right, I meant to say all FORMS of energy existing in nature. Not 'energy' itself

 

[ZapperZ]

Because all matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller (moving) subatomic particles

There is this thing that is important in science, and it is called a sequence of logic, in which there is a rational connection between one to the next. This is why, for example, why arranging your furniture in such a way that will result in prosperity is not science, because there is no established connection on where you place your couch and you becoming rich.

So here, you need to make the logical and rational connection between "... matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller subatomic particles... " to "... does all energy move?..." Why would matter being made of smaller particles equate to you thinking that ALL (not some, all) energy moves? What does "move" even mean, considering that I can always transform myself to the frame of reference of the moving particle and all my physics remains the same? That particle is now no longer moving according to me.

And is this even a "Quantum Physics" question?

Do you now see why we are puzzled by your explanation?

Zz.

 

[mark!]

I thought it was an easy question :')

 

[weirdoguy]

It's not about easy/not easy. It's about whether your question makes sense or not. Stating "I meant to say all FORMS of energy existing in nature. Not 'energy' itself" does not make it better. Energy is a property, not a "thing" with a position that can move in an ordinary sense.

 

[ZapperZ]

I thought it was an easy question :')

It is only "easy" if you ask this to a 2-year old who hasn't learned anything about physics. But you came here, to a physics forum. Do you think this forum is populated by amateurs?

We also do not know to what extent of complexity and to what level of thoroughness you want the answer. That is why we have been quizzing you on these things because there are things you are connecting together that simply do not make any sense. It is like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?". A number of things that you had already assumed simply have not been established yet ("matter made up of smaller particles" and "energy moving").

Unfortunately, you haven't offered a proper response to my previous post, but instead, made a comment on the apparent simplicity of your question. There is no such thing as a "simple" question if you strip away all the assumptions and superficial understanding.

Zz.

 

[mark!]

I'll try to rephrase my question: the Standard Model shows what 'stuff' around us is made of. Light, atoms, everything. All fermions and bosons, which means all 'forms of energy'. In Feynman diagrams you can see how these particles always 'move', so I was wondering if this is true, do all subatomic particles always at any time when they're in existence 'move'?

Of course, there's dark matter and dark energy, but my question was only regarding the 'normal' Standard Model, the stuff that the scientific world fully understands

 

[ZapperZ]

I'll try to rephrase my question: the Standard Model shows what 'stuff' around us is made of. Light, atoms, everything. All fermions and bosons, which means all 'forms of energy'. In Feynman diagrams you can see how these particles always 'move', so I was wondering if this is true, do all subatomic particles always at any time when they're in existence 'move'?

Of course, there's dark matter and dark energy, but my question was only regarding the 'normal' Standard Model, the stuff that the scientific world fully understands

They move because it is extremely unusual for us to be in the same reference frame to anything, despite the fact that we know that we are at rest with the earth. But what is to prevent us from being in the same reference frame of a moving electron, for example? There's no physics that prevents us from this. In fact, I can transform to the reference frame of electron bunches moving in a particle accelerator, solve for the beam physics problem there, and transform back out to the lab frame. Weren't the electrons "stationary" when I transform myself to their frame?

And what does this have anything to do with energy moving? Is the gravitational potential energy moving with respect to you right now?

Zz.

 

[mark!]

Do you mean that, if we would change our reference frame, there could be something considered stationary, something that is NOT moving? Quite interesting, I haven't looked at it that way.

But what I'm curious about, is whether there exists anything in nature right now, in reference to us humans, that has no movement. I guess not, but if so, could you tell me what it is?

(PS Do you consider 'gravitational potential energy' a form of energy, and therefore something that 'exists'?)

 

[ZapperZ]

Do you mean that, if we would change our reference frame, there could be something considered stationary, something that is NOT moving? Quite interesting, I haven't looked at it that way.

But what I'm curious about, is whether there exists anything in nature right now, in reference to us humans, that has no movement. I guess not, but if so, could you tell me what it is?

Which part of the example for the Earth gravitational potential that made you completely dismissed and ignored it?

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Because all matter is made of atoms, consisting of even smaller (moving) subatomic particles

Not in the classical sense, no, and that isn necessarily related to many forms of energy.

I thought it was an easy question :')

It is an easy question: the answer is no. But if you want to learn why...

 

[mark!]

@ZapperZ Gravity is not part of the Standard Model. I already pointed out that my question was "only regarding the 'normal' Standard Model, the stuff that the scientific world fully understands".

 

[ZapperZ]

@ZapperZ Gravity is not part of the Standard Model. I already pointed out that my question was "only regarding the 'normal' Standard Model, the stuff that the scientific world fully understands".

Why? Is this your only definition of "energy"?

The title of this thread is then no longer accurate.

Zz.

 

[Bandersnatch]

@ZapperZ Gravity is not part of the Standard Model. I already pointed out that my question was "only regarding the 'normal' Standard Model, the stuff that the scientific world fully understands",

Interactions in the standard model also have potential energies associated with them. A charged particle in an electric field has electric potential energy. Nucleons in a nucleus have binding energy associated with the strong and electromagnetic interactions. A stretched spring has elastic potential energy due to EM interactions between its constituent atoms. There's chemical potential energy.

Then there's rest mass - the energy of a particle at rest.

Are any of these energies 'moving'? What would that even mean?

 

[.Scott]

I'll try to rephrase my question: the Standard Model shows what 'stuff' around us is made of. Light, atoms, everything. All fermions and bosons, which means all 'forms of energy'. In Feynman diagrams you can see how these particles always 'move', so I was wondering if this is true, do all subatomic particles always at any time when they're in existence 'move'?

Of course, there's dark matter and dark energy, but my question was only regarding the 'normal' Standard Model, the stuff that the scientific world fully understands

Let's take the case of an D2 molecule - two Deuterium atoms connected with a regular Hydrogen bond. We can bring that molecule down to absolute zero - and it will become as stationary as you can get. We can even put it in a zero-G vacuum and let it drift about. Certainly within its own reference frame, it will be stationary.
But does it include energy? If you fuse those two atoms, you will discover there was quite a bit of energy.
So perhaps that would satisfy your example of energy that is stationary - entirely devoid of motion.

But there is another problem. There is actually no such thing as "entirely devoid of motion" - whether energetic or not. "Entirely devoid of motion" happens to describe a velocity to a greater precision than is allowed. It's against one of the basic rules of the universe - the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to be exact. So that Deuterium molecule that we thought was motionless, will eventually turn up someplace other than where we put it. And the molecule itself, after many zillions of years, will eventually change - perhaps decay, perhaps fuse.

So there you have it. Energy doesn't have to move any more than anything else. When there is change (movement), it's not necessarily because it is energy.

 

[RonL]

Being close to the simple end of humanity, I would have answered yes and used this as my answer material...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

 

[anorlunda]

Energy is not a thing, it's a property of matter

No. It is a property of matter and fields. A static field, like that of a permanent magnet, has energy but does not move.

The Higgs field is also in the standard model. It has energy but does not move around with subatomic particles.

 

[mark!]

Interactions in the standard model also have potential energies associated with them. A charged particle in an electric field has electric potential energy. Nucleons in a nucleus have binding energy associated with the strong and electromagnetic interactions. A stretched spring has elastic potential energy due to EM interactions between its constituent atoms. There's chemical potential energy.

Then there's rest mass - the energy of a particle at rest.

Are any of these energies 'moving'? What would that even mean?

What is the nature of these types of energy? And how are they related to the Standard Model?

 

[weirdoguy]

No. It is a property of matter and fields.

And what does that change for OP? Does that help him in his understanding of basic principles? I would say that not, but that's just me.

 

[cosmic onion]

I like the description by Lev Okun a great theoretical physicist, 'ENERGY IS THE CAPACITY TO CAUSE MOVEMENT' ,this is the most basic definition that I agree with. But after thinking the matter through I ended up appreciating that energy is force acting over a distance. You could loosely say where there is MOVEMENT there is energy and where there is energy there is MOVEMENT.

 

[anorlunda]

And what does that change for OP? Does that help him in his understanding of basic principles? I would say that not, but that's just me.

It seems like a pretty direct response to me. My interpretation is that the OP believed energy to be always tied to particles. Therefore if the particles move the energy moves with them. Pointing out that some energy is not tied to particles, directly counters that misconception.

 

[mark!]

@Bandersnatch Thanks for your comment. I did some research on the examples you gave.

On the question if all forms of energy are moving, you gave me examples of possible nonmoving forms of energy, namely 'potential energy and 'rest mass'. I did some googling (because I don't really understand these terms) and I found out that chemical potential energy, just like elastic potential energy, is being released in the form of HEAT (that must also be the reason why an elastic rubber band feels warm when it's being stretched, that's the the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy, at work). So this potential energy is in fact energy as science knows it from the Standard Model, and thus by nature still something that is moving. Only, it was being conserved at the time. It couldn't have 'gone away' and then appeared heat, out of nothing.

Then you mentioned 'rest mass' as another example of being a not moving form of energy, but this can be released by heat as well. And the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so that must serve as proof for the fact that, even though we can't see exactly what going on the quantum level, the potential energy of this rest mass is a conserved form of energy as it's known to science, from the Standard Model.

Einstein told us that matter is energy and energy is matter, so this 'rest mass' in matter must be therefore a form of energy as well, which is moving by nature. Energy doesn't exist in a stationary state.

Do you agree on this? It sounds logical to me, but I'm not 100% sure because I'm not a scientist myself ;)

 

[DrGreg]

chemical potential energy, just like elastic potential energy, is being released in the form of HEAT

After it has been released, it could be associated with motion, but before it has been released, there need not be any moion.

Energy comes in many forms, and can be converted from one form to another. Some forms are associated with motion, and some forms, such as potential energy and rest mass, are not.

 

[Bandersnatch]

So this potential energy is in fact energy as science knows it from the Standard Model, and thus by nature still something that is moving.

This is a non sequitur. You've asserted in your mind that anything that has anything to do with the SM is related to motion, which is a false premise.

This is actually pretty simple - the only type of energy that is related to motion is the energy with motion in its name: the kinetic energy (where thermal energy is a form of KE).

Einstein told us that matter is energy and energy is matter, so this 'rest mass' in matter must be therefore a form of energy as well, which is moving by nature. Energy doesn't exist in a stationary state.

Again, you a priori assert something false as being true (energy is moving by nature), and then use it to support your assertion, which is circular reasoning.
Does a neutron lose its mass in its rest frame? No. Does the potential energy of two magnets disappear when they're not moving? No. Is there no voltage (=difference in electric potential energy) when current is not flowing? There is. So energy does exist in stationary state.
The only energy that disappears when there's no motion is the kinetic energy.