B Is Energy Constantly Changing Its Location?

[ZapperZ]

@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 ;)

You seem to keep referring to this "Standard Model", and seems obsessed with it. And yet, you barely understood the rest of physics.

What do you think is this beast called The Standard Model? Do you think it is just a table of particles, and that's that? You want everything to be "explained" and compared to the standard model. Have you fully understood what it is? Is it rational to want everything to be explained via something you barely understand?

Secondly, you also seem to think that just because something can be converted into something means that they are the same thing. I can convert many vegetables that I buy from the farmer's market, and turn it into a delicious Ratatouille. Does that mean that the zucchini that I used as an ingredient is identical to the Ratatouille that I produced at the end? This makes no sense.

Zz.

 

[mark!]

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

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.

Then where and how does the energy reside, before it can be released?

 

[mark!]

You seem to keep referring to this "Standard Model", and seems obsessed with it. And yet, you barely understood the rest of physics.

What do you think is this beast called The Standard Model? Do you think it is just a table of particles, and that's that? You want everything to be "explained" and compared to the standard model. Have you fully understood what it is? Is it rational to want everything to be explained via something you barely understand?

Secondly, you also seem to think that just because something can be converted into something means that they are the same thing. I can convert many vegetables that I buy from the farmer's market, and turn it into a delicious Ratatouille. Does that mean that the zucchini that I used as an ingredient is identical to the Ratatouille that I produced at the end? This makes no sense.

Zz.

Yes, actually, I think it's essentially the same, you only rearranged it, but you didn't create, nor made anything disappear. Conserved energy might be lost, yes, but it's still around somewhere. Just like gaseous water is essentially the same as ice. That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

I don't claim to understand the Standard Model, but the Standard Model is the only thing that science does understand, right? Or is there something you understand about the world/energy, that can't be related back to subatomic particles? I'd like to hear that.

About your comment (and other comments before as well), I didn't expect to be attacked the way you did, by telling me that I "barely understand" it. I did a bit of research on 'potential energy' 'rest mass' before I came back to this forum, so that's why I asked a second question. You didn't react on the content of my question though, but rather on me as a person, ad hominem, being an amateur. Well, I am one! And I'm not ashamed of that, I'm asking questions in order to increase my knowledge about the natural world. So if there's something I don't understand, I ask a question about it, and I really try not to ask a stupid question, but if I do, that's because I'm an amateur, not a scientist at all.

If you could help me with my question, that would be great (Lumbergh would say :P) but I really don't think I deserve to be treated like an idiot just by asking questions that seem to be stupid in your opinion.

 

[jbriggs444]

if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

Energy is not "stuff". [As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread]

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, actually, I think it's essentially the same, you only rearranged it, but you didn't create, nor made anything disappear. Conserved energy might be lost, yes, but it's still around somewhere. Just like gaseous water is essentially the same as ice. That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

No, they are NOT the same. Rest mass energy is different than kinetic energy. The conversion (not "conservation") of one form or energy requires many things, the same way when I cook those vegetables, it took other ingredients to turn all of them into a dish. There are other conservation laws that come into play here, not just conservation of energy, during the conversion of one form to another.

I don't claim to understand the Standard Model, but the Standard Model is the only thing that science does understand, right? Or is there something you understand about the world/energy, that can't be related back to subatomic particles? I'd like to hear that.

What makes you say that? There are so many wrong ideas in this paragraph alone. Our universe is actually described NOT by the Standard Model, but rather by symmetry rules, and by broken symmetry principles. The standard model does NOT explain Special and General relativity. The elementary particle physics have NOT been used to derive the phenomenon of superconductivity (look up the concept of "emergent phenomenon"). So to say that this is the ONLY thing that science does understand is completely false!

About your comment (and other comments before as well), I didn't expect to be attacked the way you did, by telling me that I "barely understand" it. I did a bit of research on 'potential energy' 'rest mass' before I came back to this forum, so that's why I asked a second question. You didn't react on the content of my question though, but rather on me as a person, ad hominem, being an amateur. Well, I am one! And I'm not ashamed of that, I'm asking questions in order to increase my knowledge about the natural world. So if there's something I don't understand, I ask a question about it, and I really try not to ask a stupid question, but if I do, that's because I'm an amateur, not a scientist at all.

If you could help me with my question, that would be great (Lumbergh would say :P) but I really don't think I deserve to be treated like an idiot just by asking questions that seem to be stupid in your opinion.

I did not attack you. I attacked your STRATEGY in countering the various responses you were given. Every time you were given something, you used your "standard model" clutch to argue on why you disagree with the responses, as IF you understood what the standard model is. This is what I attacked. It is impossible to correct a faulty idea when you are using a unicorn to support your argument. It might as well be a non-existing concept.

I asked you what you think the Standard Model is, you never responded. I described to you why one can always transform to a stationary reference frame of any elementary particle and thus, make the particle be at rest in that frame, but somehow this didn't click in. I told you that a gravitational potential energy field is often "stationary", but you somehow think that it can be transformed into some moving particle based on your puzzling understanding of the standard model.

Unless you first establish some foundational knowledge that you know and that is CORRECT, there is no way to build anything on top of something that has never been shown to be valid. Look at what is going on here. Every time we try to move one step forward, we have to take 2 or 3 steps back!

Zz.

 

[mark!]

Energy is not "stuff". [As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread]

The word "it" in my sentence 'if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?' is referring to 'this conserved heat energy', not to 'energy' in general. Here's the full sentence:

That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

 

[davenn]

That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

that doesn't really make a lot of sense

what are you referring to as "stuff" ?

 

[Biker]

Uh the one thing that upset me is that we "fully understand". 19s century is a good example. There will be always more to a thing than what it seems to be

 

[ZapperZ]

The word "it" in my sentence 'if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?' is referring to 'this conserved heat energy', not to 'energy' in general. Here's the full sentence:

That's why I presume that this conserved heat energy can't reside in a nonmoving, stationary way, because if it's not moving, than how can it be 'stuff'?

You still have not reveal what you understand as the "Standard Model".

Zz.

 

[mark!]

You still have not reveal what you understand as the "Standard Model".

Zz.

Could you perhaps be a bit more specific, otherwise you'll get a very extended answer

 

[ZapperZ]

Could you perhaps be a bit more specific, otherwise you'll get a very long answer

I thought I was already specific enough. What exactly do you understand as the "Standard Model"? I'm not looking for references (I know what it is already). I want to know what you know as being this thing called the Standard Model.

Zz.

 

[mark!]

I know which subatomic particles are in it, and I understand the basics of how they interact.

 

[ZapperZ]

I know which subatomic particles are in it, and I understand the basics of how they interact.

That's it? I thought you said that this could be very long or extensive.

And you think that this is all there is to this thing that physicists call "The Standard Model"?

Zz.

 

[mark!]

There's also dark energy/matter and gravity, but they don't seem to have a particle (yet?)

 

[jbriggs444]

There's also dark energy/matter and gravity, but they don't seem to have a particle (yet?)

So it seems that you agree that not everything that qualifies as "energy" is embodied in a particle identified by the standard model?

 

[mark!]

So it seems that you agree that not everything that qualifies as "energy" is embodied in a particle identified by the standard model?

I've already acknowledged that (see post #13). But I wasn't talking about this type of unknown energy, nobody knows what it is, let alone how it behaves/moves, so I asked a question about 'normal' energy, what life and stuff around us is made of. But it seems that 'normal' energy can be in a nonmoving state as well! Because DrGreg said in post #32:

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.

Then where and how does the energy reside, before it can be released?

So it seems that 'normal' heat energy can reside in a nonmoving phase before it's released (because he clearly isn't talking about dark energy/matter, that would be impossible). Is this true, can energy be in a (potential) energetic state without having any movement? It seems impossible to me.

 

[davenn]

Is this true, can energy be in a (potential) energetic state without having any movement? It seems impossible to me.

of course it can ... you have already been told this several times, including your quote of what DrGreg said.

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

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.

What part of his description are you finding difficult to understand ?

If I hold a brick up (not moving) above the floor, it has potential energy. If I drop it, it has kinetic energy, which will be released when it hits the floor

 

[Drakkith]

Is this true, can energy be in a (potential) energetic state without having any movement? It seems impossible to me.

Why? We have many different forms of potential energy which aren't associated with movement.

 

[mark!]

Why? We have many different forms of potential energy which aren't associated with movement.

Then how/where does it reside?

 

[jerromyjon]

You could have a spring under tension. Most of the atoms in the spring are collectively containing a net potential force. They don't move relative to each other...

 

[Bandersnatch]

Then how/where does it reside?

All those interactions, like gravity, EM, nuclear forces, produce force fields. If you then place a particle which interacts with a given field, within that field (e.g., an electron in an electric field), it will have potential energy associated with its position (not motion). It is stored in the configuration of the system. Changing the configuration either releases the energy in some other form, or requires input of some other form or energy.

 

[ZapperZ]

Then how/where does it reside?

I think that this is the root cause and the most fundamental problem with your understanding of "energy". You think that it is a "stuff" that must have some location or position. This is where you went wrong.

Look at the gravitational potential energy (i.e. let's start with something SIMPLER and not jump right into the standard model). The gravitational potential and potential energy extends over all space that feels the gravity from that celestial body. So to ask for where it "resides" doesn't quite make sense. It is like asking for the location of the color blue.

You need to look at the mathematics that represents these things that you are talking about. This is why you are not getting what we've been trying to tell you.

BTW, just as a suggestion, if that was ALL that you understood about "the standard model", you should not keep using it as a crutch to explain things away, because it appears that you don't even know what it is.

Zz.

 

[Drakkith]

Then how/where does it reside?

Arguably, nowhere. It's just "bookkeeping". Or one could say that it resides in the configuration of the system, but that's a slightly different take on the word "resides".

 

[mark!]

All those interactions, like gravity, EM, nuclear forces, produce force fields. If you then place a particle which interacts with a given field, within that field (e.g., an electron in an electric field), it will have potential energy associated with its position (not motion). It is stored in the configuration of the system. Changing the configuration either releases the energy in some other form, or requires input of some other form or energy.

Do you mean that the energy is embedded/locked up inside a field, and even though it’s not physically there (yet) for our eyes to see, and for our computers to be measured, it’s potentially there, conserved in the field, and this genie can come out of his bottle, so to speak? So this field didn’t generate energy out of nothing (of course not, that would be impossible), but it already existed, kind of 'locked up' behind/inside the field, and can be requested/called up?

This leads me to an example question: how is the arrangement of atoms in for instance the molecule glucose, or the arrangement of alkanes in oil, holding potential energy, which by its shape contains more energy than the same amount of atoms in a molecule with another configuration? Glucose is like 'a ball on top of a hill', and glucose can be broken down that releases energy, just like a ball can 'fall down the hill' that gives energy. This ball obviously has gravitational energy, so the metaphor doesn't apply in the same way, because the potential energy of glucose has nothing to do with gravity, so what's the difference? Does glucose conserve its energy in this 'hidden' energy field, like a genie in a bottle? It is "stored in the configuration of the system", like you said?

Glucose (C6H12O6) + 6 x O2 <--- can be broken/formed by ---> 6 x CO2, 6 x H2O + energy (photons). The difference of the two is heat energy. So the extra energy that’s locked up in the glucose molecule is not there to be measured (because it's not moving or anything), but is this also residing in a field the same way? Because the C atoms, H atoms or O atoms in glucose ar not all of a sudden in a different (or more excided) state than the same atoms when it's NOT glucose, right?

Or is this a totally different case, and I'm way off track here by comparing them?

 

[Dadface]

https://www.wired.com/2015/12/we-need-to-talk-about-the-energy-in-chemical-bonds/
Would this help as a beginning place to search?

 

[mark!]

https://www.wired.com/2015/12/we-need-to-talk-about-the-energy-in-chemical-bonds/
Would this help as a beginning place to search?

Thanks for sharing that!
I've read the article, but I still have the same question (post #54) regarding where/how potential energy resides in a field, and how it's related to stored energy in chemical bonds (like glucose)

 

[jbriggs444]

Thanks for sharing that!
I've read the article, but I still have the same question (post #54) regarding where/how potential energy resides in a field, and how it's related to stored energy in chemical bonds (like glucose)

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html

Pay particular attention to the statement in 4-1: "There are no blocks".

 

[jartsa]

Thanks for sharing that!
I've read the article, but I still have the same question (post #54) regarding where/how potential energy resides in a field, and how it's related to stored energy in chemical bonds (like glucose)

Sugar in a sugar bowl, oxygen in the atmosphere. That configuration of molecules has chemical energy.

A sugar beet plant somehow broke some chemical bonds, broken chemical bonds are chemical bonds that have energy, or contain energy, or whatever the correct wording is.

(The sugar-beet broke bonds between oxygen and hydrogen and oxygen and carbon, producing oxygen and some hydro-carbons)

There's "binding energy" in chemical bonds. Now, one might very easily get the idea that binding energy is energy, but it's negative energy.

 

[Drakkith]

Thanks for sharing that!
I've read the article, but I still have the same question (post #54) regarding where/how potential energy resides in a field, and how it's related to stored energy in chemical bonds (like glucose)

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_04.html

Pay particular attention to the statement in 4-1: "There are no blocks".

Quoting Feynman from the link:

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives “28" --always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.

It's difficult to say where an abstract numerical quantity (or an abstract concept) that appears purely from certain calculations resides. Energy is not water. It is not rock. It is not an object or something that takes up space and it can't be said to occupy an area. You cannot touch it, taste it, hear it, or anything else. It is, arguably, nothing but number crunching. Arguably.

 

[DrBwts]

So nobody has a clear definition of Energy?