B Is energy the same as matter in physics?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter jubalsquirrelly
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Matter
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between energy and matter in physics, with participants debating whether energy is a property of matter or if particles are excitations of quantum fields. Some argue that the question is nonsensical, comparing it to asking if matter is made of height, while others illustrate particles as ripples in a quantum field, emphasizing that energy can create new particles in accelerators like CERN. The consensus suggests that while particles have energy, they are not made of energy itself; rather, they are excitations of fields influenced by energy. The conversation highlights the complexity of understanding these concepts and encourages further exploration of the topic. Ultimately, the distinction between energy and matter remains a nuanced discussion in physics.
jubalsquirrelly
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have been pulling my hair ought over this...

I always see two responses to the above question.

Some say energy is a property of matter and therefore the question is absurd. Its like saying "is matter made of height?"

Others say things like "Yes, particles are just excitations of a thing we call a quantum field: think of having a rubber sheet that extends in all directions, a particle would be a moving ripple in that sheet. What you call energy is just the idea that that ripple can interact with other rubber sheets and become another type of ripples.What happens in particle accelerators (like LHC@CERN) is that you smash two high-energetic particles together in order to convert that energy into new particles."

Which is it? Is matter made of energy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jubalsquirrelly said:
Some say energy is a property of matter and therefore the question is absurd. Its like saying "is matter made of height?"
Right.
jubalsquirrelly said:
Yes, particles are just excitations of a thing we call a quantum field: think of having a rubber sheet that extends in all directions, a particle would be a moving ripple in that sheet. What you call energy is just the idea that that ripple can interact with other rubber sheets and become another type of ripples.
That is a reasonable description as well.
jubalsquirrelly said:
What happens in particle accelerators (like LHC@CERN) is that you smash two high-energetic particles together in order to convert that energy into new particles."
The kinetic energy is used to create new particles. It is not a conversion of "energy to particles" because the new particles still have energy.
 
mfb said:
Right.That is a reasonable description as well.The kinetic energy is used to create new particles. It is not a conversion of "energy to particles" because the new particles still have energy.
]

Ok, but what would "Yes, particles are just excitations of a thing we call a quantum field" mean?

If this analogy holds then particles are disturbances of something, that particles are matter formed from non matter?
 
jubalsquirrelly said:
I have been pulling my hair ought over this...

I always see two responses to the above question.

Some say energy is a property of matter and therefore the question is absurd. Its like saying "is matter made of height?"

Others say things like "Yes, particles are just excitations of a thing we call a quantum field: think of having a rubber sheet that extends in all directions, a particle would be a moving ripple in that sheet. What you call energy is just the idea that that ripple can interact with other rubber sheets and become another type of ripples.What happens in particle accelerators (like LHC@CERN) is that you smash two high-energetic particles together in order to convert that energy into new particles."

Which is it? Is matter made of energy?

My suggestion is to read the following:

https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...tter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

And, at an appropriate point decide that the question really isn't worth worrying about. Leave your hair alone and move on.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and Drakkith
Apparently the thing i was thinking of is fields, were not made of energy. Were made by the energy rippling through fields. is that correct?
 
jubalsquirrelly said:
Apparently the thing i was thinking of is fields, were not made of energy. Were made by the energy rippling through fields. is that correct?

Sorry, when you say "were not made of energy", did you mean we're (we are), or were you referring to something else? I'm not trying to nitpick your grammar here, I'm honestly not sure what you mean.
 
Sorry, I can't spell to save my life.

We are not made of energy is the diea

"Apparently the thing i was thinking of is fields, we are not made of energy. We are made by the energy rippling through fields. is that correct?
 
jubalsquirrelly said:
Sorry, I can't spell to save my life.

We are not made of energy is the diea

"Apparently the thing i was thinking of is fields, we are not made of energy. We are made by the energy rippling through fields. is that correct?

I'd say we are made up of excitations of fields. These excitations have energy, but they are not energy themselves. Saying that energy is "rippling through fields" is a bit problematic, as the wave itself has energy but isn't energy itself. For example, a radio wave is an electromagnetic wave. This wave consists of an oscillating change in the electromagnetic field that propagates outwards from the source. This wave can affect charged particles, causing them to move and transferring energy to them. So energy is being transferred by this wave, but the wave itself isn't energy. It just has energy.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top