Is Kinetic Energy Just Matter Interacting with Matter?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of energy, specifically questioning whether it is merely kinetic interactions between matter. Participants assert that energy is a scalar quantity associated with the state of a system, often defined through mathematical expressions such as \Psi = e^{i\frac{E}{\hbar}t}. The conversation highlights that energy serves as a bookkeeping device in physics, essential for understanding conservation laws, yet remains elusive in its true definition. Various perspectives, including those from quantum mechanics and classical physics, illustrate the complexity and abstraction surrounding the concept of energy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly wave functions and energy states.
  • Familiarity with classical mechanics concepts, including kinetic and potential energy.
  • Knowledge of mathematical expressions used in physics, such as E=mc² and E=hf.
  • Basic grasp of thermodynamics and energy conservation laws.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of E=hf in quantum mechanics and its relation to photon energy.
  • Explore the concept of energy conservation in classical and relativistic contexts.
  • Investigate the role of energy in thermodynamic processes and its measurement.
  • Study M-Theory and its potential definitions of energy within theoretical physics frameworks.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those interested in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and the philosophical implications of energy as a concept.

  • #31
Once again we don't seem to have found a satisfactory answer.

Remarkably, we seem to have come to the conclusion that energy isn't real. It only exists in our models and not in reality. How strange that the entirety of physics would depend on something that isn't real? Or am I mistaken?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
It exist and it doesn't. That's the simplest one can put it. It exist because it takes up space. It doesn't exist because it's value is zero.

That's what I think anyway.
 
  • #33
Telos said:
Remarkably, we seem to have come to the conclusion that energy isn't real.
WHAT? Where did you get that impression?

Is the number 4 real? Is height real? Is life real? Don't hold that something is not real because you've been unable to define it.

Pete
 
  • #34
Enos, that almost sounds like energy "is" space. After all, space tautologically takes up space and has an unwarpped equilibrium value we might as well call zero.

Pmb_phy, that's not what I meant. Please reread the thread.
 
  • #35
energy...something that seems to squeeze everyone's mind...for to tell all the truth...man doesn't know too much abt out energy...we have defined energy as "energy is the ability to do work", this would be Force dotted wit distance. such that we get change in energy and if you notice its not energy itself that we are finding out...similarly in thermodynamics too...we try and calculate the change in internal energy but never rather find the total internal energy of the system...it is thru such theards and sharing of knowledge will we be able to get in depth understanding of the world...
 
  • #36
to add to this discusion could be the fact that energy is a relative quantity...yes...the energy possed by a system is relative to the observer...on close thought this idea will make itself pretty clear...wit this idea in mind...jus hypothetically thinking...can we define as the measure of diffrence between two systems...its jus an opinion...not based on any concerte theory...nevertheless worth a thought
 
  • #37
coburg said:
energy...something that seems to squeeze everyone's mind...for to tell all the truth...man doesn't know too much abt out energy
I think we do, it seems the mentors and advisors and moderators think they know what they are talking about, its just that not all who read the thread do.
 
  • #38
i think energy is fancy world ,we use it apply what we have and what we use
 
  • #39
What is energy? Easy. Maybe I have an oversimplified view as a physics undergraduate, but here is what I think.

First of all, it is important to treat each model of reality differently, since they are, well, different.

Classical mechanics:
E=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2

Relativistic classical mechanics:
First I define the energy-momentum 4-vector:
p=m\frac{dx}{d\tau}
and define energy as the zeroth component of that vector.

Non-relativistic quantum mechanics:
\hat{H}|\Psi\rangle=E|\Psi\rangle
where |\Psi\rangle is an eigenvalue of the \hat{H} operator.
 
  • #40
energy is local time
 
  • #41
Telos said:
Once again we don't seem to have found a satisfactory answer.

Remarkably, we seem to have come to the conclusion that energy isn't real. It only exists in our models and not in reality. How strange that the entirety of physics would depend on something that isn't real? Or am I mistaken?

Yes:!) I agree with you in many sense
For example, in classical Mechanics we have the definitions
K.E.={1\over 2}mv^2
and P.E.= mgx for energy

while p=mv for momentum

We can simply think of the [Energy,Momentum] pair (E,p) as a transformation rule of the [Displacement,velocity] pair (x,v)

That happens again in special relativity
[Energy,Momentum] pair is just another way of describing the universe by the [Displacement,Velocity] pair.

That's what "Energy" is about:biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #42
I like to think of energy as the "stuff" that all matter is made of, ultimately. And this is not quite right.

I like to think of energy as the "stuff" that fields are made of. And this is not quite right.

But it helps me wrap my little brain around some concepts.
 
  • #43
Energy is just a human concept devised to help with our analysis of the physical world.
 
  • #44
I don't think the following has been suggested yet.

Every symmetry in physics leads to a conservation law. Energy is that conserved quantity of any closed physical system that results from the time-independence of physical laws.
 
  • #45
I would suggest an analysis based on Torricelli equation, which has only to do with the way acceleration causes changes in the square of velocities. Since the concept of force is deeply related to the concept of acceleration, energy emerges.

Best Regards

DaTario
 
  • #46
DaTario said:
I would suggest an analysis based on Torricelli equation, which has only to do with the way acceleration causes changes in the square of velocities. Since the concept of force is deeply related to the concept of acceleration, energy emerges.

Best Regards

DaTario
I did not read the entire thread but here it is:
* energyDIFFERENCES are simply work in Newtonian physics, it does not have any absolute meaning here.
* It is GR which gives energy an absolute observable status through the invariants of the metric tensor, the expansion and rotation scalars of a fluidum etc...

Cheers,

Careful
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K