Unraveling the Concept of Energy Position in Classical Physics

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen Tashi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Position
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of energy position in classical physics, exploring whether energy can be said to have a position, particularly in relation to kinetic and potential energy. Participants examine the implications of mass, energy density functions, and the effects of gravitational fields on energy definitions. The scope includes theoretical considerations and conceptual clarifications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that kinetic energy can be viewed as a property of a moving mass, suggesting that energy can change position as it is transported with the mass.
  • Others argue that the concept of mass requires a mass density function, complicating the notion of energy position in real objects.
  • There is a discussion about potential energy, with some participants noting that it seems to depend on the gravitational field's properties and the specific location of the mass.
  • One participant raises the question of how potential energy is defined in a time-varying gravitational field, questioning where this energy is located if it has a position.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that potential energy is associated with the system as a whole rather than individual particles, which leads to further questions about where this energy is stored.
  • Some participants mention the challenges of localizing energy in spacetime, particularly in the context of General Relativity and electromagnetic fields, suggesting that energy may be distributed across fields rather than localized.
  • There is acknowledgment that the questions being raised touch on complex and unresolved aspects of physics, indicating that a complete clarification may not be possible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of energy position, the definitions of potential energy, and the implications of mass density. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on these complex issues.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of mass and energy, the unresolved nature of energy localization in spacetime, and the complexities introduced by different physical theories such as General Relativity and classical electromagnetism.

  • #61
lavinia said:
But since energy is equivalent to mass and therefore generates gravity, one could in theory do an experiment that determines the direction of the gravitational field and this would tell you what quantity for the field energy is correct and therefore how it is localized.

I was referring to the above which looks like a comment on using gravity in some way to measure EM energy. That would require the so called Einstein-Maxwell action:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-einstein-maxwell-action-with-sources.764995/

But once you do that you run into exactly the same problem GR has - namely gravity is curved space-time so the symmetries required by Noethers Theorem breaks down and the modern concept of energy becomes problematical.

If it isn't can you clarify what you were getting at.

Regarding the energy of the EM field not being localised its been ages since I read the Feynman Lectures but in modern times, as per the link I gave, it follows quite naturally from the EM Lagrangian via Noethers theorem. Are you getting at the freedom we have to add a divergence-less quantity? Yes that is an ambiguity but it is usually resolved by requiring the energy momentum tensor to be symmetric.

Thanks
Bill
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Stephen Tashi said:
IFor example, in dealing with a Newtonian mechanical system, we can define total potential energy as a calculation involving all the state information.

You lost me here.

I can't see how potential energy is a matter of definition - it follows from the Lagrangian.

I know he is a bit terse but Landau examined the whole potential energy thing in the first chapter of Mechanics. Its not a matter of definition - its a consequence of what energy is ie the conserved quantity associated with time symmetry.

I keep getting the impression I am missing something here because its not gelling with me what you guys are getting at - and I suspect conversely as well.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K