What actually is energy and why is it conserved

  • Thread starter Thread starter retupmoc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
AI Thread Summary
Energy is defined as the ability to do work, but this definition lacks depth and leads to philosophical inquiries about its true nature. It cannot be broken down into more basic elements, as energy itself is a fundamental concept in physics. The conservation of energy remains unexplained at a fundamental level; it is based on extensive observations that show energy is neither created nor destroyed. This principle of conservation has been consistently validated through countless experiments over time. The discussion highlights the complexity of defining energy and understanding its conservation in the universe.
retupmoc
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
What actually is energy and why is it conserved
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Energy is often defined as 'The ability to do work', which is just saying that energy is energy, which is not a very intellectually satisfying answer.

The question of what energy 'is' is a fairly philosophical question. Consider the following;

In order to describe what something 'is' we have to describe it in terms of more basic elements, a molecule are two or more atoms bonded together, an atom is one or more electrons bonded with a nucleus, a nucleus consists of one or more nucleons, a nucleon consists of quarks so on and so forth.

Eventually one hits the wall when one comes to energy, it cannot be described in terms of more basic elements, because there are no more basic elements. That is why textbook definitions essentially describe energy in terms of itself.

As to why it is conserved, no one can explain fundamentally why energy is conserved, only that the in the countless observations we have made over the centuries no one has ever observed energy to be either created or destroyed.

Claude.
 
Thanks was just something that puzzled me a little as i had never had a firm definition of energy or reason why it is conserved and thought that maybe missed something
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top