What is Energy? - Physics Forum Introduction

[basePARTICLE]

I analysed the grammar of your convoluted question to show that it was syntactically correct, and to try to know what was the subject, and the verb.

I thought that is usually done away from forum listings, and as a matter of fact, because you proceeded not to show real content, you have contributed in placing this thread close to limbo - are you sorry?

As for convolutions, that form corersponds to a neat tautology, but this is not the place for these types of interactions, as our esteemed moderator has noted. Can you place at least a bit of content, when replying?

Mine follows.

We all know the famous equation E \Mc^2 (M times, c squared).
From this equation it is claimed that Mass and Energy are interchangeable. Do you envisage any problem with this statement in the light (colloquial) that Energy is predefined as the ability to do work and Mass is something tangible (touchable by sensory apparatus). As a further reference to this, when we examine various kinds of work being done as described by physics, none of them are tangible except growth! Can you respond?

 

[basePARTICLE]

We can predict measurements of energy, and our measurements agree well with those predictions. What deeper epistemological support is needed in Physics?
I think the earlier post about defining "red" is quite apt. We could go around in epistemological circles for a long time, trying to decide on how we know what "red" really is, but at the end of the day, I don't think we'll be any more able to find the red car in the parking lot.

On the two points here of which one relates to the topic while the other veers off course, I will respond to the first and try again with the second.

On the first point, physicists know that, deeper epistemological support, causes further logical consequence. Look at what QM did to our Newtonian world! Gaining consenus and trying to find deeper epistemological support, I think has been the physicist's own game, since, I forgot who it was jumped out of a tub. I know I am justified in looking at Energy with a finer grained postulate in mind!

On the second point made, of locating red, redness, or some convolution of red, I think lies on the basis of a real analysis and perhaps the ability to produce photonically, a darker red. This ability does not materially exist and you actually reflect this view.

 

[basePARTICLE]

Energy is DEFINED as "the ability to do work".

The ability to do work is in turn determined by the current state of the system in question. Gravitational PE depends on the distance from a mass (or masses). KE depends on velocity, etc.

There is nothing in our current model that suggests energy consists of some "stuff" which seems to be an idea that persists in this thread.

Claude.

It has been previously stated that mass was some sort of bookeeping device for energy, along with momentum. angular momentum, and I would add, the magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields. My point is there is one sore thumb sticking out, that directly references your seeming abhorence, that suggests energy consists of some "stuff".

That sore thum is Mass. Can you address this deviation from the norm, which is field and potential? Try thinking of KE (kinetic energy) as a potential which can be immediately actualized (a one step potential) whereas PE (potential energy) is two steps away from doing real work.

 

[basePARTICLE]

wordsalad or not, the ability to perform work is a simplified explanation to an observation that we make on a regular basis. doing things like increasing the mass of an object containing kenetic energy. manufacturing matter from apperantly nothing... bending the fabric of space...

the question I often ponder is how does the energy given to a base ball in the form of kenetic energy be a direct realitive to the material of the baseball.

of course my cheese may have slipped off my cracker with this post!

I could say quite a lot of sensible things about word salads, but I prefer to ask the question about how do you believe dark energy, reflects an ability to do work?

I think part of the answer to your question is its coefficient of restitution. Momemtum is given as m1 = coe * m2 where coe has a value between 0 and 1. The logical consequence of this is something with a small coefficient will not move at all. But that has to do with hitting the base ball. When it is thrown its material has no impact on its initial velocity, then its coefficient of friction in relation to the medium through which it subsequently travels, comes into play, slowing its motion, hardly ever speeding it up.

 

[nicky nichols]

I think that the right experimental approach is to probe the higher spacetime dimensions with extremely high energy particle accelerators, say orders of magnitude greater than LHC 2008, so when black holes can be created without resort to the Planck condition, then it is possible to determine the topological background of energy interactions.

I think that the right mathematical approach is the rigorous extension of catastrophe theory, say to devise further specializations and so to push back the boundary of the generalizations.

(in my opinion, it is a very great pity that the Bogdanovs did not follow Thom's approach to structural stability)

(in my opinion, Tony Smith is already on the right theoretical track)

 

[chroot]

Okay, this is all bunk. Closed.

- Warren