What is the Abstract Definition of Energy?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Abstracted Universes
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the quest for an abstract and intuitive definition of energy, exploring its conceptual underpinnings and implications across various contexts. Participants express their views on the nature of energy, its definitions, and the challenges in grasping its meaning intuitively.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire for a non-recursive, intuitive definition of energy that applies broadly across situations, indicating a philosophical dissatisfaction with existing definitions.
  • Another participant suggests that the definition "energy is the capacity to do work" is both intuitive and abstract, arguing that understanding energy comes from engaging with physics problems.
  • A different viewpoint claims that physics focuses on quantitative definitions rather than providing meaning, asserting that energy and work are defined mathematically without circularity.
  • Some participants challenge the notion that energy definitions are recursive or circular, suggesting that intuitiveness is subjective and varies among individuals.
  • One participant proposes relating energy to Noether's theorem, defining it as the conserved quantity associated with time translation symmetry.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of gravitational potential energy (GPE), with a participant noting that it is not stored in an object but rather in the system comprising the object and the Earth.
  • Another participant points out a misunderstanding regarding the units of the universal gas constant, emphasizing the complexity of energy units and their intuitive grasp.
  • One participant questions the feasibility of defining terms like "inherent," "intuitive," and "abstract" in the context of energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the definition and understanding of energy, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the challenges of intuitively grasping energy, while others defend existing definitions as valid and non-circular.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding energy, including the subjective nature of intuitiveness and the complexity of its mathematical definitions. There are unresolved questions about the nature of energy and its representation in different contexts.

  • #61
All the above points are certainly true, but I'll also say that it is an interesting thing to at least ponder how these transformations between various manifestations of energy (kinetic, fields etc) are facilitated. Especially when you consider quantum mechanics, where for very short periods of time the energy balance sheet can be unbalanced, i.e. you can borrow energy provided you pay it back in time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Mark Harder said:
Not quite. Heat is a form of energy, but not all heat can be used to do work.
it could all be used as long as your cold reservoir is at absolute 0.
 
  • #63
I got you :D. Energy isn't real as such, that's why you're getting intuitively confused. The real phenomena which we experience would be velocity. That's how we percieve the world, through velocity and mass. Everything can come down to velocity and mass.

The rest is just things we believe in, like energy. You can't measure it because it isn't "real". To measure energy, you have to use it up, at which point it's "forces" at work which we can only REALLY detect because of the velocity they create on massess.

So energy isn't real, hence "real"-ly it's nothing: just a belief we created to help us deal with certain things.
 
  • #64
And on that note we will close the thread as another great example why these threads are so useless.

Voltageisntreal said:
The rest is just things we believe in, like energy. You can't measure it because it isn't "real". To measure energy, you have to use it up,
In the future please make sure that your posts do not contain nonsense like this.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444 and russ_watters
  • #65
Voltageisntreal said:
Energy isn't real as such
This is a rather edgy interpretation. There's currently a heat wave here, I'm writing this on an energy consuming device and in my lifetime I more than once accidentally touched a hot wire: Energy IS real.

The point with these kind of questions ["Is <xy> real?" What is <yz> really?"] is, that they cannot be answered without defining a valid framework for an answer first. Such a framework can be found in philosophy or maybe in mathematics. I doubt that it can be found in physics. Physics describes measurable effects, and as energy is measurable as well as has obvious effects, it is real. One can even chose between many forms of energy (see above) and therewith definitions. All of them are real.

So as always with these kind of questions, we have to end the (in my eyes fruitless) discussion at some point and this point has come for this thread, so it will be closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K