Why Do Things Affect Each Other in the Universe?

[khemist]

As anybody who has studied the subatomic world knows, electrons move in orbits around the atom's nucleus. The volume of the atom is then the sphere traced out by the electrons moving in their orbits. Since the electrons and nucleus are tiny compared to the radius of this sphere, most of the atom is empty space. As a result, matter is mostly empty space with an illusion of solidity created by the energy that moves the electrons in their orbits.

Um no...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

 

[Dale]

Look, the equation states you can get a large amount of energy from a small bit of matter.

No, the m stands for mass, not matter. You can get a large amount of energy from a small amount of mass.

Mass and matter are different things. Matter refers to fermions or things composed of fermions, but there are massive bosons also and other non-matter fields with mass.

Re: the OP. Energy is the capacity to do work. There is no mystery to the question "what is energy". We know exactly what it is because that is how we defined it.

 

[Goldstone1]

No, the m stands for mass, not matter. You can get a large amount of energy from a small amount of mass.

Mass and matter are different things. Matter refers to fermions or things composed of fermions, but there are massive bosons also and other non-matter fields with mass.

Re: the OP. Energy is the capacity to do work. There is no mystery to the question "what is energy". We know exactly what it is because that is how we defined it.

Don't try and be pedantic. My statement was very true. M is for the mass, or matter of a particle. Why be pedantic on such terminologies? The answer I gave was not dangerous, nor was it incorrect. Your explanation is not incorrect either, but I'd argue it's not as elegant as mine. For instance:

''energy is the capacity to do work''

Saying energy is more of a fundamental fluctuation which is a diffused matter, while matter is a concentrated form of energy is absolutely correct within the framework of Einstein's energy-mass equation.

 

[Naty1]

And sticking to the definitions by science is 100% applicable to this thread while trying to think "beyond" it is not.

not at all: in fact you have it backwards. Science can't answer such fundamental questions as "What is energy?" or "What is mass?"

You can define energy, but you cannot determine "what energy IS" without going waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond existing definitions. You CAN explain via scientific definitions and formulas and such what we observe about energy...but, alas, not what it IS.

 

[Dale]

My statement was very true. M is for the mass, or matter of a particle. Why be pedantic on such terminologies?

There are other things beside matter or particles that have mass. E.g. fields or thermal energy.

 

[Joncon]

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy" on energy mentions this: -

For example, a compressed spring will be slightly more massive than before it was compressed. Likewise, whenever energy is transferred between systems by any mechanism, an associated mass is transferred with it.

Doesn't this contradict the view that energy is just an abstract concept? Or is this just plain wrong?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Don't try and be pedantic. My statement was very true. M is for the mass, or matter of a particle. Why be pedantic on such terminologies? The answer I gave was not dangerous, nor was it incorrect. Your explanation is not incorrect either, but I'd argue it's not as elegant as mine. For instance:

''energy is the capacity to do work''

Saying energy is more of a fundamental fluctuation which is a diffused matter, while matter is a concentrated form of energy is absolutely correct within the framework of Einstein's energy-mass equation.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=509191 It's their word against yours. I think "absolutely correct" is a rather strong classification of your statement.

 

[Kahlua]

I like to think of energy in relation to Noether's theorem. Her theorem states that any differentiable symmetry of the action has a corresponding conservation law (or conserved current). Symmetries of space and time correspond to conservation of linear momentum and conservation of energy. This gives a geometric understanding of energy, and relates it to the least action variational principle, which I find particularly attractive because it works fine as a universal principle of nature even without us having to chose a coordinate system, and therefore "space and time" can sort of emerge from such a theory (which is generally not the case of certain very popular unification theories...).
To me Emmy Noether did one of the most important insights of all in physics for this reason, but obviously the above discussion also need to be extended to general relativity and quantum physics where we find additional, but consistent insights into what energy is (or rather "how" it is...). The last word about energy has certainly not been said since energy is an integral part of the quest for a grand unified theory...

Anyway, a more common everyday description of energy is to say that "energy is the ability of a system to do work on another system". I can probably come up with 10 other descriptions of energy that shed light to the physics of light, quantum fluctuations, nuclear physics, reaction chemistry, and so on. And they are all same, same but different ;-)

 

[Drakkith]

I really really don't understand why this is even an issue. Looking at the basic definition of energy and understanding the effects of energy conversions will immediately show you that the term energy only describes the interaction between objects. Mass, momentum, velocity, and pretty much every other physical property can be converted into a type of energy. Why? Because all of these things determine how objects interact. Without these fundamental properties energy has no meaning.

In contrast, you cannot convert mass to charge, or velocity to momentum. These are properties used to find energy. Energy is a "catch all" term to easily describe interactions.

 

[Kiril]

I really really don't understand why this is even an issue. Looking at the basic definition of energy and understanding the effects of energy conversions will immediately show you that the term energy only describes the interaction between objects. Mass, momentum, velocity, and pretty much every other physical property can be converted into a type of energy. Why? Because all of these things determine how objects interact. Without these fundamental properties energy has no meaning.

In contrast, you cannot convert mass to charge, or velocity to momentum. These are properties used to find energy. Energy is a "catch all" term to easily describe interactions.

Its not an issue only if you convince yourself that your right or that you have a complete answer - and that you understand the terms your using - and if you understand what is required for understanding - and if you know the proper method of forming definitions - and you are sure you understand the connection between concepts(universals) and concretes; between mathematics and reality.

Its really no problem otherwise - and its really really not a problem if you accept that the multiplication of two numbers is an immediate description of things in reality.

 

[Drakkith]

Its not an issue only if you convince yourself that your right or that you have a complete answer - and that you understand the terms your using - and if you understand what is required for understanding - and if you know the proper method of forming definitions - and you are sure you understand the connection between concepts(universals) and concretes; between mathematics and reality.

Its really no problem otherwise - and its really really not a problem if you accept that the multiplication of two numbers is an immediate description of things in reality.

Hrmm. This seems like a complicated way of saying "You don't know what you are talking about". Is that what you were getting at?

 

[Kiril]

Hrmm. This seems like a complicated way of saying "You don't know what you are talking about". Is that what you were getting at?

That depends on what you mean. That's what I mean; are the requirements for 'knowing what one is talking about'.

What part of it is superfluous, that you decided to call it "...[over] complicated"?

 

[Drakkith]

That depends on what you mean. That's what I mean; are the requirements for 'knowing what one is talking about'.

What part of it is superfluous, that you decided to call it "...[over] complicated"?

You will start making sense NOW or I WILL get the hose out!

 

[Dale]

Kiril, I agree with Drakkith, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Try to express yourself clearly and directly.

 

[Dale]

Science can't answer such fundamental questions as "What is energy?"

This is incorrect. The answer to any question of the form "What is X" is the definition of X. So "What is energy?" is completely and fully answered by the definition "Energy is the capacity to do work."

It also doesn't matter if you put if you put the word "is" in capitals or not. For example: Energy IS the capacity to do work.

 

[Claude Bile]

not at all: in fact you have it backwards. Science can't answer such fundamental questions as "What is energy?" or "What is mass?"

I regard this as a false tautology. Science can't explain what energy (for example) is in more fundamental terms yet, but surely has the capacity to in the future.

Consider all the quantities that were once regarded as fundamental, that have since been shown to be not so fundamental.

Claude.

 

[simpatico]

The answer to any question of the form "What is X" is the definition of X. .

This remark introduces us to the hearth of the issue.

you may see 'definition' at wikipedia (...)

As you see, it is a thorny issue because besides linguistics (semantics), epistemology we need to turn to ontology (bad word!)
because what is x is asking for the essence of x.

To make a long story short:
(we must avoid circular definition, that is begging the question.
We cannot reply
energy is mc^2 ( the sign = substitutes IS)
because mass itself is defined on energy (mass is a-form-of /trapped energy))

In the case of an object there is a shortcut.
ostensive definition
what is a mango? , and I produce a mango

but often this is not enough and we turn to:
functional definition,
when x does not carry in itself a functional definition
(dishwasher)
...
Now, coming to our issue

WHAT IS ENERGY ?
can be answered in several ways,
it is rather easy, as, even it is not an object, it is a
universally known concept

if it is a baby asking you can give him practical definition
lift that chair !

If you want a technical definition
you must list its qualities, properties, characteristics
physics can help, but not a lot, as it has never really tackled the problem as such
and , as you well know, physics has seven basic units but
there is no one specific unit of energy

If you are at all interested to know how would I answer the question,
I'd say something at the same time (technical) physical and metaphysical

Energy is just POWER to change the world

 

[Drakkith]

Again, as has been stated multiple times, MASS IS NOT ENERGY. IT IS MASS.
Mass is not made of energy, it is not a form of energy, it is a fundamental property that has certain observable features.

Is there something with the basic definitions of science that just don't sit right with people?

because what is x is asking for the essence of x.

What is the essence of x? What is it asking for? The only answer, as Dalespam said, is to give the definition of x. Not enough? Describe its properties, functions, and forms. Still not enough? Then you aren't asking What is x. You are saying "I don't believe that the definition of X is correct, and I would like something else."

Lets see what happens with a practical example.

"What is eating?"

"Eating is the process of getting food, preparing that food for digestion by putting it into your mouth, chewing it, and then swallowing it. AKA it is the process of ingesting food."

"I don't like that definition. There has to be more to it at a fundamental perceptual emotional physical universal spiritual level."

"What? We have defined eating just as that."

"I think we are all made out of eating. Because if it wasn't for that then nothing could happen. In fact, Hamstein's equation Eating = Hamburger x Swallowing^3 shows that Hamburgers and Eating are the same. So hamburgers are also made out of eating."

"No, that just shows that putting Hamburgers into your mouth and swallowing them equates to eating."

I agree with BlueTextGuy! Understanding Eating is beyond the comprehension of mortal minds, our only way to figure it out is to avoid backing ourselves into a definition corner!

You guys have completely ruined my lunch...and no, you cannot have my Hamburger. I'm going to eat it later.

 

[simpatico]

The only answer, as Dalespam said, is to give the definition of x. Not enough? Describe its properties, functions, and forms.]

You are quite right so far, but...

...I tried to explain in synthesis that definition is a very complex exercise, issue
I said thorny
If my exposition is not clear or convincing, check with academic essays.

There are several levels you are trying to demostrate, well that was agreed and settled
what is a mango?
...This is a mango defines the looks of x, tells: how to recognize it
...mango is a tropical fruit tells...
...mango contains vitamins, antocyanins tells...
...mango is moderately laxative and so on...
Then you are forgetting another fundamental disctinction between an object a concept

what is a mango ? requires different attention from
what is love ?,

but I won't go through that.

as far as mass is concerned, I am not an expert, I am a linguist but I reckon it was
Einstein himself who spoke of mass as a form of energy.
If you sure of the contrary, please offer a link

 

[Drakkith]

I agree 100% with what you just said Simpatico. I wasn't trying to infer that the definition of something wasn't a complex issue. But when we speak of concepts in science, one MUST be aware of the basic definitions of its terms or there isn't any point in defining them! Take a quick look at the E=MC2 article on Wikipedia, it explains that the equation doesn't mean that energy is equal to mass, but that energy carries with it mass, as in the case of missing mass after a nuclear or chemical reaction.

 

[RK1992]

Again, as has been stated multiple times, MASS IS NOT ENERGY. IT IS MASS.
Mass is not made of energy, it is not a form of energy, it is a fundamental property that has certain observable features.

Is there something with the basic definitions of science that just don't sit right with people?
What is the essence of x? What is it asking for? The only answer, as Dalespam said, is to give the definition of x. Not enough? Describe its properties, functions, and forms. Still not enough? Then you aren't asking What is x. You are saying "I don't believe that the definition of X is correct, and I would like something else."

Lets see what happens with a practical example.

"What is eating?"

"Eating is the process of getting food, preparing that food for digestion by putting it into your mouth, chewing it, and then swallowing it. AKA it is the process of ingesting food."

"I don't like that definition. There has to be more to it at a fundamental perceptual emotional physical universal spiritual level."

"What? We have defined eating just as that."

"I think we are all made out of eating. Because if it wasn't for that then nothing could happen. In fact, Hamstein's equation Eating = Hamburger x Swallowing^3 shows that Hamburgers and Eating are the same. So hamburgers are also made out of eating."

"No, that just shows that putting Hamburgers into your mouth and swallowing them equates to eating."

I agree with BlueTextGuy! Understanding Eating is beyond the comprehension of mortal minds, our only way to figure it out is to avoid backing ourselves into a definition corner!

You guys have completely ruined my lunch...and no, you cannot have my Hamburger. I'm going to eat it later.

haha your example is hilarious i thought you handled it extremely well when somebody trying to be philosophical called you pedantic. you are much more patient than me!

 

[Drakkith]

haha your example is hilarious i thought you handled it extremely well when somebody trying to be philosophical called you pedantic. you are much more patient than me!

Lol, I think Dalespam was the one being called Pedantic.

 

[Kiril]

haha your example is hilarious

Yes I thought so too. Its a good example of the straw man fallacy. The type of trick one might play if he were hiding a proud dogmatism - perhaps even a fear of independent thought, and perhaps even worse still, he never knew it.

 

[Drakkith]

Yes I thought so too. Its a good example of the straw man fallacy. The type of trick one might play if he were hiding a proud dogmatism - perhaps even a fear of independent thought, and perhaps even worse still, he never knew it.

I'm glad everyone liked it!

Anyways, the point is that you don't come into a forum for mainsteam science, tell everyone you don't believe the description science has given something, base your opinion on a misinterpretation of scientific laws, provide no evidence or math for your position beyond that, and then expect to be taken seriously.

Not everyone in this thread has done so, but you most definitely have Kiril.

 

[Dale]

Lol, I think Dalespam was the one being called Pedantic.

Hey Drakkith, welcome to the pedantic club!

Awesome post, by the way. Definitely the best this month!

 

[Drakkith]

Hey Drakkith, welcome to the pedantic club!

Awesome post, by the way. Definitely the best this month!

Woohoo! Where is my pedantic award!?

 

[Dale]

Its a good example of the straw man fallacy.

It is not a straw-man fallacy, it is an analogy with exaggeration for effect.

A straw man fallacy is when one side refutes a position that the other side does not hold. In this case, the other side does, in fact, hold the position that there must be more to the question "what is energy?" than the definition.

The question "what is eating?" and the exaggerated dialogue is clearly analogous to the position actually being refuted, so it is definitely not a strawman. At worst you can say that it is over-exaggerated, but I think it is spot-on given posts like your #14.

The type of trick one might play if he were hiding a proud dogmatism - perhaps even a fear of independent thought, and perhaps even worse still, he never knew it.

This, on the other hand, is a good example of the ad hominem fallacy. If you are going to accuse others of fallacious arguments you should probably avoid them yourself.

 

[Dale]

definition is a very complex exercise ... what is a mango ? requires different attention from
what is love ?,

Definition is not necessarily very complex. Write a description X of some concept, take a word Y, then say "By definition Y is X". That is all.

Obviously, some concepts, such as love, are difficult to write a description for and other concepts, such as mangos, are relatively easy to describe. Energy is even easier to describe than mangos. So in the case of energy, the exercise of definition is not very complex at all.

I reckon it was Einstein himself who spoke of mass as a form of energy. If you sure of the contrary, please offer a link

You want him to post a link to show that Einstein did not say something? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Dale]

Woohoo! Where is my pedantic award!?

Being pedantic is its own reward

I can't believe this thread is still going.

 

[simpatico]

1) I agree 100% with what you just said Simpatico. I wasn't trying to infer that the definition of something wasn't a complex issue.

..2)Take a quick look at the E=MC2 article on Wikipedia, it explains that the equation doesn't mean that energy is equal to mass, but that energy carries with it mass, as in the case of missing mass after a nuclear or chemical reaction.

1) I'm pleased you agree with my post #49
but that is exactly what I said in post #47 to which you responded with your Dialogue.
I hope we all should read people's statement carefully before arguing, because otherwise the discussion gets out of hand ( though amusing) and we would chase our tails endlessly

2) the bolded passage is an example of going beyond strawmen into the dominion of
wordtwisting
I said twice a form of energy and you change it to is equal to
I agree 100% with you energy is not (equal to) mass.What is the problem?
the same as cheese is not equal to milk, but a form thereof (a derivative, transformation, manipulation...)
mass is even a better example than cheese, because cheese cannot be reverted into milk