Vayne

Indeed, energy is discussed in classes of physics in this manner. But at high-end discussions, where physicists try to get to a conclusion, the logistics and reasonings take over mathematical artifacts. There is a limit beyond which mathematics stops reflecting objective reality, i.e., some deductions in mathematics brings up things that are not possible from any sense. But if you need further insight on this issue, then look at the string theory, in which it is said that sub-atomic particles are made up of strings of energy. I know though that mathematics of string theory is extremely complicated and has not yielded any results yet, but theoretically string theory is very promising. It isn't hollow, but your remarks lack nobility. Just so because I don't agree with someone's remarks do not mean that I should not thank them. Moreover, if you have an opinion of yours make it a point to explain your stand, rather than saying blatantly, "No you don't." I took a stand and I explained it, but you didn't. I don't mind accepting anyone's views but the only thing it should be worth accepting. Next time, please try to make discussions constructive instead of confrontational. Thanks!

I now almost completely understand the answer to my question. By means of studying some popular works again (I study them but I tend to forget them because I am no physicist by profession), I seem to be finally coming to the conclusion that energy is actually another entity. For example, take the simple example of an electron in an atom observing a photon. When an electron observes a photon or what is also known as "packet of energy", it jumps to a higher state. Now look at this picture closely - the electron observed "packet of energy" and jumped up, it has been affected by energy and so the direct conclusion is that energy is something 'other'. Even though we do not have conclusive proofs that energy is the ultimate building "block", but some recent theories (such as string theory) and observations seem to be pointing towards that. Honestly speaking, I did not like the string theory much until I watched a special program on it on the Discovery channel, and it seems to be very promising. But if matter is made up of energy, then energy is supposed to be the only entity? My view on this issue is that what makes the two of them distinct is the fact that energy is imperceptible but matter is not. Maybe energy is infinitesimally small to be viewed or maybe it exists in another dimension than those we can perceive, I am not sure about that as nobody is. So the deduction is that energy does exists independent of matter, but it is beyond our sensory capabilities. Now, I said, I "almost" understood this issue because we still haven't found out (or perhaps I am unaware) exactly how and when does energy sums up to become matter - I think we do not have any mathematical treatment for that yet. Thank you for your inputs!

Okay, I think you are taking the verbal meaning of the words incorrectly. Light rays enter your eyes is correct, but do you "see" light? What does seeing means after all, it means observing through your eyes. But if you ask anyone, they don't say I observed light, they say, I observed a rock. I observed "a rock falling from the mountain". So that means no matter how hard you try, you only see matter and not energy, even though energy is the reason the observation of sight occurs to you. The bottomline is energy cannot be observed through senses. Or perhaps energy only exists independently in mathematical artefacts. And that is why I was discussing this whole stuff, because even though energy does exists independent of matter, it cannot be observed through senses.

I am afraid I disagree, the image is of course of the rock and not of the light. I know the technicalities that you are talking about, but we still don't see light. And to further add, if "light energy" can be seen then "sound energy" should also be heard, but we are deaf in vacuum because energy does not play any role without matter, not at least on any of our senses. Senses do not interact with energy but only matter.

Okay, I think I will have to get into details. We all know what the word annihilations means...it means "total destruction" and it happens when any of the particle and its anti-particle collide (like the positron and electron), and they leave behind nothing except gamma rays, that is totally massless. If you know the history anti-particle theory, you should also be knowing that this is a constant process out there, nothing new. The only thing that bothers me is that if gamma ray is massless how does it affects "things"? Now I haven't heard that gamma rays, like light, also exhibit wave-particle duality. And I also don't get to understand, that how can anything which is massless, such as photon, can have momentum or acceleration, in short how can it move or even exist. Trivia! - Vayne

If what you are saying is true then the equation E=MC2 should not mean anything because matter then cannot be converted into energy because it does not exists independently, right?

Okay, this may sound weird, but here is a very basic question... Why is energy considered 'another' entity than matter when its dictionary meaning is simply "the capacity of matter to do work"? It seems to be just a property of matter. Moreover, we cannot experience energy through our senses in any form, we can only experience its effect on matter. We do not see light energy but only the object that reflect the light entering our eyes. We do not hear sound energy but only the vibrating effect produced by it. Also we never experience heat energy but only heat. Energy in no way interacts with our senses directly but is still considered something other than matter. I realize some reasons for it, but cannot really completely understand. Thanks! -Vayne