There is no such 'thing' as energy.

[zemna]

"There is no such thing as matter. Everything is energy." Statements such as this are found in every modern physics textbook; but is energy a 'thing'?

The material objects around us are manifest realities that have mass; but what do we mean by 'mass'? In general, it means that all objects near the Earth's surface possess weight, and also that they possess inertia. Mass is commonly defined as 'the amount of matter in a body', more accurately as 'the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration'. We can say that 'mass' is the quantification of matter that finds manifestation in weight and inertia. Both of these are observables: they can be detected, sensed, and measured; that is, quantified. They are qualities or properties of material objects that can be given a value on a scale of measurement.

Similar statements are true of motion. Generally speaking, all objects around us are either stationary or in motion relative to us, as determined by observation. Motion is also a manifest reality that can be quantified. If we know the mass and motion of an object, we can make statements and deductions about it. A tennis ball rolling along level ground will slow down and stop, whereas on a slope it will continue to move. In either case, appropriate measurements allow us to calculate the ball's motion to any desired degree of accuracy using well-established mathematical statements, and to calculate much else besides: velocity, acceleration, force of impact and so on. These properties can be called parameters of the object from the Greek para meaning beside and metron meaning measure.

Thus matter demonstrates mass, whilst radiation demonstrates motion; yet matter can also move, and radiation has an effective mass: both are fundamental components of Physical Reality.

A most useful parameter of a material object is its momentum: the product of mass and velocity: p = mv. Although derived from mass and motion, momentum is not an observable, but a concept: a calculated parameter. Neither is it a manifest reality as are mass and motion. If an object's momentum changes, it is NOT the case that momentum has been added to or subtracted from it: rather has its mass or its motion changed, and the calculated value of its momentum changes accordingly.

A similar parameter is kinetic energy. This, too, is a concept: a mathematical term naming the product of mass and the square of velocity: E = 1/2mv^2. What applies to momentum applies equally to kinetic energy, and to energy in general. It is a calculated quantity, neither an observable, nor a manifest reality. Energy cannot be added to or taken from an object; rather does it change in accord with mass, motion, position and composition. All calculation of energy requires the inclusion of a value for mass. If mass is unknown, energy cannot be calculated.

Recall now the first statement of this post, "There is no such thing as matter. Everything is energy." To claim that matter and radiation are both energy is to replace manifest realities with a mathematical parameter, and this surely is absurd.

It is true that all substance - sc. matter - is ultimately vibration, a contained, stationary resonance rather than the propagating vibrations of radiation; but vibration is not energy, even though it can be assigned an energetic value. In the case of electromagnetism, Planck's constant substitutes for the mechanical aspects of mass and motion: E = hf.

In spite of the foregoing, energy has proved to be one of the most valuable concepts in modern science, which is undoubtedly why it has been reified: that is, turned into a 'thing'. For more than a century, scientists have treated it as an actual physical reality instead of as a useful concept. What is needed is a new conceptual understanding of mass and motion, rather than the claim that both are composed of concepts.

For more see: URL deleted

[studiot]

7 hours ago, zemna said:

For more see: URL deleted

 

So you wish to promote a website for preaching anti-Science?

What is your connection to this Carl Adams bloke?

 

Your opening post is a curious mixture of fact and fallacy, which I am doing you the kindness of assuming is due to genuine misunderstanding.

Energy, mass and momentum, the description of systems and properties are indeed complicated subjects underlying Science, and often glossed over for beginners.
If you wish to discuss the Philosophy of Science then all well and good, you are welcome.

 

Do you understand the difference between the behaviours of what we call mass, energy and momentum?
That would be a good place to start.

 

 

Note to others about the .npt file format

I didn't find anything malicious about these .npt files but note the warning here.

https://datatypes.net/open-npt-files

Quote

Naturally, other applications may also use the .npt file extension. Even harmful programs can create .npt files. Be especially cautious with .npt files coming from an unknown source!

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Rule 2.7 prohibits posting to advertise your site. Link deleted

 

7 hours ago, zemna said:

"There is no such thing as matter. Everything is energy." Statements such as this are found in every modern physics textbook; but is energy a 'thing'?

Every one? Cite a few. Chapter and page number.

Physics does not treat energy as a substance. It's a property.

[Sensei]

8 hours ago, zemna said:

A similar parameter is kinetic energy. This, too, is a concept: a mathematical term naming the product of mass and the square of velocity: E = 1/2mv^2. What applies to momentum applies equally to kinetic energy, and to energy in general. It is a calculated quantity, neither an observable, nor a manifest reality. Energy cannot be added to or taken from an object; rather does it change in accord with mass, motion, position and composition. All calculation of energy requires the inclusion of a value for mass. If mass is unknown, energy cannot be calculated.

Kinetic energy of incoming object hitting e.g. water, causes increase of temperature of target object. From dT (temperature after accident, minus temperature prior accident), multiplied by specific heat capacity of water (1 cal = ~4.185 J/K*g), multiplied by mass of water, you can calculate how much energy carried initial object.

Temperature (or increase of it) can be measured from distance, without physical contact, by observation of black body emission spectrum of the object (analysis of light/photons).

Edited May 29, 2018 by Sensei

[Strange]

8 hours ago, zemna said:

Although derived from mass and motion, momentum is not an observable, but a concept: a calculated parameter.

If that is what you think, I suggest you get someone to throw bricks at you. Then come back and tell us it is not observable.

8 hours ago, zemna said:

In spite of the foregoing, energy has proved to be one of the most valuable concepts in modern science, which is undoubtedly why it has been reified: that is, turned into a 'thing'.

How do you define "thing"?

You can say that energy is or is not a "thing" unless you define precisely what you mean by that.

 

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

If that is what you think, I suggest you get someone to throw bricks at you. Then come back and tell us it is not observable.

How do you define "thing"?

You can say that energy is or is not a "thing" unless you define precisely what you mean by that.

 

Matt Strassler says 'stuff', which I think is better than 'thing'. Photons are stuff but energy isn't because it's a property of stuff.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Matt Strassler says 'stuff', which I think is better than 'thing'. Photons are stuff but energy isn't because it's a property of stuff.

But that assume "stuff" and "thing" are the same ... er, thing.

[StringJunky]

Just now, Strange said:

But that assume "stuff" and "thing" are the same ... er, thing.

But energy can be a thing but not stuff. A thing is too broad... a millimetre can be a thing (of the mind) but not stuff. I read this earlier:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

[Strange]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

But energy can be a thing but not stuff. A thing is too broad... a millimetre can be a thing (of the mind) but not stuff. I read this earlier:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

His stuff is always worth reading. I haven't seen that one before but it looks good. 

Nicely, he defines the terms he is using. And he also doesn't, contrary to the OP's claims, think that energy is a "thing" (or "stuff"). I don't think any physicists do.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Photons are stuff but energy isn't because it's a property of stuff.

 

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Physics does not treat energy as a substance. It's a property.

 

You have to be very careful asserting that energy is a 'property'.

 

If it is a property then this property has very different behaviour from say mass.

[Strange]

Just now, studiot said:

If it is a property then this property has very different behaviour from say mass.

Why should properties behave the same? Mass, charge, energy, spin, momentum ... they are all properties. Do any of them have the same behaviour? 

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why should properties behave the same? Mass, charge, energy, spin, momentum ... they are all properties. Do any of them have the same behaviour? 

Perhaps you misunderstand me.

I don't mean the physical quality bestowed by the property on something.

For instance is heat a property?

I already had a small discussion with Randolphin about this and he has replied within the last hour.

 

Both inherited and due to external agency. As you see the 2 you suggest denotes property coming from outside source.

Quote

Randolphin

On 22/05/2018 at 12:40 PM, studiot said:

The description 'Properties' hides a multitude of different situations.

I

 

I am guessing that by this statement you are distinguishing between properties that are inherent in something and those which are bestowed upon it by external agency.

Please confirm this or explain further what you actually mean.

 

For instance

So far as we know you it is impossible to remove the property of mass from something.

But we can remove or bestow certain types of energy at will.

 

Both inherited and due to external agency. As you see the 2 you suggest denotes property coming from outside source.

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by studiot

[swansont]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

You have to be very careful asserting that energy is a 'property'.

 

If it is a property then this property has very different behaviour from say mass.

If it's stuff show me something that is made up only of energy.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Perhaps you misunderstand me.

I don't mean the physical quality bestowed by the property on something.

For instance is heat a property?

Heat is a phenomenon. It represents energy transfer due to a temperature difference. It's not specified what that energy is a property of, since there are three modes of heat transfer.

Plus, heat is a term that is sloppily used, perhaps the most sloppily used, in physics discussions.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

If it's stuff show me something that is made up only of energy.

Heat is a phenomenon. It represents energy transfer due to a temperature difference. It's not specified what that energy is a property of, since there are three modes of heat transfer.

Plus, heat is a term that is sloppily used, perhaps the most sloppily used, in physics discussions.

Since this discussion is drawing the thread off topic I have started a new thread for the purpose of continuing it.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114895-the-nature-and-application-of-the-term-property-with-particular-reference-to-energy/?tab=comments#comment-1054447

 

[zemna]

Summary response after one week.

All physical objects are comprised of atoms. Atoms, individually or in aggregate, are called matter. All matter is visible and revealed to us by light. Some objects are so small as to be invisible to the naked eye, but microscopes can reveal them. Even individual atoms can be seen via light:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/

Some objects are so distant as to be equally invisible without instrumental assistance, but in theory could be seen using a sufficiently powerful telescope. There may be a finite limit to this, perhaps the Hubble limit.

All motion is visible and revealed to us by light. It requires two or more observations separated by intervals of time. Some motion is so rapid as to be indiscernible, but is also amenable to instrumental detection, as in the case of strobe lighting. Some is so slow as to require extended periods of observation.

Thus matter and motion are the two fundamental observables of Physical Reality. Light is invisible: we cannot see light, only those objects which emit or reflect it. Matter, motion and light - more generally radiation - existing within space and time comprise Physical Reality.

Energy, momentum, power and so forth are invisible. They always have been and will be because they are not observables: not physically real. They are concepts within the minds of Men, useful in describing and explaining the manifest phenomena of the Physical Realm, but not a part of it.

Those who insist that such concepts are 'things' - manifest realities - are incapable of differentiating between physical reality and imagination, and so live in delusions of their own creating. This insistence is modern mysticism, part of the religion of Scientism that Modern Western Science has become.

The greater the delusion, the greater the anger, arrogance, conceit and conviction of the deluded, as plainly evidenced by many replies on other forums.

 

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, zemna said:

Thus matter and motion are the two fundamental observables of Physical Reality.

You seem to be treating these as independent observables. Which is obviously nonsense. You can't observe "motion" you only observe matter moving. 

So there is only a single fundamental observable (in your world).

And what about all the other properties of matter that we could observe? Why do you ignore those?

24 minutes ago, zemna said:

Energy, momentum, power and so forth are invisible. They always have been and will be because they are not observables: not physically real. They are concepts within the minds of Men, useful in describing and explaining the manifest phenomena of the Physical Realm, but not a part of it.

This is a philosophical argument. It has nothing to do with physics. In physics they are properties that can be observed and measured and are used to build scientific theories. 

It makes no difference whether they "exist" or not, whether you call them "things" or not.

25 minutes ago, zemna said:

The greater the delusion, the greater the anger, arrogance, conceit and conviction of the deluded, as plainly evidenced by many replies on other forums.

 Ah yes, the old "I must be right because people keep forcefully pointing out my errors" argument. 

Are you going to compare yourself to Galileo next?

[studiot]

Thank you for that link to an interesting photograph.

I am not sure exactly what it represents since my onscreen micrometer makes the gap 8mm and the dot 0.75mm

The article states a gap of 2mm so that makes the dot about 0.2mm or 2x10^-4 m in diameter.

A strontium atom is 2.55 x 10^-10 m

 

Comments are welcome.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, zemna said:

All physical objects are comprised of atoms.

 

They are?

What atoms comprise an ion?

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Thank you for that link to an interesting photograph.

I am not sure exactly what it represents since my onscreen micrometer makes the gap 8mm and the dot 0.75mm

The article states a gap of 2mm so that makes the dot about 0.2mm or 2x10^-4 m in diameter.

A strontium atom is 2.55 x 10^-10 m

 

Comments are welcome.

I guess the size of the dot is going to be limited (in how small it is) by the resolution of the camera sensor (it can't be less than one pixel) and by the JPEG encoding (and then by scaling effects and your monitor and ...)

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

I guess the size of the dot is going to be limited (in how small it is) by the resolution of the camera sensor (it can't be less than one pixel) and by the JPEG encoding (and then by scaling effects and your monitor and ...)

These are good questions, but I don't wish to go back to that long thread about the definition vision/sight.

I can see atoms. I see them all the time. Huge numbers of them. Every time light reflects of something.

What I can't do individually is optically resolve an individual atom.

I think the picture is similar in that we see some light reflecting off allegedly one atom, but would we not get the same picture if there were exactly two atoms or five or somesuch?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I think the picture is similar in that we see some light reflecting off allegedly one atom, but would we not get the same picture if there were exactly two atoms or five or somesuch?

I'm sure we would. With some increase in brightness, perhaps. I wonder if it would be linear in the number of atoms...

 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Strange said:

I'm sure we would. With some increase in brightness, perhaps. I wonder if it would be linear in the number of atoms...

 

Up to a point. Eventually atoms will be prone to re-scatter the light that has been emitted by another.

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm sure we would. With some increase in brightness, perhaps. I wonder if it would be linear in the number of atoms...

 

Don't know how many photons the lasers and subsequent collimators / shutters etc were actually delivering so perhaps an increase in brightness.

But then again perhaps not because of YaDinghuss' pseudo object shadow effect?

 

+1 for noting the grainyness of pictures.

Edited June 5, 2018 by studiot