Is energy really 'another' entity?

[Vayne]

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

[[Tycho?]]

Um, we do see light energy. Light energy and light are not different things, how can one distinguish them?

 

You also shouldn't go to a dictionary if you're looking for a meaning based in physics. Look up energy on wikipedia, that'll probably give some more info.

[insane_alien]

yeah dictionaries are generally not written by scientists(and a lot of of the proffessors in my uni have obviously never came across a dictionary before eg. watter)

[Severian]

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.

 

The funny thing is, this is exactly the view held by science. Energy is solely a property of matter or force carriers (like the photon). It doesn't exist on its own, but only as the property of a particle/wave.

[Vayne]

The funny thing is, this is exactly the view held by science. Energy is solely a property of matter or force carriers (like the photon). It doesn't exist on its own, but only as the property of a particle/wave.

 

 

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?

[Vayne]

']Um' date=' we do see light energy. Light energy and light are not different things, how can one distinguish them?

 

You also shouldn't go to a dictionary if you're looking for a meaning based in physics. Look up energy on wikipedia, that'll probably give some more info.[/quote']

 

 

Hey pal, just wanted to let you know that light cannot be seen - we only see the objects on which light rays fall down and then enter our eyes.

[Severian]

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?

 

No. Mass is the same idea - it doesn't exist independently. It is simply a property of matter. So when you have a process which changes from one particle type to another you have to make sure that the energy and mass are conserved. They don't have to be conserved individually, but must be conserved together where the mass counts as an energy of E/c².

[AzurePhoenix]

Hey pal, just wanted to let you know that light cannot be seen - we only see the objects on which light rays fall down and then enter our eyes.

This is a very unusual way of seeing it. We don't really "see the rock" in a matter of speaking, what we are seeing is the light that bounced off the rock, which was simply altered in a way by this bouncing to carry with it the image of the rock, in the form of light entering the eyes. Bad terminology I know, but I'm reaching for the most rudimentary explanation this early in the morning, no matter how crude.

[Vayne]

No. Mass is the same idea - it doesn't exist independently. It is simply a property of matter. So when you have a process which changes from one particle type to another you have to make sure that the energy and mass are conserved. They don't have to be conserved individually, but must be conserved together where the mass counts as an energy of E/c^2[/sup'].

 

 

^{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}

[Vayne]

This is a very unusual way of seeing it. We don't really "see the rock" in a matter of speaking, what we are seeing is the light that bounced off the rock, which was simply altered in a way by this bouncing to carry with it the image of the rock, in the form of light entering the eyes.[/i'] Bad terminology I know, but I'm reaching for the most rudimentary explanation this early in the morning, no matter how crude.

 

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.

[AzurePhoenix]

But indeed, eyesight consists of our sensory cells reacting directly to light photons. You are seeing the light alone, as it is by the time it reaches the world. The thing is, it lfows over anything and encompasses it so totally tat you're unlikely to see the raw beams or rays or whatever it is you seem to be expecting. Take a laser for example. Normally you don't se the beam, because it is focused in a direct, tight beam that never lets the light reach your eyes, but when you take it into a misty or dusty area, you can suddenly see the beam because the light is reflecting off of the matter in the air allowing it to reach your eyes. The matter is nothing more than the "canals" direct the "flow of water" so to speak. When other light reaches us carrying a picture, we see the light but the light is arranged in so that it happens to carry the image of the object. Perhaps if you explained what you happen to mean by "seeing light."

 

As for the sound, sound is the transfe of energy from molecule to molecule. It just ahppens that our ears are "designed" that when this wave of what I'll call vibration reaches them, it registers it as what we call sound.

 

In essence I guess, I really don't see what you're saying.

[swansont]

Now I haven't heard that gamma rays' date=' 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!

[/quote']

 

Gamma rays, like visible light, exhibits wave behavior. Now you've heard it. You can diffract x-rays and gamma rays and make them interfere.

 

Photons can move and interact even though they are massless; understanding requires that you learn physics that was discovered after the start of the 20th century. Classical physics doesn't cover it. Like much of quantum mechanics and relativity, it seems strange because the phenomena aren't observed under conditions we are used to seeing in everyday experience.

[Vayne]

But indeed, eyesight consists of our sensory cells reacting directly to light photons. You are seeing the light alone, as it is by the time it reaches the world. The thing is, it lfows over anything and encompasses it so totally tat you're unlikely to see the raw beams or rays or whatever it is you seem to be expecting.

 

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.

[Vayne]

Gamma rays' date=' like visible light, exhibits wave behavior. Now you've heard it. You can diffract x-rays and gamma rays and make them interfere.

 

Photons can move and interact even though they are massless; understanding requires that you learn physics that was discovered after the start of the 20th century. Classical physics doesn't cover it. Like much of quantum mechanics and relativity, it seems strange because the phenomena aren't observed under conditions we are used to seeing in everyday experience.[/quote']

 

Yes, you are correct, the phenomena cannot be observed under normal conditions, and more than that it cannot be observed under any condition. Photons can "move" even when they are massless, isn't it worthy of calling a miracle. The whole quantum world is stranger than fiction and yet we say, miracles do not happen.

[AzurePhoenix]

I'd have to disagree with this point of view on the grounds that you are indeed seeing the individual photons of light as they enter your eyes, but, like the pixels on your monitor, they come together to build the picture of the object. Again going to the laser pointer exmaple, say there was nothing impeding the beam, such as a vacuum (under the hypothetical assumption that your eyes functioned in one) the raw energy of the beam would still be visible as long as the light was pointed at, and thereby reaching your eyes.

[hogeb]

I teach this dichotomy to pre-service elementary grade teachers, and I've found it helpful to reframe the definition as "matter is a property of energy". It is probably six, one half dozen which way they are defined. The point is, they are interchangable.

[Severian]

I think I would dispute that. Energy is a property of matter, but matter is not a property of energy. A photon (which is not matter) can have energy too.

[guardian]

I would say energy is THE entity - not another. Matter is, amongst many, one of the effects of energy and when this happens, it can be thought of as a property of matter. Just the way I interpret it.

[Vayne]

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!

[Tom Mattson]

I now almost completely understand the answer to my question.

 

No you don't.

 

By means of studying some popular works again (I study them but I tend to forget them because I am no physicist by profession)' date=' I seem to be finally coming to the conclusion that energy is actually another entity.

[/quote']

 

It is time to put away the popular works and pick up a textbook.

 

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'.

 

Electrons do not and can not observe anything. Only sentient beings can observe things. And even if you were correct, your statements in no way imply that energy is an entity unto itself. It is blatantly obvious that you came here with a preconception that energy exists objectively, and it is equally obvious that you ignored all the responses that contradict your preconception. Of course, you reserve the right to hold whatever cockamamie view of energy that you please, but let's not pretend that your view is supported by any actual evidence.

 

The fact of the matter is that energy (as discussed by physicists) has no reality of its own. It has no reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables which are real (distance, velocity, etc.). If you think that energy possesses existential qualities, then you are not talking about the same "energy" that one finds in physics literature.

 

So the deduction is that energy does exists independent of matter, but it is beyond our sensory capabilities.

 

You have yet to make a deductively sound inference about energy in this entire thread.

 

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.

 

"How and when energy sums up to become matter?"

 

Of course there isn't a mathematical treatment of that, because that is nothing other than word salad. It means nothing and refers to nothing that any physicist actually works on.

 

Thank you for your inputs!

 

That is a bit hollow, in view of the fact that you ignored every input you received on this issue.

[Jacques]

"How and when energy sums up to become matter?"

Maybe electron/positron creation from gamma rays ?

[Klaynos]

Maybe electron/positron creation from gamma rays ?

 

Or bonding energies in atoms.... fusion/fission reactions... sum of the parts is greater than the whole...

[Vayne]

No you don't.

 

It is time to put away the popular works and pick up a textbook.

 

Electrons do not and can not observe anything. Only sentient beings can observe things. And even if you were correct' date=' your statements in no way imply that energy is an entity unto itself.[/quote']

 

I am not sure whether your post is worth a reply or not...but here goes my reply. I think you are still a mediocre student of physics (or probably less than that?) that I need to provide you with evidence about a topic that is already in books. What you mean by "Only sentient beings can observe things."? You should read something more than a textbook because they do not deal with issues that are controversial. If you need definitive evidence then I think you should get a copy of "Other Worlds" the book by renowned physicist Paul Davies where it’s his words that say electrons observe photons.

 

The fact of the matter is that energy (as discussed by physicists) has no reality of its own. It has no reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables which are real (distance, velocity, etc.).

 

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.

 

 

That is a bit hollow, in view of the fact that you ignored every input you received on this issue.

 

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!

[Vayne]

Electrons do not and can not observe anything. Only sentient beings can observe things. And even if you were correct' date=' your statements in no way imply that energy is an entity unto itself.[/quote']

 

Okay, I now realize what you meant and this is humorous. Tom, I am sorry if I confused you, but when I said that "electrons can observe photons", I didn't meant that they can see or hear them, it means that they can take the energy of the photon and jump up a level.

 

End of discussion from my side.

[5614]

What you mean is that electrons can interact with photons (or through the electromagnetic force).