Energy And Fields - What are they?

[steve_bank]

I'll put this here instead of science.

What is energy? Can you kick it, taste it, or feel it? Can you get a bucket of energy?

Is it an invisible field that appears on Star Trek sensors?

 

[Elixir]

I think I saw a show about that one time. It's yes, yes and yes.
Energy is toaster ovens. It is what it is. If you believe you can kick, taste or feel, that's toaster ovens.
A big enough bucket can hold even the nicest toaster oven.
Starfleet sensors routinely identify it as space trash.

 

[steve_bank]

So, I can use a toaster as a shiield for my spaceship?

Toasters consume energy. Rate of change of energy is power in Watts.

Chemical enerfy in natural gass is converted to heat energy. Heat energy is used to create steam energy. Steam energy turns a turbine to create elctrcal energy. The toaster converts electrical energy to heat energy. Where is 'energy'?

 

[steve_bank]

I guess this is a harder problem than I thought.

I suppose any probelm is hard if you can't find an answer onthe net.

 

[steve_bank]

Conceptional energy has no independent existence or reality. An ‘energy field’ has no meaning without a physical basis. For example an electrostatic field which has energy.

In physics the unit of energy is the Joule. Heat, work, and energy have the same unit, Joules. That is what connects the chain in the electric power example.

The equivalence of heat, work, and energy was demons ted by Joule’s paddle wheel experiment.

Conceptually energy is the capacity to do work and work is force * distance, E = Newtons * Meters.

The Joule represents a thermal equivalent across different energy sources. If a pile of coal and a pile of would or a tank of natural gas have the same amount of Joules it means ignoring efficient if all the energy in the sources are converted to heat all three sources will raise the temperature of an amount of water the same number of degress.

Conversely you can measure the energy content of a source by creting heat. The forst method to meaure pwer in an electric signal was measuring the temperature rise of resistor.

That applies to falling water turning a turbine or wind moving a windmill. Falling water has kinetic enrgy 0.5*m*v^2 in Joules, moving air has kinetic energy.

That is why thermodynamics is so powerful and useful as a conceptual model.

The connection between the stages in the power generation example is the work done from stage to stage. Converting water to steam is work. Steam tuning a generator is work. Energy does not move from stage to stage,


Conservation of energy and mass and LOT has a basis in the work done on steam emgibes in the 19th century. It was realized by experiment that perpetual motion was not possible, at least within a bounded system like a steam engine. Te universe in total is not necessarily a bounded system.

From thermodynamics all systems look the same. A computer, power plant, or a car engine.

Mass in and mass out.
Mass in and energy out.
Mass and energy within the system.
Internal processes that will run down if energy is not supplied from outside the system.
Losses in the system.

Mass and energy in, mass and enegry out, mass and energy in the system, and system losses must always add up. If energy and mass can appear from non existence within a system that represents a possible perpetual motion.

That an electric field represents energy is proven by the fact the fields can do work.

Scifi like Star Trek makes liberal use of the word energy and energy field, but is mostly fiction.

 

[atrib]

Energy is the quantitative difference in the entropy state of two points located in spacetime. It can be expressed as an absolute measure as the strength of gravitational interaction when it manifests as mass, and as a gradient when it manifests as a diffuse field.

 

[steve_bank]

Energy is the capacity to do work.

It is a property as is mass and is defined as an SI unit based in meters, kilograms, and seconds. It is no more complicated han that.

Energy as the Joule appears in theories and models. There is no absolute entropy, it depends on the syetem state.

Entropy is also defined using SI units SI units.

Entropy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As with most of science, there is the quantitative expressions of entropy as a number, and a number of philosophical interpretations.

 

[atrib]

It is a property as is mass and is defined as an SI unit based in meters, kilograms, and seconds. It is no more complicated han that.

Ummm, there are are many definitions for entropy. Some definitions do not require the measure of entropy to have any units - it is simply a number. It all depends on the context, and there are many.

Energy is the capacity to do work.

And this capacity to do work arises because of prior existing entropy state gradients. No gradients, no ability to do work.

 

[steve_bank]

Causality is implied by LOT and conservation. I would frame as saying entropy is applied in diferent forms, not redefined.

Scince always works regardless of how you describe it.

To me conceptually entropy represents energy in the system not available to do work in the system . This is diferent from efficency losses. Waste heat in a system can be converted to work in the system. Such as regenertaive braking in EVs that charges the batteries converting kinetic energy to electricity.

There is also system enthalpy. Enthalpy and entropy have the same dimensions. It's been a while. I believe for a system to work enthalpy must be greater than entropy. It is not jut abstractions, it is practical.

Take a look at steam tables. All done in software now. Steam tables were used to determine how much steam at a given pressure was needed to do work in a system

STEAM TABLES

www.thermopedia.com

 

[atrib]

Causality is implied by LOT and conservation. I would frame as saying entropy is applied in diferent forms, not redefined.

There is no concept of causality in modern physics, there are only interactions which follow specific patterns. Causality, as we experience it, is an emergent phenomenon at the macroscopic level associated with the arrow of time, and the number of internally rearranged states that a system can exist in after a certain point in time relative to its state just prior to that point. There is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents the creamer and the coffee separating out into creamer and coffee after they have been mixed in a cup. But the number of possible states in which the coffee and the creamer molecules are separated out is much, much, much smaller than the number of states in which they are mixed together into a more-or-less homogeneous mass. It is simply a matter of probability, and precisely how entropy works.

To me conceptually entropy represents energy in the system not available to do work in the system .

No. The entropy of a system is the number of possible states with internal rearrangements of its constituents that the system can exist in without fundamentally changing its external, macroscopic attributes. That is how Boltzmann defined it in the late 19th century, and it is strange that you do not seem to know this, given how frequently you bring up thermodynamics. In the example above, the cup of coffee and creamer will continue to remain mixed because the probability of the system achieving a state where the coffee and creamer are separated out is very, very, very small. That is entropy in a nutshell. Again, there is no cause and effect driving the behavior of the mixture, it is just statistical probability.

Take a look at steam tables. All done in software now. Steam tables were used to determine how much steam at a given pressure was needed to do work in a system

And that is the root of the problem - your belief that one can make definitive proclamations about something as complex and poorly understood as the physics of the early universe armed solely with a knowledge of steam tables. You cannot understand the physics of the early state of the universe using the concepts used to derive steam tables. Classical mechanics cannot describe the behavior of such a system. Even relativistic mechanics (Einstein's theories of special and general relativity) cannot define the behavior of such a system at a time when the universe was very, very young (less than 10^(-34) seconds after the so-called Big Bang event). To make definitive proclamations regarding what is or is not possible, based solely on your somewhat fuzzy knowledge of steam tables, Newton, Maxwell and Boltzmann is foolish.

Something from nothing is very much permissible under the rules of modern physics. We have a lot of experimental evidence to demonstrate that such things happen all the time, that a majority of the mass of your body is derived from short lived virtual particles. And that this can happen WITHOUT violating the known laws of thermodynamics that you are so fond of using as a shield. Consider the following: We know that the universe is expanding, and new space is being created out of nothing all the time. Moreover, this new space is not empty, it has vacuum energy. So not only do we end up with new space from nothing, we also seemingly end up with new energy from nothing. Surely this must violate the laws of thermodynamics? It doesn't. Because as new space is created along with new energy, the separation between areas of matter/energy concentrations are increased, which causes a global decrease in the gravitational potential of the universe as a whole (the ability of the system to do work under the presence of gravitational gradients). This is the balance Hawking was talking about. In the first post in your other thread you quoted Hawking, and asserted that Hawking was making ridiculous claims without evidence. But you did not do the fucking work to read the book where Hawking explained what he was talking about, because you know all about steam tables, and steam tables are all you need to know to understand the fucking universe. You probably don't even understand what Hawking and others are talking about when they use the word "nothing" in this specific context (nonexistence of matter/energy versus nonexistence of spacetime itself).

I understand that I am unlikely to change your mind in this matter, and that you will make no effort to educate yourself on thw work done over the last 100 years. And thats ok. You can add me to your ignore list as you have done others, so you don't have to listen to the voices telling you that you are misinformed.

 

[steve_bank]

Theoreticaly in modern physics maybe causality is abandoned, I have no interest in it. In the past when cgased diwn tese claims and looked inyo thery usualy it was a misinterpretation of theory. That or it was quoting speculation by someone with scientific credentials.

In the 90s Hawking wrote he coud rve the unverse coud crete itself out of noting. It caysed a relgious reaction. To me ninsense as theory, it is philisophical speculation.

One can not experimentally demonrae yjast causality must occur. You a;so can't [robe god does or does not exist.

When uoi throw out causlity and LOT yiu can crete any nuber of matemcaly consitent teries that can be matemcally simulated but can never exist in reality.

A simple example is an electrical parallel inductor capacitor circuit without any rersisntce.

I can write the differential equation, convene it with an impulse to inject energy, simulate it and it will oscillate with a sine wave forever. Per[tual motion. It can never be constructed in physical realty. That is why I cnsider the BB a good theory, but it desn't mean it reflects reality.

Physics has used up the low hanging fruit. Quantitation of electric charge was easy to demonstrate by Millikan. Physicists have to get creative to create new theories. Virtual particles, dark matter.

Modern physics is well past the point of actual demonstrating all details of a theory, but that is not a problem. All that is required for a good theory is to predict outcomes of experiment. A simple example, F = m*a. We know it breaks down as v--> C, butit is a good practical tery in common use.

A model that violates curability yet provides a useful prediction of experiment is fine by me as a utilitarian. In the link people are looking for applications of the Casmir Effect.

In relativistic mechanics as v--C mass is no longer directy conseved, but the form of conservation changes.

So, in terms of physicall reality I reject something from or to non existence, and I reject violation of causality.

This is philosophical as it can not be proven either way. Which is why I put the thread in philosophy.

The Casmir Effect can be experimentally tested, a force can be measured. That fact does not serve as proof the thery based in virtual particles which may violate LOT is actually true.

As I sad before I know examples where virtual conditions are used. Were all familar with what a vetical pole antenna looks like. There is a design technique that creates a mirror image of the antenna going into the ground to make the math easier.


In digital control systems there can be a virtual state between two physical states of a digital control system. The use of virtual constructs is not new.

I base my views on experience and what I know.

BTW, if theoretic physicists spent a few years as an EE before statring we'd get better theories.

 

[Swammerdami]

Theoreticaly in modern physics maybe causality is abandoned, I have no interest in it. In the past when cgased diwn tese claims and looked inyo thery usualy it was a misinterpretation of theory. That or it was quoting speculation by someone with scientific credentials.

In the 90s Hawking wrote he coud rve the unverse coud crete itself out of noting. It caysed a relgious reaction. To me ninsense as theory, it is philisophical speculation.

One can not experimentally demonrae yjast causality must occur. You a;so can't [robe god does or does not exist.

I'm not sure if Google translated this for me properly, but in my opinion Bell's Theorem and the  GHZ experiment cease to be paradoxical when one discards the usual prejudice against retro-causality.

BTW, if theoretic physicists spent a few years as an EE before statring we'd get better theories.

I'm glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read this. I would have splattered all over my computer screen!

 

[steve_bank]

Causality is implied by LOT and conservation. I would frame as saying entropy is applied in diferent forms, not redefined.

There is no concept of causality in modern physics, there are only interactions which follow specific patterns. Causality, as we experience it, is an emergent phenomenon at the macroscopic level associated with the arrow of time, and the number of internally rearranged states that a system can exist in after a certain point in time relative to its state just prior to that point. There is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents the creamer and the coffee separating out into creamer and coffee after they have been mixed in a cup. But the number of possible states in which the coffee and the creamer molecules are separated out is much, much, much smaller than the number of states in which they are mixed together into a more-or-less homogeneous mass. It is simply a matter of probability, and precisely how entropy works.

To me conceptually entropy represents energy in the system not available to do work in the system .

No. The entropy of a system is the number of possible states with internal rearrangements of its constituents that the system can exist in without fundamentally changing its external, macroscopic attributes. That is how Boltzmann defined it in the late 19th century, and it is strange that you do not seem to know this, given how frequently you bring up thermodynamics. In the example above, the cup of coffee and creamer will continue to remain mixed because the probability of the system achieving a state where the coffee and creamer are separated out is very, very, very small. That is entropy in a nutshell. Again, there is no cause and effect driving the behavior of the mixture, it is just statistical probability.

Take a look at steam tables. All done in software now. Steam tables were used to determine how much steam at a given pressure was needed to do work in a system

And that is the root of the problem - your belief that one can make definitive proclamations about something as complex and poorly understood as the physics of the early universe armed solely with a knowledge of steam tables. You cannot understand the physics of the early state of the universe using the concepts used to derive steam tables. Classical mechanics cannot describe the behavior of such a system. Even relativistic mechanics (Einstein's theories of special and general relativity) cannot define the behavior of such a system at a time when the universe was very, very young (less than 10^(-34) seconds after the so-called Big Bang event). To make definitive proclamations regarding what is or is not possible, based solely on your somewhat fuzzy knowledge of steam tables, Newton, Maxwell and Boltzmann is foolish.

Something from nothing is very much permissible under the rules of modern physics. We have a lot of experimental evidence to demonstrate that such things happen all the time, that a majority of the mass of your body is derived from short lived virtual particles. And that this can happen WITHOUT violating the known laws of thermodynamics that you are so fond of using as a shield. Consider the following: We know that the universe is expanding, and new space is being created out of nothing all the time. Moreover, this new space is not empty, it has vacuum energy. So not only do we end up with new space from nothing, we also seemingly end up with new energy from nothing. Surely this must violate the laws of thermodynamics? It doesn't. Because as new space is created along with new energy, the separation between areas of matter/energy concentrations are increased, which causes a global decrease in the gravitational potential of the universe as a whole (the ability of the system to do work under the presence of gravitational gradients). This is the balance Hawking was talking about. In the first post in your other thread you quoted Hawking, and asserted that Hawking was making ridiculous claims without evidence. But you did not do the fucking work to read the book where Hawking explained what he was talking about, because you know all about steam tables, and steam tables are all you need to know to understand the fucking universe. You probably don't even understand what Hawking and others are talking about when they use the word "nothing" in this specific context (nonexistence of matter/energy versus nonexistence of spacetime itself).

I understand that I am unlikely to change your mind in this matter, and that you will make no effort to educate yourself on thw work done over the last 100 years. And thats ok. You can add me to your ignore list as you have done others, so you don't have to listen to the voices telling you that you are misinformed.

You are making defintibe derclarations by claing LOT is in fact vilted by exerimnt, yiu are using the authrity from credntials tatcic. Id scince says it is so it must be.

I had a air amount of experience running exeriments and measuremnts, along with building models. How a model or theory is devloped in physics is not a mystery to me. Maybe to you.

Back in the 80s I worked ina n IR sensor group at a Lockheed divsion.

We had a chemist, materials engineer, physicist, and I was the electrical engineer. We nade lead selinide and lead sulfide detectors. It was a wet chemical process. Mix chemicals and distilled water in a tank, increase temperture to a time profile, and swish quartz plates in the solution.

A known phenomena in the industry was a reduction in sensitivity over summer monts. We had papers going back to Nazi research. Another company put a lab in a semi trailer and went around to different locations and altitudes looking for a corelation. Analyzing water and air did not directly inicate anything.

There was also a hit or miss aspect of the chemical process. The physicst and I looked at the isuues. One thing we did was look at detectors under an electron microscope. We found that when clump sizes on the detector surface was on the order od multiple wavelengths of the detector spectrum sensitivity was high. An apparent quantum scale resonance phenomena.

The guy who ran the group took us in his office and told us if we published anything his name went at the top. Politics in science.

Our group was sold to another company before we finished. I believe the resolution was to back fill the tank with dry nitroge during processing.

So, if you want to say I do not understand physcs and how it operates you would be wrong. Myviews come from knowedge and experience.

I will go by experience and knowledge before speculations on the net.

It is very simple. A theory works or not in an experiment. Put numbers in and you get a predicted result of an exeriment. Anything else is speculation, interpretation, and philosophy.

 

[atrib]

You didn't respond to anything I said. Not one thing. If you disagree with something I have said, post a rebuttal and explain what I am wrong about and why. That is how discussions are supposed to go. I posted an example of something seemingly coming from nothing - expansion of space with creation of new energy, and then explained why it doesn't violate fundamental thermodynamic principles, which directly contradicts your position. Did you even read what I had written?

All you post is irrelevant hyperbole and personal anecdotes from your working life. You have no clue what entropy is, all you do is wave steam tables in our faces, which you probably don't understand to begin with. How much more flat earth can you get?

I had a air amount of experience running exeriments and measuremnts, along with building models. How a model or theory is devloped in physics is not a mystery to me. Maybe to you.

I was the technical practice leader and director of the structural engineering practice at a large engineering company for 10 years with over 2,000 people rolling up to me. I now run the special projects practice in the same company, handling billions of dollars worth of business. I also have a PhD in engineering. And I don't give a fuck what your credentials are, so long as you know what you are talking about.

 

[bilby]

I had a air amount of experience running exeriments and measuremnts, along with building models. How a model or theory is devloped in physics is not a mystery to me. Maybe to you.

I was the technical practice leader and director of the structural engineering practice at a large engineering company for 10 years with over 2,000 people rolling up to me. I now run the special projects practice in the same company, handling billions of dollars worth of business. I also have a PhD in engineering. And I don't give a fuck what your credentials are, so long as you know what you are talking about.

I drive a bus.

 

[atrib]

I drive a bus.

Does the bus run on steam?

 

[steve_bank]

I have given my views ad my basis for it. I'll just be repeating myself.

As to energy I suggest starting with an undergrad text on thermodynamcs and physics, and familiarizing yourself with System Intenational, units, and the MKS system. It is the bass for defining and measuring entropy and energy.

 

[steve_bank]

It is very strange. I do not drink or smoke. Sometimes on a thread it smells like I am in an elevator with someone who stanks of srale tobacco smole and alcohol.

Somebody who needs a shower and a change of clothes.

 

[steve_bank]

It is very strange. I do not drink or smoke. Sometimes on a thread it smells like I am in an elevator with someone who stanks of srale tobacco smole and alcohol.

Somebody who needs a shower and a change of clothes.

Adding.

At the start of the thread yiu did not understand scientifically what energy is and means and how it is used scintifically. Any exression of energy in a model or theory reduces to the SI definition.

If yiu are argung advanced theory without understand that then there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Jarhyn]

Steve, cosmology makes note that we don't even understand where the capacity to do work comes from, or why, or have any clue how much capacity the vacuum has to fluctuate, and whether there are limits to this.

You make assumptions and declarations about what cannot possibly be the case when the fact is that reality will operate exactly as it will. Your paltry statements about what it can or can't do will not constrain where energy can or cannot "come from", and are just so much hot air blowing out your windhole(s).