Energy And Fields - What are they?

[bigfield]

Anyone who has applied physical science would know that. Energy is no more mysterious than meters or seconds.

Both the second and the metre are defined in terms of energy. So I'd say that energy is pretty myaterious, as are time and space.

 

[steve_bank]

Anyone who has applied physical science would know that. Energy is no more mysterious than meters or seconds.

Both the second and the metre are defined in terms of energy. So I'd say that energy is pretty myaterious, as are time and space.

Huh?

People who see nothing extraordinary about meters and seconds start tripping and get mystical when it comes to energy. Like a Chrtiastian having a religions experience interpreting scripture. A rapture. From being immersed in scifi the word energy can evoke an emotional response.

How Joules. meters, and seconds are used interactively can seem lie smoke and morrors. Unless you realize the SI evolved over tiime as a consistent system of units of resumes with arbitrary definitions. There were multiple systems of units and you had to convert between them.

Energy in ergs and dynes. In physcs the electron volt is used, but today it equates to Joules.

There is never any conflict as long as expressions of physically reality reduce to meters. kilograms, and seconds.

Why does Einstein's equation m*C^2 equate to energy? Because in SI energy = Joules = kg(m/s)^2. Functionally it i as simple as that.

 

[bilby]

Anyone who has applied physical science would know that. Energy is no more mysterious than meters or seconds.

Both the second and the metre are defined in terms of energy. So I'd say that energy is pretty myaterious, as are time and space.

Huh?

People who see nothing extraordinary about meters and seconds start tripping and get mystical when it comes to energy. Like a Chrtiastian having a religions experience interpreting scripture. A rapture. From being immersed in scifi the word energy can evoke an emotional response.

How Joules. meters, and seconds are used interactively can seem lie smoke and morrors. Unless you realize the SI evolved over tiime as a consistent system of units of resumes with arbitrary definitions. There were multiple systems of units and you had to convert between them.

Energy in ergs and dynes. In physcs the electron volt is used, but today it equates to Joules.

There is never any conflict as long as expressions of physically reality reduce to meters. kilograms, and seconds.

Why does Einstein's equation m*C^2 equate to energy? Because in SI energy = Joules = kg(m/s)^2. Functionally it i as simple as that.

This is completely backwards.

SI was established by the 11th CGPM Conference, in 1960.

Mass-Energy equivalence was proposed as early as the 17th Century, by Newton and others, though it was initially hypothesised to relate only to energy in the form of light.

Nikolai Umov wrote that E=kmc² in 1873, and proposed that k was between 0.5 and 1; Einstein didn't even write his famous equation in its most well known form, though it derives trivially from his work published in 1905, fifty five years before SI was first established as a metrological concept.

SI is completely descriptive, and has no prescriptive element whatsoever; It's a system of measures that are dimensionally indistinguishable from any other system, but has the advantage over those systems of having the conversion factors normalised to equal 1.

The Joule was defined as a kg.m.s^-1 because mass-energy equivalence was demonstrable.

Mass-energy equivalence doesn't derive from SI, SI was designed to make clear that already well established equivalence. And of course SI is a complete system; It deals with metrology as a whole, with mass, distance, and duration (and hence the derived measures such as velocity, acceleration, force, power, and energy) being only a part of its purview.

 

[steve_bank]

When you think time, mass, ans distance you think seconds, kilograms, and meters.

When you think energy think Joules. When you think power think Watts Joules/second. Joules, Watts, and seconds are SI definitions.

Enlightened Europeans use watts for engine power instead of our clumsy American horsepower.

Or...when it comes to erergy The Twilight Zone. A womderous land of imagination next stop the Twilght Zone.

 

[bilby]

When you think time, mass, ans distance you think seconds, kilograms, and meters.

Or maybe Days, Months, Hours or Years; Earth or Solar masses; Lightyears, Astronomical Units or Parsecs.

The SI is an excellent system, but it's far from the only game in town.

And even were people to use it 100% exclusively, it STILL would be descriptive, and not prescriptive.

 

[atrib]

Anyone who has applied physical science would know that. Energy is no more mysterious than meters or seconds.

Both the second and the metre are defined in terms of energy. So I'd say that energy is pretty myaterious, as are time and space.

Huh?

People who see nothing extraordinary about meters and seconds start tripping and get mystical when it comes to energy. Like a Chrtiastian having a religions experience interpreting scripture. A rapture. From being immersed in scifi the word energy can evoke an emotional response.

How Joules. meters, and seconds are used interactively can seem lie smoke and morrors. Unless you realize the SI evolved over tiime as a consistent system of units of resumes with arbitrary definitions. There were multiple systems of units and you had to convert between them.

Energy in ergs and dynes. In physcs the electron volt is used, but today it equates to Joules.

There is never any conflict as long as expressions of physically reality reduce to meters. kilograms, and seconds.

Why does Einstein's equation m*C^2 equate to energy? Because in SI energy = Joules = kg(m/s)^2. Functionally it i as simple as that.

This is completely backwards.

SI was established by the 11th CGPM Conference, in 1960.

Mass-Energy equivalence was proposed as early as the 17th Century, by Newton and others, though it was initially hypothesised to relate only to energy in the form of light.

Nikolai Umov wrote that E=kmc² in 1873, and proposed that k was between 0.5 and 1; Einstein didn't even write his famous equation in its most well known form, though it derives trivially from his work published in 1905, fifty five years before SI was first established as a metrological concept.

SI is completely descriptive, and has no prescriptive element whatsoever; It's a system of measures that are dimensionally indistinguishable from any other system, but has the advantage over those systems of having the conversion factors normalised to equal 1.

The Joule was defined as a kg.m.s^-1 because mass-energy equivalence was demonstrable.

Mass-energy equivalence doesn't derive from SI, SI was designed to make clear that already well established equivalence. And of course SI is a complete system; It deals with metrology as a whole, with mass, distance, and duration (and hence the derived measures such as velocity, acceleration, force, power, and energy) being only a part of its purview.

He is so obsessed with SI units that he doesn't see the big picture. The units can be expressed any way we want to, simply in terms of M, L and T, but if you don't understand what the equation and the underlying model represents, and what its strengths and limitations are, you are just an electrical engineer pretending to understand physics.

Note also that Steve never responds to anything anyone says. I have pointed out flaws with his claims several times and challenged him on certain assertions, but he won't actually acknowledge these problems.

 

[bilby]

The units can be expressed any way we want to, simply in terms of M, L and T

Exactly. SI is just one of an infinite set of possible metrologies that can be derived by the arbitrary selection of fundamental units, and the setting of all conversion factors to 1.

The CGPM simply recommended that everyone use the same conventions, and established the (arbitrary but universally applicable) definitions for the fundamental units.

It would be perfectly reasonable to build a system of standardised units otherwise identical in structure to SI, but with the year as the basic unit of time rather than the second, for example. The choice of the second was essentially arbitrary. But such a system would be very different from SI, with derived units for velocity, power, energy, acceleration, etc., etc., all being different from those we actually have under SI.

SI isn't even completely free of needless complexities; The definition of the kg as the fundamental unit of mass is an aberration, as it's the only fundamental unit that takes a 10³ⁿ multiplier prefix. They could have avoided that by using the gram as the fundamental unit of mass, but chose not to.

The use of k to mean 10³ is itself an anomaly; prefixes with a value greater than 1 are otherwise expressed using capital letters (and those lower than 1 with lower case letters), but k was used to avoid confusion with K for absolute temperature in Kelvins. Similarly, the use of μ for 10^-6 represents an anomalous use of a Greek letter in a system that otherwise limits itself to the Latin alphabet.

SI is excellent, and I would like to see it adopted universally, not because it's perfect (it certainly isn't), but because a universal standard is far more efficient for information exchange and educational purposes than having multiple competing systems.

It's still, like all metrologies, descriptive, and never prescriptive.

 

[steve_bank]

Ad homs, the last resort.

If not SI units, then exactly what is energy? The point of the thread.

I am all ears. Enlighten me.

If energy is not the capacity to do work, then what is it? That is the'meaning' of energy, capacity to do work.


If not SI units how do you scintically define energy? This is a metaphysics thread not science.

If you are not paying for Joules with your eclectic bll, what is it?.

I see, so when a physicist makes use of emrgy itis something other than SI units with some deeper meaning and undertsanding?

That is mysticism. Or philosophy. Or speudo science. Or ignorance.

 

[atrib]

If not SI units, then exactly what is energy? The point of the thread

This has been explained already.

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.

There can be no work without gradients in the entropy states between two points. The work getting done is the process that equalizes the gradient. The work gets done because the number of possible configurations with the gradients equalized is much, much bigger than the number of possible configurations where the gradients are maintained. We have gone over this already but you have not been paying attention, as usual.

 

[Jarhyn]

If not SI units, then exactly what is energy? The point of the thread

This has been explained already.

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.

There can be no work without gradients in the entropy states between two points. The work getting done is the process that equalizes the gradient. The work gets done because the number of possible configurations with the gradients equalized is much, much bigger than the number of possible configurations where the gradients are maintained. We have gone over this already but you have not been paying attention, as usual.

Well, I'm paying attention and I'm understanding it better every day.

Fuck I wish I could get the money to go back to school.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ad homs, the last resort.

If not SI units, then exactly what is energy? The point of the thread.

I am all ears. Enlighten me.

If energy is not the capacity to do work, then what is it? That is the'meaning' of energy, capacity to do work.


If not SI units how do you scintically define energy? This is a metaphysics thread not science.

If you are not paying for Joules with your eclectic bll, what is it?.

I see, so when a physicist makes use of emrgy itis something other than SI units with some deeper meaning and undertsanding?

That is mysticism. Or philosophy. Or speudo science. Or ignorance.

But you aren't talking the metaphysics of a quanta of energy. You are talking about an arbitrary physical unit measurement of energy.

Metaphysically the question would be how a few indistinguishable breezes can turn into a hurricane then dissipate back into nothing but a few indistinguishable breezes. However, you are concentrating on the wonders of a kph or kPa.

 

[atrib]

If not SI units, then exactly what is energy? The point of the thread

This has been explained already.

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.

There can be no work without gradients in the entropy states between two points. The work getting done is the process that equalizes the gradient. The work gets done because the number of possible configurations with the gradients equalized is much, much bigger than the number of possible configurations where the gradients are maintained.

Steve, do you understand the concept I am trying to explain? Do you have any comments or criticisms?

Defining energy as the capacity to do work with units of M(L/T)^2 does not tell us what energy is. Energy is inextricably linked to entropy or the arrow of time, and looking at the big picture gives us valuable context. In our universe time has a direction (unlike the dimensions of space), which is why the universe relentlessly moves from a state of low entropy to high entropy. At the limit, physicists hypothesize that when all entropy gradients have been flattened out, and no further change is possible, the universe will cease to exist and time will no longer pass. The universe, almost infinitely vast in extent, and full of vacuum energy, no longer has the capacity to do work. And physicists like Sir Roger Penrose speculate that out of this vast ocean of undifferentiated photons, a quantum fluctuation might cause a tiny region of spacetime to experience inflationary expansion, from which a new universe arises. Its all a matter of balance, the transfer of energy from one form to another, driven by the nature of the underlying substrate of the universe.

 

[steve_bank]

Atrib, Do have the same conundrum with meters or seconds or kilograms? Or velocity m/s ?

What is matter Matter is anything with mass. What is mass? Kilograms.

Coal is converted to heat, heat is converted to steam. staem turns a generator to create electrical energy.

Where is the energy?

What do you mean by 'IS'?

No mysticism. QM says a state can only change in quantized units of energy. You can look it up. There is a theorized Plank Length a minimum distance.

Quantization at the atomic scale is part of working theories.

The unit of charge is the electron Q. Electric current is dQ/dt across a cross sectional area. Current through a wire is electrons per second. Current can only change by discrete numbers of electrons.

At the macro circuit level the quantization effect is far below the detection limit of ordinary instruments.

What is not a definition, like the color red?

Energy is the caacity to work. Work is force * distance. Joule demonstred the equivalence of heat, work, and energy with his paddle wheel experiment.

As units evolved to modern SI units were adlusted to make it all work together without any inconsistencies or ambiguities or interpretation..

Enegy is an arbitrary definition,.

Energy is an arbitrary definition quantitatively as is the meter and kilogram. E = kg*(m/s)^, so if yiu are quetioning the meaning of eerrgy in turn you quetion the meter, kilogram, and second.

If metaphysics is in part the study of abstract through forms, then SI and science are metaphysics tied to physical reference points, meters, kilograms, and seconds.

Anyone is free to offer alternate definitions and meaning. I put the thread in philosophy not science.

 

[atrib]

Saying that energy has the units of Mass(Length/Time)^2 tells us nothing about the universe. Aren't you even a little bit curious about the story of the universe? Why did you start the thread if not to learn and discuss?

We know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the universe we perceive with our senses is not the real universe. The true reality is a quantum wave function that collapses into the forms we recognize when we look at it (look up the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds hypothesis). We don't yet know how to reconcile the wave function with the emergent universe we perceive, and it is far more interesting to talk about that than to quibble about which units are best. The unit is just a standardized method of communicating a measurement, it is not the thing itself.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Energy exists. Energy can be measured. Your units in the end do not matter. Energy is energy. It is a very real thing. It has nothing to do with philosophy.

But as Richard Feynmann tells us, we really have no idea what energy is.

 

[bilby]

Energy exists. Energy can be measured. Your units in the end do not matter. Energy is energy. It is a very real thing. It has nothing to do with philosophy.

But as Richard Feynmann tells us, we really have no idea what energy is.

We really have no idea what quantum scale behaviour is. We really have no idea what relativistic behaviour is.

We really have no idea what numbers greater than about twelve are, or where the sun goes at night, or why tying a girl's ponytails to the school railings doesn't persuade her of our undying love.

We are a bunch of apes that evolved in a fairly complex environment, in which intelligence, tool-making, social skills, and a certain propensity for violence, were good survival traits. It's astonishing that we're even able to grasp the facts that we have managed to discover so far about reality.

It's a bit much to ask a fairly smart chimpanzee with massive ego issues to understand what energy is.

Certainly, only one with a particularly overdeveloped ego would put itself up as knowing the answer. And it should be no surprise to discover that that "knowledge" actually consists only of being able to name its preferred units of measurement.

 

[steve_bank]

Saying that energy has the units of Mass(Length/Time)^2 tells us nothing about the universe. Aren't you even a little bit curious about the story of the universe? Why did you start the thread if not to learn and discuss?

We know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the universe we perceive with our senses is not the real universe. The true reality is a quantum wave function that collapses into the forms we recognize when we look at it (look up the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds hypothesis). We don't yet know how to reconcile the wave function with the emergent universe we perceive, and it is far more interesting to talk about that than to quibble about which units are best. The unit is just a standardized method of communicating a measurement, it is not the thing itself.

SI fundamental units are used to describe reaity as we perceive it. Philosophically I look at SI like a language and syntax. It is how we quantitatively talk about reality.

I agree. The particle slit diffraction experiment and other things says to me we have no idea of the greater reality we exist in. Quantum entanglement to me suggests a greater reality.

The only way we can explain the particle diffraction experiment is to say when we look for a wave we get a wave, when we look for a partcle we get a particle. Our batons itself may be unable to fabricate reality as it is for all we know.

 

[steve_bank]

Energy exists. Energy can be measured. Your units in the end do not matter. Energy is energy. It is a very real thing. It has nothing to do with philosophy.

But as Richard Feynmann tells us, we really have no idea what energy is.

A philisophical answer.

Realy exists regardless of how we think or talk about it.

Seconds measures change, meters measures distance, mass measures matter.

Energy is a human fabrication. Reality exist regardless of what we call it. We tend to take our words for reality as reality itself. 'The map is not the countryside.

I can't get a bucket of Josues, but I can get a bucket of coal which has energy measured in Joules. I can't get a bucket of kilograms, I can get a bucket of coal with weight in kilograms. I can't get a bucket of meters but I can get a bucket of ibjects that are 1 meter long.

If I say light is red then that means the definition f the red wavelength.

Does wavelength exists? I don't think so. Light or EM radiation exists, wavlength is a term we use to quantify it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Saying that energy has the units of Mass(Length/Time)^2 tells us nothing about the universe. Aren't you even a little bit curious about the story of the universe? Why did you start the thread if not to learn and discuss?

We know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the universe we perceive with our senses is not the real universe. The true reality is a quantum wave function that collapses into the forms we recognize when we look at it (look up the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds hypothesis). We don't yet know how to reconcile the wave function with the emergent universe we perceive, and it is far more interesting to talk about that than to quibble about which units are best. The unit is just a standardized method of communicating a measurement, it is not the thing itself.

SI fundamental units are used to describe reaity as we perceive it. Philosophically I look at SI like a language and syntax. It is how we quantitatively talk about reality.

I agree. The particle slit diffraction experiment and other things says to me we have no idea of the greater reality we exist in. Quantum entanglement to me suggests a greater reality.

The only way we can explain the particle diffraction experiment is to say when we look for a wave we get a wave, when we look for a partcle we get a particle. Our batons itself may be unable to fabricate reality as it is for all we know.

No, that's not the only way to perceive it.

Instead there is the perception of the measurement as a field of interactive isolation.

As the photon doesn't hit the wall around the slits, the field of places it can be, as this field shifts, gets constrained by the fact it didn't lose energy at the wall.

But, it didn't get constrained by the hole of the slits. It went through both, because it's just a diffuse set of "maybes" until it has to all be in the same place.

In some respects I wonder what

The photon was everywhere at the wavefront but now it's mostly there.

Put the detector at the slits, though, and it will collapse that to a single point through which all the energy must pass because it will only interact as a whole quanta otherwise, as the energy of the wavefront continues. You'll get a single impact.

After writing this post, I decided to look it up to see how close I was, and apparently, pretty close.

Which-way detector unlocks some mystery of the double-slit experiment

(PhysOrg.com) -- One of the greatest puzzles of the double-slit experiment – and quantum physics in general – is why electrons seem to act differently when being observed. While electrons traveling through a barrier with two slits create interference patterns when unobserved, these interference...

phys.org

Essentially, it has to do with "scattering" and whether it scatters in a way where the states of the regions it moves through can accommodate it being represented among the mess of entropic microstates instead by diffuse particles and slightly more energetic states being occupied.

When it passes the filters though, it gets pulled all into one spot for muster at the interaction and it can only go one way from there. It's inelastic.

Essentially, it's nowhere and everywhere, but kind of around here sort of until it has to be somewhere, and then it's definitely there, and from there it can only go to places that would imply it was, previously, there.

 

[bigfield]

Seconds measures change, meters measures distance, mass measures matter.

Energy is a human fabrication. Reality exist regardless of what we call it. We tend to take our words for reality as reality itself. 'The map is not the countryside.

You seem to think there is something special about the ideas of change, distance and mass that makes those concepts more real than energy. These notions are no more or less real, and no less a human fabrication, than energy. They are all abstractions.