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.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.Anyone who has applied physical science would know that. Energy is no more mysterious than meters or seconds.
Huh?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.Anyone who has applied physical science would know that. Energy is no more mysterious than meters or seconds.
This is completely backwards.Huh?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.Anyone who has applied physical science would know that. Energy is no more mysterious than meters or seconds.
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.
Or maybe Days, Months, Hours or Years; Earth or Solar masses; Lightyears, Astronomical Units or Parsecs.When you think time, mass, ans distance you think seconds, kilograms, and meters.
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.This is completely backwards.Huh?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.Anyone who has applied physical science would know that. Energy is no more mysterious than meters or seconds.
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.
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.
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 units can be expressed any way we want to, simply in terms of M, L and T
This has been explained already.If not SI units, then exactly what is energy? The point of the thread
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.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.
Well, I'm paying attention and I'm understanding it better every day.This has been explained already.If not SI units, then exactly what is energy? The point of the thread
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.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.
But you aren't talking the metaphysics of a quanta of energy. You are talking about an arbitrary physical unit measurement of energy.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.
This has been explained already.If not SI units, then exactly what is energy? The point of the thread
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.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.
We really have no idea what quantum scale behaviour is. We really have no idea what relativistic behaviour is.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.
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.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.
A philisophical answer.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.
No, that's not the only way to perceive it.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.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.
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.
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.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.