ENERGY

[fast]

Easy do.

Since Einstein, we know anything with mass is a container of energy: E = mc²
EB

Is potential energy in fact energy? Or, is it something than can later potentially become energy?

Adding potential energy to a system increases the total mass of the system, so it is definitely in fact energy. See  Mass–energy equivalence and search for "Potential energy". For example,

A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.

Speaking of compression, I've recently wondered if a cubed meter of water at a substantial ocean depth if it had a greater mass than a cubed meter of water at the surface. The curiosity is spawned by the notion that measuring 'information' in a black hole is not merely cumulative. My own intuitive thought experiment tells me that how much saw dust that is stuffed in a box times 5000 is an underestimate of how much saw dust could fit in a hole 5000 times the size of a box. Compression allows for a greater quantity. Is there a variance as such with water, is my curiosity.

 

[Juma]

Is potential energy in fact energy? Or, is it something than can later potentially become energy?

Adding potential energy to a system increases the total mass of the system, so it is definitely in fact energy. See  Mass–energy equivalence and search for "Potential energy". For example,

A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring.

Speaking of compression, I've recently wondered if a cubed meter of water at a substantial ocean depth if it had a greater mass than a cubed meter of water at the surface. The curiosity is spawned by the notion that measuring 'information' in a black hole is not merely cumulative. My own intuitive thought experiment tells me that how much saw dust that is stuffed in a box times 5000 is an underestimate of how much saw dust could fit in a hole 5000 times the size of a box. Compression allows for a greater quantity. Is there a variance as such with water, is my curiosity.

Just check wikipedia article on water:

Compressibility
The compressibility of water is a function of pressure and temperature. At 0 °C, at the limit of zero pressure, the compressibility is 5.1×10−10 Pa−1. At the zero-pressure limit, the compressibility reaches a minimum of 4.4×10−10 Pa−1 around 45 °C before increasing again with increasing temperature. As the pressure is increased, the compressibility decreases, being 3.9×10−10 Pa−1 at 0 °C and 100 megapascals (1,000 bar).[40]

The bulk modulus of water is about 2.2 GPa.[41] The low compressibility of non-gases, and of water in particular, leads to their often being assumed as incompressible. The low compressibility of water means that even in the deep oceans at 4 km depth, where pressures are 40 MPa, there is only a 1.8% decrease in volume.[41]

 

[fast]

Any phenomena that can be shown to do work is called energy.

Water in a mountain lake has gravitational potential energy. Let the water fall ino a turbine and is has the kinetic energy 0.5 * mass * velocity^2.

Both conditions are quantified by the Joule. This means if the lake has X number of Joules in potential energy ignoring losses and efficenny the water can turn a generator to create X Joules of electric energy.

Th E in E = mc^2 is energy in Joules, the energy in an atom. If nuclear fuel rods in a rector have X Joules of energy, then ignoring efficiency the reactor can create X Joules of electric energy.

That work, heat, and energy are equivalent is a foundation of science and technology.

If two people argued such that one claimed water is energy and the other claimed water has energy, who do you agree with?

Science is a set of definitions and relationships based on the definitions. Whether water possesses energy or 'it is energy' is semantics. Objectively energy, heat, and work can be measured, Anything beyond that is more philosophy and issues of the limitations of language for me. It is very difficult to objectively nail down with words, it is inherent to language.

In common speech power and energy are used interchangeably, yet are two different things.

I read Popper's book on objective knowledge. As he put it, objective science is limited to experimental demonstration. As discussion grows around experiment it gets progressively subjective.

There is a saying, 'science always works' meaning it doesn't matter how you discuss it the relationships and definitions are what matters.

My answer to your question, when confronted with semantics out in real world my response is always 'put it in an equation'.

Put it in an equation eh. Hmmm, I like that. Just change the language.

This puts an end to my water problem. If I want ice, I really shouldn't ask for water, even though I want water of a particular form. I should ask for the form. But then, I deny that ice is water. Yes, it's frozen water, but it's not a form of water, although that goes against the paradigm, where my view is that it's no long water once it becomes ice. Ice is frozen H2O. Liquid H2O is water if the original paradigm is incorrect. Sounds odd, but that's what becomes from a departure of paradigm. Equivocation runs amuck.

In any case, what was wrong with my original post? Energy is hot mass. Or E=M with c set at 1 and temp over threshold.

But wait, if M's temp is low, then it's not E, but that doesn't jibe with M being E.

Grrr, it's getting late

 

[steve_bank]

Math and equations based on SI are objective and unambiguous. Whether an equation or model fits the situation can be debatable.

Work, energy, and heat are definitions not open to debate or interpretations.

A mercury thermometer measures temperate, which is a high level abstraction for heat energy.

Given the diameter of the thermometer, given mass of the mercury and its coefficient of thermal expansion given the heat energy input in joules the height of column can be calculated.All things scientific reduce to kilograms, seconds, and meters. All derived units involve three. Look at NIST site for SI units. It is instructive.

Math is a language. It is logicall consistent. This means that no matter how model a problem you will always get the same answer.

This is not true for regular language.

I worked on a project where calculus and diieq were routinely used for communication, it was impossible to use conceptual wording.

Your analogy to water and ice is good. Ice, liquid water, and water vapor are all h2o. There are different forms of energy. Nothing deep.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The journey of a thousand posts begins with a thread.

What is energy? Can you get a container of energy?

Easy do.

Since Einstein, we know anything with mass is a container of energy: E = mc²
EB

Is potential energy in fact energy? Or, is it something than can later potentially become energy?

Energy is already routinely thought of as potential work: Using E = mc², mass can deliver work, so mass possesses or contains potential work. Ergo, it contains energy.


Like so many other things, though, we entertain very different and competing notions of energy.

One is our everyday notion of energy, the other is the scientific notion of energy.

The intuitive, everyday notion says energy is nothing but potential work. Even we feel full of energy whenever we are prepared to work hard.

This has been sacralised through the mathematically formal expression of the relation between energy and work used in theoretical engineering.

However, for science, this is already different from our intuitive notion. Science really takes work as transitional, i.e. it is the transformation of one form of energy into another. Energy is not work and it is not transformed in work. Rather, work is the process through which one form of energy is transformed into another.

Entropy is the overall transformation of all forms of energy into one form of energy, heat. And when all energy is in one form, heat, there will be no transformation possible and therefore no longer any work done.

However, the fundamental physics expressed by E = mc² seems to suggest that energy is more fundamental than our ordinary notion of it suggests, and more fundamental even than the view of energy as potential work of theoretical engineering view of it.

Thus, the ordinary view and the theoretical engineering view of energy could be construed both as macroscopic views, operational but not at all fundamental.

The real question then becomes which of energy or mass is ontologically fundamental.

Well, me, I certainly don't know and I don't think anybody does.

But I suspect neither is.
EB


And if you still have some energy left after that, please visit the poll on the definition of consciousness at https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12402-Definitions-of-Consciousness-The-Poll

 

[fast]

Thank you. Thank you all.

 

[Jon Osterman]

The real question then becomes which of energy or mass is ontologically fundamental.

I think energy is much more fundamental. Energy is the conserved quantity associated with the symmetry of the laws of physics under time translations. That is, the laws of physics don't change, and as a consequence energy is conserved. Mass has no such fundamental origin.

Of course, energy is just one part of the energy-momentum tensor, which is therefore arguably more fundamental as a whole.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The real question then becomes which of energy or mass is ontologically fundamental.

I think energy is much more fundamental. Energy is the conserved quantity associated with the symmetry of the laws of physics under time translations. That is, the laws of physics don't change, and as a consequence energy is conserved. Mass has no such fundamental origin.

Ok, so mass is just a form of energy?

I think that's something that would need some explaining.

Of course, energy is just one part of the energy-momentum tensor, which is therefore arguably more fundamental as a whole.

I wouldn't know but I'd be surprised if that was true.
EB

 

[fast]

Ok, so mass is just a form of energy?

I think that's something that would need some explaining.

Of course, energy is just one part of the energy-momentum tensor, which is therefore arguably more fundamental as a whole.

I wouldn't know but I'd be surprised if that was true.
EB

When the universe was formed, there were no objects with mass. There was just energy. The early universe was hot (very hot) where there could be no objects with mass. As the universe cooled, energy transformed, and it transformed into mass. Where it's too hot for mass, you have energy, and where it's to cold for energy, you have mass.

Energy = mass times a constant. In math, we can set constants to 1 where what changes are the units.

So, E=Mc^2 can be formulated as

E=M1

Or E=M for short

 

[Speakpigeon]

Where it's too hot for mass, you have energy, and where it's to cold for energy, you have mass.

Excellent, but not good enough for me at least.
EB

 

[fast]

Where it's too hot for mass, you have energy, and where it's to cold for energy, you have mass.

Excellent, but not good enough for me at least.
EB

When H2O cools, it transforms into a solid. You get ice or frozen water.

When it warms, it transforms back.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Where it's too hot for mass, you have energy, and where it's to cold for energy, you have mass.

Excellent, but not good enough for me at least.
EB

When H2O cools, it transforms into a solid. You get ice or frozen water.

When it warms, it transforms back.

I don't think mass is cool energy.
EB

 

[Jon Osterman]

Ok, so mass is just a form of energy?

Yes, mass is a form of energy. In fact, most of the mass in the universe comes from the interaction energy of quarks inside neutrons and protons that holds them together (that is, the energy associated with the strong nuclear force.)

 

[skepticalbip]

Ok, so mass is just a form of energy?

Yes, mass is a form of energy. In fact, most of the mass in the universe comes from the interaction energy of quarks inside neutrons and protons that holds them together (that is, the energy associated with the strong nuclear force.)

And we convert energy into mass all the time in our colliders. CERN's Hadron Collider would be of little use if we couldn't. CERN's LHC was needed because we needed much higher energy than our previous colliders are capable of generating so we could create more massive particles than possible in our other colliders.

 

[fast]

Ok, so mass is just a form of energy?

Yes, mass is a form of energy. In fact, most of the mass in the universe comes from the interaction energy of quarks inside neutrons and protons that holds them together (that is, the energy associated with the strong nuclear force.)

So unfair. Why can't energy be a form of mass?

 

[fast]

Excellent, but not good enough for me at least.
EB

When H2O cools, it transforms into a solid. You get ice or frozen water.

When it warms, it transforms back.

I don't think mass is cool energy.
EB

Then my original response to energy being hot mass is s no-go too then.

That's ok, I don't like to think ice is water in another form either. I think water is no longer water when frozen into ice. Ice is what H2O is when frozen.

 

[Kharakov]

When H2O cools, it transforms into a solid. You get ice or frozen water.

When it warms, it transforms back.

I don't think mass is cool energy.
EB

Then my original response to energy being hot mass is s no-go too then.

That's ok, I don't like to think ice is water in another form either. I think water is no longer water when frozen into ice. Ice is what H2O is when frozen.

And when it's in concrete. H2O forms tetrahedral structures in ice and concrete. Explains concrete heating as it sets if you think about it (tetrahedral H2O is a lower energy state).

 

[fast]

I don't think mass is cool energy.
EB

Then my original response to energy being hot mass is s no-go too then.

That's ok, I don't like to think ice is water in another form either. I think water is no longer water when frozen into ice. Ice is what H2O is when frozen.

And when it's in concrete. H2O forms tetrahedral structures in ice and concrete. Explains concrete heating as it sets if you think about it (tetrahedral H2O is a lower energy state).

Notice that you say "H2O" (not water) when you say "H2O forms."

If the form of the states of (oh, something) are solid, liquid, and gas, then those three forms are the subset to a superset. If I throw out the following terms, "Florida, Texas, United States of America, and Idaho", you can see that the three states is the subset of the superset which in turn is the country.

We are told that the forms are of water. This tells me that the superset to the forms is water. Water is to USA as the states are to states ... in that we can distinguish the superset from the subset.

There is a serious problem with identifying water as H2O. Water is not H2O. That's almost as bad as confusing a car with the sum of its parts. The car is more than that. It's also the assemblage of those parts. H2O is H2O regardless of the form it's in, but notice that ice is not ice when H2O is not in solid form. Does anyone find it completely and totally amazing that we have no word that refers specifically to liquid water? I think we do, and that term is "water". I don't mind talking about the different forms of H2O, but water ceases to be water when it's not in liquid form, and that throws a mighty damper on the superset subset distinction.

To put it more clearly, we should not be taught that there are three states of water but rather three states of H2O. There is an ambiguity of hell going on that captivates my attention. Water as a superset and water as one of the subsets.

At any rate, I think there's a relationship between energy and mass. Sometimes, I'm given the impression that they are both subsets to an unanamed overarching superset, when then there are moments when energy is seemingly given a superset position over mass as if it's a subset.

And to makes matters even more convoluted, the mysterious equivalencies are a function of movement? Hinting to rest mass, for example.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think the first scientific use of the word energy was in 1807, if online etymologies can be believed. Before that it generally meant something in motion, describing behavior. I don't know what energy is if it isn't motion. Potential motion is the same as potential energy. Heat motion is the same as heat energy. Kinetic energy is the same as motion energy, rather redundant, not to mention revealing.

Historically, energy equated with motion, delivery, expression, which is all energy really is. All mass is in motion, likely motion we cannot directly observe so we call it something else. I don't think we understand what energy is without using words which are themselves semantic tautologies. We might figure it out one day.

 

[fromderinside]

The journey of a thousand posts begins with a thread.

What is energy? Can you get a container of energy?

Easy do.

Since Einstein, we know anything with mass is a container of energy: E = mc²
EB

Is potential energy in fact energy? Or, is it something than can later potentially become energy?

Read this and your questions will be answered.

[h=1]Mass and Energy https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...asics/mass-energy-matter-etc/mass-and-energy/[/h]