ENERGY

[fast]

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.

Thoughtful post.

I believe there are two things we need to distinguish--especially the ontological status and the relationship, but in doing so, I find the need to step on some philisophical toes and perhaps to some extent scientific toes.

The object and motion.

Taking a naive realism stance and with strong objection to idealism and most forms of subjectivity, I proceed.

The object is both something and some thing while motion is something but not some thing. I could go into all kinds of detail to explain that, but let me sidestep that by saying, (and take a deep breath staving off the need to express common objections), we can have (at least from a child's point of view--begin there): we can have an object without motion but we cannot have motion without an object, so there is a fundamental difference between them. Let's not get bogged down with the same ole objections. It's the view out of this that matters.

Take for instance a ball. There ya have it. An object. No motion.

Now, take a ball rolling. Ooh, an object, yes, but not just an object but an object in motion.

3rd. Can't do it. I can't come up with motion without there being something to be in motion.

The relationship is such that while we can have A without B, the inverse is not true.

A quick note on a typical objection. All things are in motion therefore we cannot have an object with an absence of motion.

This is where we have to careful. Stationary objects (as opposed to objects in motion) are not without internal motion. The runners line up and the shot to run is fired. All the runners take off in desperate desire to win except one. He's an arrogant ole soul with a propensity to show off. He decides to not move and give the others a head start. His remaining stationary is precisely what I mean by an object not in motion. Sure, his chest is moving. Blood is flowing through his body. His cells are in constant motion, but when I speak of something not moving, i'm not speaking to its constituent parts. A cars engine might be rebbed up and the tires not moving a lick. Sure, physics teaches us that the atoms in the tires are moving--constantly and without fail, but not even the atoms are making any ground...just fluxing in place.

At any rate, there's mass (the stuff that is there), and we can measure how much is there, and the more there is, like TNT, the more of a blast it can make. I wonder, who named, "potential energy," and who the hell later started telling us that it's a form of energy? It seems to be just an odd way to speak. I think it might be a step forward to say it could unleash energy or become energy or something. I haven't spent enough time on the subject matter, but the darn term itself highly suggests that it is not as of yet in fact currently any actual type or form of energy.

Imagine someone going around telling everyone that you and everyone else is a potential killer. Ok, fine, but when we teach the lesson we learned, let's not get ahead of ourselves and start declaring that we're all a type of killer. A toy car is not a type of car. It's a type of toy.

 

[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?

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]

On my way

 

[steve_bank]

s = distance
t = time
v = velocity

v = ds/dt...

Keep in mind motion is relative to a frame.


Two cars of rthe same type are traveling at the same speed, there is zero difference in energy between the two.

If they are at different speeds the a potential exists between the two which can be used to do work, iaw energy..

 

[steve_bank]

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

You are starting to zero in on it.

Intuition is subjective. Ancient Zog was certain the sun revolves around the planet.

Energy is the potential to do work, it is no more than that.

Ontology is a definition, anything that fits the definition is ontology.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

I am talking about hierarchies of abstractions. Electric Current is a high level abstraction, quantum mechanics is a lower level abstraction.

Take a look at the SI definitions at NIST. Current, voltage, force, pressure adn so on are high level abstractions tied to objective base units. Take a look at energy.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Density is mass per unit volume. Google ocean density and depth. At low pressures water is taken to be incompressible.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Intuition is subjective.

Not quite.

Subjectivity is knowledge. Which has to be good. At least it's a start.

Intuition is knowledge of a belief you have. Which may or may not be good.

Ancient Zog was certain the sun revolves around the planet.

Ancient Zog is dead but who's not certain of something even today?

Energy is the potential to do work, it is no more than that.

When you can explain how we're supposed to know that, come and tell us.

Ontology is a definition, anything that fits the definition is ontology.

I'm sure it feels good to say but, me, I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Not quite.

Subjectivity is knowledge. Which has to be good. At least it's a start.

Intuition is knowledge of a belief you have. Which may or may not be good.



Ancient Zog is dead but who's not certain of something even today?

Energy is the potential to do work, it is no more than that.

When you can explain how we're supposed to know that, come and tell us.

Ontology is a definition, anything that fits the definition is ontology.

I'm sure it feels good to say but, me, I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
EB

I was quoting you. Energy, work, and heat are defined as equivalent in Systems International, yet again.

Why is a particular EM wavelength called red? Because that is how it is defined in English. Energy as the capacity to do work, or the potential to do work is a definition. There is nothing below that. Rock bottom. I struggled with this when I started out, until it sunk in science is simply a set of definitions.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I was quoting you. Energy, work, and heat are defined as equivalent in Systems International, yet again.

If you quote people, use the forum's quote feature.

The only fair way to save time for all concerned.

Why is a particular EM wavelength called red? Because that is how it is defined in English.

No, 'red' is the name of the colour, i.e. something most but not all people experience subjectively.

The corresponding wavelengths are 700 nm to 635 nm.

So the name of a wavelength will be something like, for example, '571 mn', not 'yellow'.

Energy as the capacity to do work, or the potential to do work is a definition. There is nothing below that. Rock bottom. I struggled with this when I started out, until it sunk in science is simply a set of definitions.

You're confusing science and scientists.

Even for scientists energy is not a definition.

Personally, I can't possibly have any sort of conversation with science. I think no one can. All we can expect is to have a decent conversation with each other, and scientists all welcome.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.
<snip>
Compression allows for a greater quantity. Is there a variance as such with water, is my curiosity.

Water is very slightly compressible (by pressure) so one cubic meter of water is slightly heavier at great depth just because of the enormous pressure.

Even a small variation in temperature will have more effect on water.
EB

 

[bilby]

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

But c is not a unitless constant; so that's not true. The speed of light is not light; c is not ~3x10⁸ - it's ~3x10⁸ms^-1.

Dimensionality must be conserved, as well as number.

Energy is proportional to mass multiplied by a speed squared. You are welcome to establish a set of units where light has a speed of 1 speed unit in a vacuum, but that doesn't allow you to declare that E=M. They are fundamentally different things; one has dimensions of Mass.Length².Time^-2; the other is just Mass.

 

[Jon Osterman]

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

I missed this earlier. Why do you find this surprising? One of the tenants of relativity is that time is not universal. A Lorentz transformation will mix your space and time components. In the same sense, energy of not universal - a Lorentz transformation will mix your energy with momentum. Therefore I don't find it surprising that the energy-momentum tensor is more fundamental. Indeed, it is the Energy-momentum tensor that sources Einstein's famous equation for Gravity in GR.

 

[fast]

If we were to make a list of energies, would we wind up with two different lists?

For instance, thermonuclear energy would be in a list of all of forms of energy you could list, but wouldn't other terms where the word energy is included not be in that particular list? For instance, potential energy and kinetic energy seems to belong in a list of their own while solar energy, wind energy etc is a true energy.

I guess what I'm getting at is in the distinction in the question that asks for types of energy vs forms of energy.

 

[steve_bank]

If you quote people, use the forum's quote feature.

The only fair way to save time for all concerned.



No, 'red' is the name of the colour, i.e. something most but not all people experience subjectively.

The corresponding wavelengths are 700 nm to 635 nm.

So the name of a wavelength will be something like, for example, '571 mn', not 'yellow'.

Energy as the capacity to do work, or the potential to do work is a definition. There is nothing below that. Rock bottom. I struggled with this when I started out, until it sunk in science is simply a set of definitions.

You're confusing science and scientists.

Even for scientists energy is not a definition.

Personally, I can't possibly have any sort of conversation with science. I think no one can. All we can expect is to have a decent conversation with each other, and scientists all welcome.
EB

You are too scattered for me.You constntly spin tangents.

You and I do not grok.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

I missed this earlier. Why do you find this surprising? One of the tenants of relativity is that time is not universal. A Lorentz transformation will mix your space and time components. In the same sense, energy of not universal - a Lorentz transformation will mix your energy with momentum. Therefore I don't find it surprising that the energy-momentum tensor is more fundamental. Indeed, it is the Energy-momentum tensor that sources Einstein's famous equation for Gravity in GR.

Good explaining! I'm Ok with the idea. Thanks.

Still, you may have one unique formal expression for the pair energy/momentum but we still observe, and measure, two distinct quantities that are not arbitrary and not reducible to each other. In a given situation, you will measure a specific energy/momentum mix. This suggests to me that there are really two different fundamental things, corresponding in some way to energy and momentum, if not energy and momentum themselves.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You and I do not grok.

I sure had gathered as much from the way you had jumped on me early on.

With your big shoes on.

Fortunately, there's a forum feature whereby you can 'ignore' people you don't want to read. Help yourself.
EB

 

[Jon Osterman]

Good explaining! I'm Ok with the idea. Thanks.

Still, you may have one unique formal expression for the pair energy/momentum but we still observe, and measure, two distinct quantities that are not arbitrary and not reducible to each other. In a given situation, you will measure a specific energy/momentum mix. This suggests to me that there are really two different fundamental things, corresponding in some way to energy and momentum, if not energy and momentum themselves.
EB

Well, yes, there are separate degrees of freedom. But only in the same sense that momentum has components along different directions in space. If you like, energy is the component of momentum in the time direction.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Good explaining! I'm Ok with the idea. Thanks.

Still, you may have one unique formal expression for the pair energy/momentum but we still observe, and measure, two distinct quantities that are not arbitrary and not reducible to each other. In a given situation, you will measure a specific energy/momentum mix. This suggests to me that there are really two different fundamental things, corresponding in some way to energy and momentum, if not energy and momentum themselves.
EB

Well, yes, there are separate degrees of freedom. But only in the same sense that momentum has components along different directions in space. If you like, energy is the component of momentum in the time direction.

Now, I really like that.

But, this would now suggest that time is itself really a fundamental thing, distinct from space.

What about that?
EB

 

[Jon Osterman]

Well, yes, there are separate degrees of freedom. But only in the same sense that momentum has components along different directions in space. If you like, energy is the component of momentum in the time direction.

Now, I really like that.

But, this would now suggest that time is itself really a fundamental thing, distinct from space.

What about that?
EB

Time is as distinct from up/down as up/down is distinct from left/right.

It is sligthly more different though because of the dignature of the metric. It we want to calculate a space-time distance then (in flat space) it is the square root of dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 -dz^2 (where dt is the time difference, dx the difference in the x-direction etc). The different sign picks out the time direction as a bit special.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Time is as distinct from up/down as up/down is distinct from left/right.
It is sligthly more different though because of the dignature of the metric. It we want to calculate a space-time distance then (in flat space) it is the square root of dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 -dz^2 (where dt is the time difference, dx the difference in the x-direction etc). The different sign picks out the time direction as a bit special.

I'm still unclear to me as to why you don't see time as fundamentally different from space, and therefore energy as fundamentally different from momentum.

I understand that a given momentum necessarily implies a specific amount of energy, much like I suppose coordinates in three-D space allows us to calculate distances, but we still have what appears to be a fundamental difference between time and space and hence between energy and momentum.

If time and space are essentially just parts of the same thing, how could our brain possibly see them as different, both in terms of their nature and of their properties?
EB