It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There is no such 'thing' as energy.

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   
"There is no such thing as matter. Everything is energy." Statements such as this are found in every modern physics textbook; but is energy a 'thing'?

The material objects around us are manifest realities that have mass; but what do we mean by 'mass'? In general, it means that all objects near the Earth's surface possess weight, and also that they possess inertia. Mass is commonly defined as 'the amount of matter in a body', more accurately as 'the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration'. We can say that 'mass' is the quantification of matter that finds manifestation in weight and inertia. Both of these are observables: they can be detected, sensed, and measured; that is, quantified. They are qualities or properties of material objects that can be given a value on a scale of measurement.

Similar statements are true of motion. Generally speaking, all objects around us are either stationary or in motion relative to us, as determined by observation. Motion is also a manifest reality that can be quantified. If we know the mass and motion of an object, we can make statements and deductions about it. A tennis ball rolling along level ground will slow down and stop, whereas on a slope it will continue to move. In either case, appropriate measurements allow us to calculate the ball's motion to any desired degree of accuracy using well-established mathematical statements, and to calculate much else besides: velocity, acceleration, force of impact and so on. These properties can be called parameters of the object from the Greek para meaning beside and metron meaning measure.

Thus matter demonstrates mass, whilst radiation demonstrates motion; yet matter can also move, and radiation has an effective mass: both are fundamental components of Physical Reality.

A most useful parameter of a material object is its momentum: the product of mass and velocity: p = mv. Although derived from mass and motion, momentum is not an observable, but a concept: a calculated parameter. Neither is it a manifest reality as are mass and motion. If an object's momentum changes, it is NOT the case that momentum has been added to or subtracted from it: rather has its mass or its motion changed, and the calculated value of its momentum changes accordingly.

A similar parameter is kinetic energy. This, too, is a concept: a mathematical term naming the product of mass and the square of velocity: E = 1/2mv^2. What applies to momentum applies equally to kinetic energy, and to energy in general. It is a calculated quantity, neither an observable, nor a manifest reality. Energy cannot be added to or taken from an object; rather does it change in accord with mass, motion, position and composition. All calculation of energy requires the inclusion of a value for mass. If mass is unknown, energy cannot be calculated.

Recall now the first statement of this post, "There is no such thing as matter. Everything is energy." To claim that matter and radiation are both energy is to replace manifest realities with a mathematical parameter, and this surely is absurd.

It is true that all substance - sc. matter - is ultimately vibration, a contained, stationary resonance rather than the propagating vibrations of radiation; but vibration is not energy, even though it can be assigned an energetic value. In the case of electromagnetism, Planck's constant substitutes for the mechanical aspects of mass and motion: E = hf.

In spite of the foregoing, energy has proved to be one of the most valuable concepts in modern science, which is undoubtedly why it has been reified: that is, turned into a 'thing'. For more than a century, scientists have treated it as an actual physical reality instead of as a useful concept. What is needed is a new conceptual understanding of mass and motion, rather than the claim that both are composed of concepts.

For more see: vitency.com...




posted on May, 28 2018 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ColinT

I think it all boils down to interactions between standing waves and traveling waves. Which came first? I do not know.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ColinT

Dark energy must be physical?

Or are we way off?

That's my opening question. I love the way your are talking.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Ok..So this is copied and pasted from a book online...Is this your book?

By the way, energy can be calculated without knowing the mass of an object.

edit on 28 5 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ColinT

Doesn't gravity or the equation E = MC2 sort of explain all of this?
edit on 28-5-2018 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Mass/energy conversion: E(Energy)= M(Mass)*C^2(Speed of light squared)


This is gravitation: F = Gm1m2/r2



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Not anymore. Mass equaling energy is from Newtonian physics.
Now in general relativity is energy that causes gravity



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

But the question is:

Is Energy a 'thing'?

I guess we need to determine what a 'thing' is in this articles context. But mass can easily be explained by how gravity or relativity works. I guess the question should be, is gravity a thing?



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Yes, energy is a thing.

It is quantifiable, many forms of it are useful, and it mechanics well understood.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Gravity is a force. The weakest one in our universe.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Then why does it bring energy together?



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: projectvxn

Then why does it bring energy together?


If you mean, for example, how a the gravity of a star - or even a galaxy - can bend EM radiant energy (such as visible light), please note that it takes the combined gravity of a heck of a lot of matter to bend light even a little.

So it is true that gravity is very weak. Having said that, it is accumulative. The mass of the entire Earth creates enough gravity to keep you or a rock on the ground. However even that gravity resulting from that combined mass of the Earth can be overcome by you simply picking up that rock.

The entire gravitational pull of the Earth holding that rock down is no match for you.


edit on 2018/5/28 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: projectvxn

Then why does it bring energy together?


Photons have energy, they don't have mass.

Mass and energy have equivalency but both exist discretely.

Think of it like this, lions are cats and domestic cats are cats. Lions don't cease to exist because they are really a type of cat.

edit on 28/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

But they have the potential to become mass don't they?
If energy itself is what makes matter and mass, then technically anything in 'our' universe can become a mass of something.

My mid can't seem to understand it right now ... guess I gotta look into it a little more and think about it.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: chr0naut

But they have the potential to become mass don't they?
If energy itself is what makes matter and mass, then technically anything in 'our' universe can become a mass of something.

My mid can't seem to understand it right now ... guess I gotta look into it a little more and think about it.


It isn't valid to dumb the universe down that much. They are equivalent, but have slightly different properties. We don't need to over-think it.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Also, photons are indestructible as far as physics defines them. They can be captured into mass and released again but even large numbers of photons are massless. Their relative mass only exists at a particular speed, that of 'c' (called the speed of light). If they could slow down, they would not exist anymore, so they can neither slow down, nor speed up, nor cease to exist and are perpetually "locked in" to being photons travelling at 'c' for eternity (which is yet another major problem for those who would suggest the creation of the universe from quantum fluctuation).

edit on 28/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

The effects of gravity on energy are not the same as the effects of gravity on massive objects where the effects of gravity are more pronounced.

A photon at any energy level can have its trajectory bent or distorted by gravitational forces.

General relativity says that space can and is expanding faster than light. In the case of black holes, for instance, light cannot escape the event horizon.

The fundamental forces of the universe, from strongest to weakest, are the Strong Nuclear Force, The Weak Nuclear Force, the Electromagnetic Force, and Gravity. Gravitation may be the weakest force, but it can, by our own measurement, produce incredible natural phenomena, not the least of which is our very own solar system.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ColinT

Technically. Everything is fields. What we used to think of as particles, are now described as fields.


youtu.be...
edit on 28-5-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Still trying to figure out where this idea that energy doesn't exist comes from.

Seems to be an awful lot of nonsense to me.

I can calculate energy in joules without the benefit of knowing the mass.

Then convert that to electron-volts(eV) and there you go. Energy without mass.

So I ask again. Who's copy and paste job is this really and why should we care?



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ColinT

Technically. Everything is fields. What we used to think of as particles, are now described as fields.

youtu.be...


But meadows are also fields.

So, do fields exist?




posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Still trying to figure out where this idea that energy doesn't exist comes from.

Seems to be an awful lot of nonsense to me.

I can calculate energy in joules without the benefit of knowing the mass.

Then convert that to electron-volts(eV) and there you go. Energy without mass.

So I ask again. Who's copy and paste job is this really and why should we care?


What exists and does not exist is not synonymous with working models necessarily.
I brought up some place holders already... The math works.. But..

You can calculate energy of what?
electron volts is mass.. Or are electrons mass less?
Don't even start with fig newtons!

Volts are defined by watts, and what's a watt anyway?

"One volt is defined as the difference in electric potential between two points of a conducting wire when an electric current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power between those points"

power?

You guys so silly arguing one or another..

And energy is not just electrons either.



Energy is defined by work... Or it's defined by mass.. Both are mass or moving mass.

How do you think you measure anything? With objects that do not physically exist?

ok lol..

Energy = the ability to do WORK.

edit on 28-5-2018 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)







 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join