Energy - What is it?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Quantum Quack, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    legitimate questions about what energy is are not allowed...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    I don't know how some of you guys can get out of bed in the morning knowing that a simple question about energy can't be resolved rationally.

    A question to demonstrate my point is:

    "How much energy is propagating universally at any given moment?"
    "Why is this not accounted for in any physical theorizing?

    The question is not requiring an exact answer [for even a quick mental calculation "blows" the issue.] but more an effort to understand the implications of a flawed understanding of what exactly energy is and how that in turn distorts and inhibits scientific progress into the future.

    I tend to feel that for example using the Eqiv. equation; E=mc^2 that what is happening in our thinking is that we treat this equation as if Energy is being compared to Mass, as if they are separate entities when in fact there is only one entity, that being Mass.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    An easy enough to understand confusion IMO which is why we are left with unanswerable questions such as the one posed above.

    IMO The equal sign (=) in the equation does not imply that energy is somehow separate to mass yet physics tends to work on the notion that it somehow is separate




    View attachment 6342
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Energy is not a 'thing'. It is a property of matter and fields.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    yes that is the conventional view... but what is a field? Is a field Mass? (nope) Do you see the confusion?
    edit: see my edit above
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    IMO ... E (=) mc^2 should read E (is) mc^2
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    from your link:
    ok ...then answering the question about the amount of energy propagating the universe at any given moment should cause no concern and be well published.

    Do you have a link that can provide an answer to this question?
    Even an approximation would suffice.
     
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. We certainly don't know all the different kinds of fields, in the universe, nor how much energy is contained by the fields. Nor, for that matter, how large the universe is.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    I do realize you are talking form a mainstream perspective when you write:

    but as you have clearly stated "energy is a property of Matter and a "thing" called "fields"

    either way E= "only a property"

    so accordingly

    Energy is a property of Matter, that can be valued by solving (mc^2)
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    But one would have to rationally suggest that the amount of energy proposed to be in transit [ propagating ] would have to be a hugely significant value and one that appears to be ignored by mainstream science.
    At present science appears to be suggesting that "Energy is a property of energy" And that it can exist independently of matter in the form of fields.

    so one could reasonably conclude that mc^2 only = Energy when relating to matter but not "fields"...

    is that a fair enough assessment?

    So what do we do with all this theoretically derived "massive" amount of energy propagating through out the universe?

    Do we just put it in the too hard basket when calculating the universes total mass [with it's related missing mass and energy] ?

    Is it possible that the 95.1% missing mass may be because this massive amount of propagating energy is not included in the calculations?
     
  14. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    First of all, the entire form of the equation is E[sup]2[/sup] = m[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]4[/sup] + p[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]2[/sup]. The second term on the right side applies to massless particles, i.e. photons, where p is momentum.

    Second, that equation only considers the energy equivalent of the matter and photons. It doesn't consider the energy of fields, nor kinetic energy. So it's not inclusive of the stress-energy tensor.

    But you can certainly solve the equation for any given amount of matter, and get the energy equivalent. It's just not all the energy.
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Yes.

    Why would you think that? Ignored how?
     
  16. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Energy is a property of matter and fields, would be a more accurate statement.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    Simply because there is absolutely no reference to this massive amount of propagating energy [as an estimated total ] on the net that I can find, nor any one else can find.
    It appears to be non-existent.... yet it must exist according to science....re: photons, EMR etc etc

    If there was an acknowledged total it would be very well published and a significant part of any equations involving universal mass,energy [ totals ]
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2013
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    Is it possible that the 95.1% missing mass may be because this massive amount of propagating energy is not included in the calculations?
     
  19. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Mainstream physics certainly doesn't ignore it, it's just unknown.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    but do you agree that it would have to add up to a massive value? [ unknown perhaps but massive for sure ]

    Proposition:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    :shrug:
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,301
    hee hee good answer...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and I might add a "politically correct" one... [ chuckle]
     
  23. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    How about zero?
     

Share This Page