# Energy - What is it?

legitimate questions about what energy is are not allowed...

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.

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:
Energy is not a 'thing'. It is a property of matter and fields.

Energy is not a 'thing'. It is a property of matter and fields.
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

IMO ... E (=) mc^2 should read E (is) mc^2

No, I don't see any confusion.

The equal sign implied that they are equivalent, not that they are the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
from your link:
Defining the field as "numbers in space" shouldn't detract from the idea that it has physical reality. “It occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum.”[2] The field creates a "condition in space"[3] such that when we put a particle in it, the particle "feels" a force.
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.

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.

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.

I do realize you are talking form a mainstream perspective when you write:

Energy is not a 'thing'. It is a property of matter and fields.
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)

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.
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] ?

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, dark matter and 68.3% dark 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?

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.

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]

Yes.

and one that appears to be ignored by mainstream science.

Why would you think that? Ignored how?

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.

Energy is a property of matter and fields, would be a more accurate statement.

Why would you think that? Ignored how?

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:
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, dark matter and 68.3% dark 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?

Simply because there is absolutely no reference to this massive amount of propagating energy 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

Mainstream physics certainly doesn't ignore it, it's just unknown.

Mainstream physics certainly doesn't ignore it, it's just unknown.
but do you agree that it would have to add up to a massive value? [ unknown perhaps but massive for sure ]

Proposition:

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

hee hee good answer... and I might add a "politically correct" one... [ chuckle]

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.
How about zero?