Energy Explained

[Farsight]

Energy is generally misunderstood. Our schoolroom textbooks tell us that energy is the capacity to do work, and work is the transfer of energy. They go round in circles without getting to the heart of it, and some children grow into adults with no clear concept of what energy is.

 

Let’s start by saying that energy is the property of a thing. It is not a thing in its own right. To illustrate this, I can talk about a red bus, or a red red ruby. All these things have the property that we call red. A thing can be red, but you cannot remove this red and hold it in your hand. You can remove the paint or the dye and hold that in the palm of your hand, but you are still holding a thing that is red. You cannot remove the red from the dye to hold the red in the palm of your hand. Even when you imagine red, the image in your mind’s eye is a thing. You always need a thing to be red. There is no such thing as “raw red”. In similar vein there is no such thing as “raw energy”.

 

 

Another illustration is money. You can spend money just like you can expend energy. But the money doesn’t disappear, just as the energy doesn’t disappear. Somebody else now has your money, just as some other thing now has your energy. Think about an old house, nestled in the countryside. It’s picturesque, worth a lot of money, and it’s built out of cob. Way back when, some guy put some energy into shifting earth and straw to make the walls of this house. He did the same thing with the wood, which grew out of the earth because the trees put energy into shifting water and CO2. The guy made money out of that house. What they were paid for was the energy he put into it, through the work he did moving stuff. That’s why money and energy are similar. They get things moving, they get work done. One makes the world go round, and the other one makes the world go round too.

 

 

 

But money isn’t what energy is, and nor is motion. You need mass and motion before you can talk about energy. Consider a 10 kilogram cannonball, in space, travelling at 1000 metres per second. Not that you can see it.

 

 

We talk about how much kinetic energy this cannonball has. We talk about

 

KE = ½ MV2

 

and we do the maths and get five million Joules. But what has the cannonball really got? Its mass seems real enough, I hefted it into my spaceship this morning before I took off. And its motion seems real enough too, because one false move and it’ll be smashing through my viewscreen taking my head off. To find out more I take a spacewalk to place a thousand sheets of cardboard in the path of my cannonball. Each sheet of cardboard exerts a small braking force, slowing the cannonball to an eventual halt. This takes two seconds. We know that the cannonball will punch through more cardboard in the first second than in the second second, because it’s slowing down. So we deduce that a cannonball travelling at 1000m/s has more than twice the kinetic energy of one travelling at 500m/s. We can do the arithmetic for each second, then slice the seconds up finer and finer, and we end up realising that the ½V2 is the integral of all the velocities between V and 0. But what we don’t realise is that kinetic energy is a way of describing the stopping distance for a given force applied to a given mass moving at a given velocity. You can flip it around to think about force times distance to get something moving. Or you can think in terms of damage. But basically that cannonball has “got” kinetic energy like it has “got” stopping distance.

 

It’s similar with momentum. That’s a different way of looking at the mass and the motion, based on force and time instead of distance or damage. We look back to our cannonball and cardboard, and we know by definition that in the first second the same amount of time elapsed as in the second second. So we realise that a cannonball travelling at 1000m/s has twice the momentum of one travelling at 500m/s. But what we don’t realise is that momentum is a way of describing the stopping time for a given force applied to a given mass moving at a given velocity. A cannonball has “got” momentum like it has “got” stopping time.

 

But wait a minute. I didn’t fire the cannonball at 1000 metres a second. I dropped it off at a handy spot out near a GPS satellite, then zipped off in my spaceship in a big loop.

 

 

It’s me doing 1000m/s, not the cannonball. The cannonball is just sitting there in space. It hasn’t got any kinetic energy at all. I’ve got it. But I don’t feel supercharged with five million Joules of energy coursing though my veins. So where is it? Where’s the kinetic energy gone? It isn’t anywhere really, because all that cannonball has got, is its mass, and its motion. And that motion is relative to me. Kinetic energy is not a thing. It’s just a relative property.

 

There are other forms of energy. There’s the potential energy of mass and gravity, potential energy in springs, there’s electrical energy related to current and voltage, there’s chemical energy related to electron bonds, nuclear energy, all sorts.

 

 

They all deserve more explanation than I can give in this short essay. So I have to take a shortcut: how do you make something move? Easy. Hit it with something else that moves. And how did you make that something else move? Where did it all start? I pitch you a cannonball, you whack it with a baseball bat, and it tumbles away at one metre per second. You made that cannonball move. Now, where did the energy come from to make it move? From your muscles: “The release of ADP and inorganic phosphate causes the myosin head to turn, causing a ratchet movement. Myosin is now bound to actin in the strong binding state. This will pull the Z-bands towards each other. It also shortens the sarcomere...”

 

 

It gets complicated, and I want to make it simple. Maybe too simple. Sorry. But basically some plant somewhere caught the momentum of a sunbeam and stored that kinetic energy by making starch. Think of starch as a chemical spring. You eat the spring. You release it in your muscles, and boing and whack, you shift that cannonball. The kinetic energy of the cannonball came from a sunbeam that came from the sun. And the sun gets its energy from nuclear fusion. Squeeze a couple of hydrogen atoms together and you make helium. But when you do, ping, something breaks, and things spring out between your fingers, things like photons.

 

4 1H + 2 e --> 4He + 2 neutrinos + 6 photons

 

What is a photon? Particle physics comes with mental baggage that says it’s a speck, a point, a particle. But it’s more like the slink in a slinky spring. Only the slinky spring here is all of space, with its permittivity and permeability. A photon is a like a ripple on an electromagnetic oceanic “field” between the stars. A boat on the ocean can ride the ripple and the ripple passes on by. But tie that boat to the sea bed with a rubber rope, and you can capture the energy of the ripple, and save it in starch, or coal, or oil. You can use it to build your house, and whack that cannonball.

 

 

It all started at the beginning of the universe. Visualize yourself in a dark cylindrical room. The walls are banded and helical. You feel a tremble, and you realise with horror that the room is the biggest baddest spring you’ve ever seen. It’s the “prime mover”, and it is exerting an incredible pressure, but is bound by thick steel cables called “symmetry”. The cables are under impossible tension, and you can hear ping ping ping as individual cable wires snap. Symmetry is about to break, and you know your prime mover will disintegrate into a fireball of nuclear and electromagnetic springs that will go bouncing out to fill the night and make the world what it is.

 

 

It’s all analogy of course. Analogies are based on the things we experience, and these are not the things of the subatomic world. So analogies can be dangerous, like too much butter. But it’s enough to give you a grasp of what energy is. Enough to tell you that energy is to do with tension, which is negative pressure, which is the same as stress. Stress is force per unit area, and energy is force times distance, so energy is pressure times volume. So here’s the beginnings of a new definition:

 

Energy is the capacity to do work, and is also a volume of negative tension…

 

You know you can’t hold tension in the palm of your hand, and a volume of it doesn’t help. That’s why you can’t hold energy in the palm of your hand. There is no such thing as “pure energy”, just as there is no such thing as “pure pressure”. Things aren’t made out of energy. Things have energy. And how much they have, is relative to how much other things have. Yes, I know mass and motion doesn’t sound like volume and pressure. But to explain more, I’ll have to explain other things. Things like time and space, and mass and gravity.

 

Later.

[Farsight]

If anybody could point out any errors or suggest any improvements I'd be grateful. I'm not sure I'm quite happy with it myself yet.

 

PS: I'm user "Farsight" on other forums.

[arkain101]

Hi popular,

 

Another great peice of work.

 

I agree with everything up to your analogie of the big bang. The analogy makes sence, but I do not know if the big bang is true :hihi:

 

Anyhow, I had spent a lot of time thinking about these things aswell so I would like to add and support to your paper.

 

KE = ½ MV^2

>

KE = (M*V) (M*V) / (M + M)

 

Kinetic Energy is as you said an equation that expresses a relationship between masses with relative velocities between them and predicts how they will react and transfer momentum.

 

Momentum and Kentic Energy are the same thing. Momentum of a moving body is M*V. The rest body that the moving body hits also has rest momentum (M*V). Thus the impact between the interaction will obviously be equal to (M*V) (M*V), where M is mass of the moving object and of the lesser mass of the interaction (in this case the moving object is lesser mass).

 

However, this total energy can only be applied to one frame at a time so we must devide the lesser mass value (which each object is capable to contain) the surpluss mass will dertmine the new velocity as it accepts the rest of the momentum.

 

Thus there is no thing that is Kinetic Energy, it is as you said, the measurement of interacting masses.

 

 

 

You know you can’t hold tension in the palm of your hand, and a volume of it doesn’t help. That’s why you can’t hold energy in the palm of your hand. There is no such thing as “pure energy”, just as there is no such thing as “pure pressure”. Things aren’t made out of energy. Things have energy. And how much they have, is relative to how much other things have. Yes, I know mass and motion doesn’t sound like volume and pressure. But to explain more, I’ll have to explain other things. Things like time and space, and mass and gravity.

The square root of energy devided by mass is equal to distance devided by time.

Sqrt (E / M) = (D / T)

 

Relative Relativity Basis

This equation may not have much use for calculating a measurement however it is a description behind Space-Time on the right and the operation that causes space time to be what it is on the left.

E=MC^2

>

E / M = C^2

>

Sqrt (E / M) = C

>

Sqrt (E / M) = C = V = D / T

>

Sqrt (E / M) = (D / T)

>

Sqrt (E / M) = C

>

Sqrt (E / M) = C = 1 / Sqrt (Permittivity * permeability)

>

Sqrt (E / M) = 1 / Sqrt (Eo * Uo)

or

Sqrt (E / M) = 1 / Sqrt ( [10^7/4*pie C^2] * [4*pie10^-7] )

or

C = 1 / Sqrt ( [10^7/4*pie C^2] * [4*pie10^-7] )

I think that math is correct.

 

So we view volume in under this particular equation from the posistion of left side of the equation. However we assume the right side of the equation is where our perception resides but the left side is responsible for it. (its not that well understood yet)

 

>

V=D/T

>

Sqrt (E / M) = (D / T)

>

So we see D/T can be E*U which is also C(a form of velocity)

 

So an observation frame views from this operation or side of the equation Sqrt (E / M), here where there is zero dimension.

 

What we observe is the universe of change, Eo*Uo, C, D/T

 

Thus we see dimension of volume, thus the reasoning for 4*pie

Vacuum permittivity also appears in Coulomb's law as a part of the Coulomb force constant

 

Why Do I say that E and M have zero dimension? They are our consciousness. They are not restricted by space or time. mass is variable, space is dynamic, energy has no time. Our concsiousness is free, from space and time aswell. However what this zero dimension of mass and energy does is it creates the laws of physics observed in our perception. So we then with our consciousness percieve there is space and time around us.

Sqrt (E / M)(our consciousness' source) = 1 / Sqrt ( [10^7/4*pie C^2] * [4*pie10^-7] )(our consciousness' perception)

or

C (our consciousness' source) = SpaceTime (our consciousness' perception)

 

However, we must keep in mind that what we percieve is still very real. It may be that our consciousness is a product in this relationship, of it is that our consciousness creates the product. Remember that The only thing in this universe that observes special relativitistic effects or space and time in general is a thing that has a consciousness, or let us say thing in this universe that space and time in is a consciousness.. All other matter and energy is dynamic and unconstrained, and will obey perception.

 

 

and

 

Vacuum permittivity (also called permittivity of free space) is the ratio D/E in vacuum

 

Thus energy like color, is perception, as we view from our consciousness it must be included into physics to comprehend the physics. Energy is not a real thing as you stated, it is our perceptoin that makes it. It comes from Energy and Mass, Sqrt(E / M) a place of zero dimension, which is the thing responsible for our consciousness. Light(electromagnetic radiation) and mass(matter).

 

May I remind you this is under my Theory of Relativty (not officially titled) and reference to this theroy should be made. However this work must be reviewed.

[Farsight]

Thanks for the response arkain.

 

But note that momentum is conserved in a collision because the two objects are in contact for the same length of time. Kinetic energy like momentum is a way of measuring something about a mass with velocity, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're the same thing. I'm afraid I can't go along with the consciousness thing. I have an ontological leaning. Maybe if you tried the word "experience" it might sound better. And mass is invariant - that's proper mass not relativistic mass. I'm happy with Special Relativity myself, though I think there's maybe an interpretational problem. Hmmn. Sorry to be such a downer. Maybe it would be better if I responded properly on your thread.

[arkain101]

It is Special Relativity just so you know. :eek:

 

SR that considers both Human perception & Universe Operation. To explain, I understand why you suggest using a different word than consciousness, I will have to explain things very carefully in this paper to keep it scientifically orientated.

 

The hard part is, it requires using the mind to explain the physics.

 

Kinetic energy like momentum is a way of measuring something about a mass with velocity, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're the same thing.

My point here is that you can use the momentum of each object with the same velocity applied, using the lesser mass value only. Then devide by that group mass and find the KE.

What is left over is a surpluss mass. Larger mass - lesser mass = surpluss mass. Thus the velocity of the larger mass will be affected by the KE measured.

My point is that you can write almost every physics equation without knowing any other equation prior to it, by explaining whats happening in the logic.

Try this equation. It is expanding what KE is.

KE = (M*V) (M*V) / (M + M)

 

To visualize that. Imagine two billard balls. one moving. one at rest. The one at rest has mass 10kg. the one moving has 5kg. The velocity is 10m/s.

The first(M*V) is for the one moving the second (M*V) is for the 10kg object that can be hypothetically said, to be also moving at 10m/s (But its not thus we say it has inertia). But because we are rest to it, we use the same mass for it as the lesser mass. This is to show that the heavier object will take all the momentum of the lesser (relative to this observation), with the 5kg of its 10kg. Equal masses exchange full momentum, meaning one will stop and the other will take on full momentum (excluding energy loss). The left over 5kg of the 10kg mass dictates the new velocity. We can say things have inertia, or we can say they contain the equal velocity.

KE = [for moving obect(M*V)] [for rest object(M*V)] / [mass of each object in equal value -the lesser](M + M)

 

so we would have.

KE = (M*V) (M*V) / (M + M)

KE = (5*10) (5*10) / (5 + 5)

[Farsight]

That's interesting, arkain. I'll have to mull it over.

 

Maybe object operation and subject experience would be good phrases for you to use.

[hallenrm]

I am also very enthusiastic about energy. In fact, a very significant portion of the article energy on wikipedia is my contribution.

 

I had also authored an article on energy for a children's magazine Children's World This article is now available on line at the following linkhttp://energy4kids.blogspot.com

 

Your article, dear Popular I found indeed very interesting :)

[sebbysteiny]

I'm sorry to intrude on your territory Arkain and I'm not going to contradict you.

 

Instead, I'll suggest a less mathematical explanation.

 

I am highly sceptical of calling energy 'a thing, like red'. I think it is a real property of matter like mass.

 

It can't just be a description attached to mass since there are massless particles that are entirely made of energy.

 

Yet you have pointed out difficulties in which the meaning of Kinetic energy appears meaningless depending on the frame. The question is, can this be resolved without giving up on the idea that energy is a property of the Universe and exists.

 

You also mentioned how energy, like money, can be recycled into another form which I think is only a half truth.

 

There are 3 topics that seemed to arise: relitivistic and non-relativistic treatment of Kinetic energy and momentum; and entropy.

 

I'll deal with them, but I've gotta go now. I'll edit this post when i return.

[arkain101]

I'm sorry to intrude on your territory Arkain

I dont know what you mean. This is popular's thread.

 

That's interesting, arkain. I'll have to mull it over.

 

Let me summerize what I mean.

 

-A velocity between two objects is rightfully the velocity of either.

 

-inertia = momentum depending on the frame of reference you happen to be at rest with.

 

-V^2 is required to comply with the fact that an object at rest in an interaction will supply the same force as the moving object in the opposite direction. (every action has an equal and opposite reaction).

 

-equal masses will have a consistent interaction. This is, momentum will be conserved and velocity will conserved. The object that takes on the new velocity depends on what frame is at rest relative your observation. Objects of different masses (unequal), can be said that the difference (larger mass minus lesser mass) in mass will dictate the change in velocity of two impacting objects in free space, but the force can only be as great as the lesser mass.

 

-The kinetic energy equation is an equation to measure the results of interacting objects with velocity relative to them.

 

-thus kinetic energy itself is that of the momentum of each interacting object, literally as if both are considered moving. The velocities involved and in resutl are entirely relative to your frame of observation.

[Farsight]

You're bang on there about momentum and inertia, arkain. Mass and velocity is all that the moving object has, so translating from momentum to kinetic energy involves some kind of... I'm not sure how to say this: It's some kind of observational change where we step from a time-based viewpoint to a space-based viewpoint. But let's keep the simple point that colliding objects are in contact with each other for the same length of time. That's the easy way of remembering why momentum is conserved.

 

Sebby: see TIME EXPLAINED where I describe colour as a perception that isn't real because the underlying property is wavelength. Heat isn't perception, it burns your hand, and is an experience. If we think Kinetic Theory of Gases the underlying properties are mass and velocity, but if we think Sunburn and photons the underlying property is momentum. Obviously there's energy in both cases, but whether you say a photon is "made" out of energy is moot. You wouldn't say it was made out of momentum. Oh boy, there are big issues with "things" and "properties". If you add properties to a thing like a string, you get a different thing, like a knot. If you reverse this, at what point does the thing become no thing, and the things that made it a thing turned out to be just the properties you took away? We need a new thread for this, I'm thinking of an essay called... NOTHING EXPLAINED. :hihi:

[arkain101]

Obviously there's energy in both cases, but whether you say a photon is "made" out of energy is moot.

 

Allow us to call a photon or anything with velocity C to be flowing at the same velocity as time.

 

If time is nothing, then energy is nothing. Then you must consider relative to what, is either of these concepts real.

[sebbysteiny]

I can see people have moved on from my post which was only half written.

 

So I'll delete my original post and replace it here.

 

I'm sorry if much of what I say is simply a repeat of yours, Arkain.

 

But instead, I'll suggest a less mathematical explanation.

 

I am highly sceptical of calling energy 'a thing, like red' (or perception). I think it is a real property (or underlying property) of matter.

 

It can't just be a description attached to mass since there are massless particles that are entirely made of energy [Note these particles DO also have a momentum].

 

Yet you have pointed out difficulties in which the meaning of Kinetic energy appears meaningless depending on the frame. The question is, can this be resolved without giving up on the idea that energy is a property of the Universe and exists.

 

You also mentioned how energy, like money, can be recycled into another form which I think is only a half truth.

 

There are 3 topics that seemed to arise: relitivistic and non-relativistic treatment of Kinetic energy and momentum; and entropy.

 

Non-relativistic treatment of energy

 

Even under non-relativsitic velocities, the link between energy and momentum is unmistakable, as you pointed out popular. By simply changing the frame of reference, the energies and velocities of the particles completely changes. But at the non-relativistic level, there is no universal underlying property of matter that equates the two so one cannot say they are both descriptions of the same more fundamental thing as far as I'm aware. So we must put up with the notion that energy and momentum, though linked, are not fundamental properties. However, this changed after Einstein.

 

Nevertheless, from Newton's third law, momentum is always conserved, and from Newton's second law, energy must always be conserved. So in all frames, both are conserved making both together very useful albeit not a fundamental property.

 

Relativistic treatment of energy and momentum

 

In relativity, like that there is no such thing as time and space, only space-time, there is no such thing as energy and momentum, only momenergy. Momentum is three coordinates (Px, Py, Pz) and Energy is one cooridinate (E) in a four dimensional thing called momenergy. Thus, MOMENTUM AND ENERGY ARE ONE AND THE SAME. And the only conservation law now is conservation of momenergy.

 

With the simple formula, dt^2 = dPx^2 + dPy^2 + dPz^2 - dE^2 [units of c=1], all momentum - energy calculations in all frames can be made. This is because the proper time (ie the time measured by an observer in the moving frame, dt, is constant in all frames of reference.

 

So essentially momenergy does not vary in all frames and so I say it IS a fundamental property of matter even if it's co-ordinates (energy, momentum) are not. Momenergy exists, and it is conserved.

 

As a side issue, if mass = 0 then the proper time of the particle = 0. Here, Energy = Momentum. A massless particle must have both momentum and energy.

 

Entropy

 

Another illustration is money. You can spend money just like you can expend energy. But the money doesn’t disappear, just as the energy doesn’t disappear. Somebody else now has your money, just as some other thing now has your energy.

 

The problem with your analogy that I can see is that money, once spent, can be spent again. However, there is no conceivable way of using the energy wasted into the environment again to create usable work. Once energy is used, it is used for now and forever.

 

Why can't we?

 

It's all about entropy. Entropy can be viewed as the amount of order in the Universe. Energy [or at least, momenergy] is a property of matter. That is always conserved. But whenever energy changes form, it creates a state of greater disorder.

 

Eg, heat can flow from a hot iron bar into a cold one making both bars medium heat. Energy is conserved. But we cannot bring the heat from the now warmed up bar back into the now cooled down bar. The reason is that before one heated up the other, there was order. All the energetic particles were in one bar, and all the cooler ones were in another. After, this order was gone and can never return. The energy used to heat the cooler bar can now never be used as usable work again.

 

This is what is meant by 'we are using up our energy resourses'. Technically, we are actually just using up our entropy resourses. And entropy is, again, a fundamental property of matter just like energy.

 

A qualitive and quantitive discussion of this is at about 2nd year University level.

[arkain101]

Good post.

 

If you keep taking half the entropy out of a hot bar (presuming half is lost) can you ever reach zero entropy? (energy), presuming we keep using bars from space that are nearly zero kelvin.

 

Obviously the energy becomes less each time and significantly useless. But mathamatically, if an object was at zero kelvin, what would occur if we took transfered the heat from the hot to the cold, then the two less hot, to a new cold, and the now 3 warms, to a cold.

 

This sounds like a stupid question, to me for some reason but, universally I thought it might matter.

[sebbysteiny]

Good post.

 

If you keep taking half the entropy out of a hot bar (presuming half is lost) can you ever reach zero entropy? (energy), presuming we keep using bars from space that are nearly zero kelvin.

 

Obviously the energy becomes less each time and significantly useless. But mathamatically, if an object was at zero kelvin, what would occur if we took transfered the heat from the hot to the cold, then the two less hot, to a new cold, and the now 3 warms, to a cold.

 

This sounds like a stupid question, to me for some reason but, universally I thought it might matter.

 

If you have a bar of temperature 100K, and you put it in contact with an identical bar at 0K, with perfect insulation, you would get two bars at 50K. Next bar would give 3 bars at 33K. But the heat from one can never be used to heat up the bars again.

 

At absolute zero, every molecule / atom / particle is in its lowest possible energy state. That's the definition.

 

Okay, I'm going to be bold and give some formula. Boltzman tried to calculate the value of the entropy from the number of available state. He came up with the famous Boltzman equation, S = Kb ln (Z) where S = entropy, Kb = Bolstzman's constant and Z = the total number of available states. One cannot overstate the utility of this equation in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics.

 

So if every particle is in it's lowest possible energy state, there is only 1 possible way to arrange the molecules / atoms / particles. It has a perfect order and therefore an entropy of zero. Or, mathematically, S = Kb ln 1 = Kb * 0 = 0.

 

So in your example, the entropy will continue to drop exponentially until the limit of zero. The temparature will drop expanentially until the limit of zero. But the overall energy will remain constant, but just spread out over more bars.

[Farsight]

Sebby:

 

I am highly sceptical of calling energy 'a thing, like red' (or perception). I think it is a real property (or underlying property) of matter...

 

Is there some confusion here? I think "red" is just perception, because the underlying property is wavelength. I don't think energy is just perception. Heat burns, cannonballs take your head off.

 

It can't just be a description attached to mass since there are massless particles that are entirely made of energy [Note these particles DO also have a momentum].

 

I'm sure everybody agrees that energy isn't uniquely tied to mass, but whether massless particles are entirely made of energy is moot.

 

Yet you have pointed out difficulties in which the meaning of Kinetic energy appears meaningless depending on the frame. The question is, can this be resolved without giving up on the idea that energy is a property of the Universe and exists.

 

Am I getting mixed up with something arkain said? I do think energy is a property of the Universe and exists.

 

You also mentioned how energy, like money, can be recycled into another form which I think is only a half truth.

 

Sure, the parallels between Money and Energy are interesting rather than total. See MONEY EXPLAINED.

 

In relativity, like that there is no such thing as time and space, only space-time...

 

I beg to differ. Seriously, I think SR says time is not fundamental. It's a strange concept I know, but I'm perfectly serious about it. See TIME EXPLAINED.

 

I'm ashamed to say I've never heard of momenergy. On a side note, I think mathematics should support an explanation in English that offers "grasp" of the subject. All too often it doesn't.

 

The problem with your analogy that I can see is that money, once spent, can be spent again. However, there is no conceivable way of using the energy wasted into the environment again to create usable work. Once energy is used, it is used for now and forever... It's all about entropy... and entropy is, again, a fundamental property of matter just like energy.

 

Think perfectly elastic collisions for an example of repeated energy expenditure. Sure there are practical problems with our energy consumption and the environment, but the energy has dissipated, not disappeared. Energy reuse depends on your "sink" level.

 

Entropy is not a fundamental property of matter, it's a statistical property of systems. Maybe that was just a slip of the tongue. Anyhow, I was reading about Boltzmann the other day, he had problems with Poincare:

 

http://www.math.umd.edu/~lvrmr/History/Recurrence.html

[sebbysteiny]

I am highly sceptical of calling energy 'a thing, like red' (or perception). I think it is a real property (or underlying property) of matter...

Is there some confusion here? I think "red" is just perception, because the underlying property is wavelength. I don't think energy is just perception. Heat burns, cannonballs take your head off.

 

Appologies. I must have misunderstood what your thesis is.

 

Perhaps you can explain what conclusion you were trying to reach in this paragraph.

 

My objection is based on the last sentence, which seems to me to be the main thesis of what you were saying.

 

Let’s start by saying that energy is the property of a thing. It is not a thing in its own right. To illustrate this, I can talk about a red bus, or a red red ruby. All these things have the property that we call red. A thing can be red, but you cannot remove this red and hold it in your hand. You can remove the paint or the dye and hold that in the palm of your hand, but you are still holding a thing that is red. You cannot remove the red from the dye to hold the red in the palm of your hand. Even when you imagine red, the image in your mind’s eye is a thing. You always need a thing to be red. There is no such thing as “raw red”. In similar vein there is no such thing as “raw energy”.

 

whether massless particles are entirely made of energy is moot.

 

I think that depends what you mean by 'made'. A photon is made of 1) energy, 2) momentum and 3) electro magnetic forces that take the form of a wave travelling at speed c. Is this moot?

 

Sure, the parallels between Money and Energy are interesting rather than total. See MONEY EXPLAINED.

 

I'm not saying you're definately wrong. But since energy in the form of usable work cannot be 'recylced' into another form of usable work (ie capable of respending) as a consequence of entropy, I'm not sure how the money analogy helps in any way.

 

In relativity, like that there is no such thing as time and space, only space-time...

 

I beg to differ. Seriously, I think SR says time is not fundamental.

 

What I mean is that time and space are both coordinates of the more fundamental property of space-time. Space time is a 4 vector that contains all 4 coordinates (x,y,z,t). Time is thus not a separate entity any more than x is from y.

 

Think perfectly elastic collisions for an example of repeated energy expenditure. Sure there are practical problems with our energy consumption and the environment, but the energy has dissipated, not disappeared. Energy reuse depends on your "sink" level.

 

Lets consider the following. Fossil fuel burns to turn turbines. Almost 60% of the energy is lost in heat (and thus cannot be recycled). 40% becomes electricity. That is then used to power a moter at a home with about 10% wasted leaving about 36% recycled into useable work. the moter powers a pendulum with about 1% loss leaving still about 36% recycled. That pendulum can turn a spring etc.

 

So what's going on?

 

Yes, some energy is recylced, but the more one wastes, the more becomes unusable for work. So i take your point. It's like exchanging money, but a bit of it is burnt or taken in tax (never to be returned) every time it is spent.

 

So I'm not disagreeing with your analogy, but I do think that you may need a discussion of entropy as well.

 

Entropy is not a fundamental property of matter, it's a statistical property of systems. Maybe that was just a slip of the tongue.

 

1) fundamental property. 2) statistical property. Why are the two mutually exclusive? My understanding is that it is both.

 

Anyhow, I was reading about Boltzmann the other day, he had problems with Poincare:

 

If Boltzmann had problems, then I won't pretent to find a solution. From what I can see, Poincare just suggests that, every now and then, a system should gain entropy for a short period. Nevertheless, entropy in the universe will fall vastely more than it gains.

[Farsight]

sebby: No probs, I think we've been talking at cross purposes on some of this stuff.

 

Basically what I want to say is Energy is Tension, but I can't quite say that because tension is defined to be negative pressure, and to get the dimensionality right I have to chuck in volume too.

 

I'm not quite sure which last sentence you mean. It's quite hard to say what a photon is. We know it's an electromagnetic "wave" thingy, and we know it's got momentum and energy, but is it "made" out of the things its got? Is a bus in any sense made out of red, or more properly, wavelength? This stuff gets real tricky. I think we need a separate essay for it. Fair dinkum if you don't think the money helps. I understand what you mean about spacetime, perhaps we can discuss that elsewhere? And I do take your fossil fuel point about the energy becoming unavailable, I just wanted to stress that it's still there but dispersed. Hmmn, maybe I do need to talk about entropy. Noted.

 

1) fundamental property. 2) statistical property. Why are the two mutually exclusive? My understanding is that it is both.

 

I take an ontological view, and say a fundamental property is something that a subatomic "particle" has got. It hasn't got colour, sound, heat, smell, or taste. It's got mass, charge, velocity, spin, and other stuff like wavelength, depending on what sort of "particle" it is. It doesn't have entropy. It's only when you look at some large collection of particles that you can talk about the entropy, of the system. But it's a derived property, a little like "sameness".

 

The thing about entropy and Boltzmann is that you get this "Heat Death of the Universe", then nothing much happens for a very, very, very long time. The thing is that if nothing much happens there isn't much time, so it's academic really. Then something "much" happens, and by chance (or otherwise) you find you've dealt the perfect hand of bridge, and you've got another big bang or something. There's this great little Science-Fiction story by Isaac Asimov that really brought it home to me years back, and while I'm not at all religious, I confess it brought a tear to my eye:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question