Energy Explained

[LJP07]

With respect Sebbysteiny,

 

The standard of material might be satisfactory but they was it's explained can be quite confusing if you are not studying Physics at a higher level. I wasn't given the opportunity to study Physics at that level in school but was intrigued to understand it, but the way it was explained for a complete beginner was not satisfactory. If you are not a second level student at this time, it would be somewhat difficult to comment as I have with a great degree of certainty.

[sebbysteiny]

With respect Sebbysteiny,

 

The standard of material might be satisfactory but they was it's explained can be quite confusing if you are not studying Physics at a higher level. I wasn't given the opportunity to study Physics at that level in school but was intrigued to understand it, but the way it was explained for a complete beginner was not satisfactory. If you are not a second level student at this time, it would be somewhat difficult to comment as I have with a great degree of certainty.

 

I take your point. The real issue seems to me to be what the target audience is. Is it physics students aged 14-16 (GCSE) or is it physics students aged less than 14, or is it those aged 14-18 who have never studied physics.

 

It seemed to me that Popular was aiming at the 14-16 GCSE physics students (or another countries equivilent) and i think a knowledge of KE = 1/2 mV^2 can be assumed at that level.

 

But for complete beginners, I would say this. Don't be put off by one equation you do not immediately understand. Throughout my Physics career I constantly came up with equations I didn't understand. But if you stare at it enough, and perhaps do some background learning, it WILL eventually make sense. Simply ask what you don't understand and try and get your head around it.

[arkain101]

reply to original post:

 

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”.

 

This is one of the areas I spent alot of time on when trying to work on a theory of sorts.

 

As you said:

you cannot remove this red and hold it in your hand

 

Color is a strange thing. Now you cannot hold red in your hand. It appears most accurate to say it is a creation of our mind, and that is where it is constrained to be.

 

I would almost want to catagory the universe in two sections. a)Cosmology physics and :naughty: The mind.

 

The universe appears like a well ordered machine, and the mind seems like a creation completely unrelated to the universe. I know everyone has different opinions on this, but there is a pile of information that supports the mind as something fundamental, or preferably the ability to be self aware.

 

anyhow, its just a part of your essay that I wanted to look into discussing.

 

Because Conservation of energy is that energy can not be created or destroyed. But, consider that once energy energys your eye and into your brain and you eventually see red, does that red require energy to exist? and how is it being conserved. Can red turn back into energy?

Questions arise like; Is color something that is capable to use up energy, in a sense burn it? Or is it really something that seperate from the universe that it can be created outside of the universe "system" and no affect any of the laws.

 

I feel that one can make a strong argument there is two systems in operation here in this unvierse. whats on the other side of the equation for the mind? Is the mind like a wave in water? just energy, not really there?

 

Whats your thoughts on this section.

[sebbysteiny]

Because Conservation of energy is that energy can not be created or destroyed. But, consider that once energy energys your eye and into your brain and you eventually see red, does that red require energy to exist? and how is it being conserved. Can red turn back into energy?

Questions arise like; Is color something that is capable to use up energy, in a sense burn it? Or is it really something that seperate from the universe that it can be created outside of the universe "system" and no affect any of the laws.

 

The way I read this it is as if you want a discussion as to whether the human mind interacts with the universe or does it just observe it. Scientifically, only the latter is credible, but I am aware that other opinions exist.

 

But this is a philosophy debate, not a science one, and I can't see this very interesting tangent being relavent for beginners or under 16 physics students.

 

New thread perhaps?

[arkain101]

sorry.

 

I just meant, is color energy? he meant to say color was like energy. Not really a thing.

 

I just wanted to hear populars elaboration on this.

 

Honestly trying to keep this on topic.

[Farsight]

I think energy is a property of a thing, arkain. And while it's intangible it's something real, because it makes things happen and it gets things done.

 

I think colour is the property of a thing, but it isn't real. Photons have wavelength, and we perceive that as a colour. The wavelength is out there, but not the colour. It's only in our heads.

 

Regardless of reality or perception, I don't think energy is the same as colour. Energy is more like brightness. Let me give you an analogy. Imagine you're sitting at a drumkit. Trrum. You hit the snare with a drumstick. You can hit it fairly slow like this: Trrum Trrum Trrum. That's like red. Or you can hit it faster like this: TrumTumTum. That's like blue. The difference is like the difference between two different colours. And yes, you're putting more energy in when you hit it faster. But you could have hit it like this: TrumTumTum. That's like a dim blue. Or you can hit it like this: Trrum Trrum Trrum. That's like bright red. The "colour" is how fast you hit it, the "energy" is how much you hit it, in terms of how hard and how fast.

[Farsight]

Here it is, Arkain. All you have to do is click on "Popular" than you can find all threads started by me.

[arkain101]

Hey thanks mate.

 

(note to self: click names to find their posts)

[arkain101]

Wiki definition of energy in relation to physics

 

The phenomenon that constitutes the context of energy in physics, is the change in position or movement of an object which is brought about through the action of a force. Thus in the context of physics, energy is said to be the ability to do work. Work is said to be done, in physics, when an object (howsoever small in size and mass) is moved across a distance, howsoever short, by the action of a force.

 

Considering that explaination;

 

___Energy is the ability to do work & work is performed when a force is involved to change the acceleration of an object over a distance. An object that is capable to slow down another object over a distance also contains energy. For it can apply force over a distance.

 

___We must say that motion is squared persay (quantized). That is, motion exists only for a pair of frames, a pair of positions at minimum expression.

 

___An object that is moving is said to have energy. Although, this is only applicable if the object has something to apply that motion to and must also be considered part of the system.

 

___With this considered, there must be a form of energy for each object of the pair relationship (since any object alone contains no information). We could refer to comman energy that does work to create movement as positive, and energy that does work to reduce movement as a negetive form of energy.

 

__Take for example that the maximum stopping energy an object at rest is capable to have is close to its 1/2 ( mass times the speed of light 'c' ). Yet, this situation only exists when an object is going to impact that object at rest close to c, where as, its energy is also that of 1/2( mass times close to the velocity of 'c' ).

 

___Since energy must consist of a pair relationship, the maximum energy of each counterpart of the fundamental pair occuring in this interaction the mass value multiplied by the fastest achieveable velocity aprox 'c'. Two 1/2 pairs form a singular 1, and we form [math] e = 1m*c^2 [/math]

 

___This concept is implicit (implied with) the lorentz transformation, as it generates a set of two products in use of square root, or a + and - form of 1/2 of the system with using power of 1/2. That is, it displays the function of a pair relationship forming energy, time, velocity.

as seen here:

[math]\gamma = \frac {1}{\left (1- \frac {v^2}{c^2}\right )^{\,1/2}}[/math]

 

Using some simple examples:

 

Example 1.

 

The common expression that a moving billiard ball energy. If it contacts another ball that is at rest it can put motion into that ball.

 

Yet, a billiard ball at rest has the energy to slow or stop a billiard ball that runs into it.

 

Example 2.

 

If you try to stop a car that is rolling by pushing against it, you exert a force over a given distance until it stops, and therefore you contain energy to do a sort of negetive work.

 

 

___The conclusive thoughts of this is energy is consisted in all things, in two forms. That mass is a paired relationship of energy. That energy as in light may have some form of counterpart intwined with it as some kind of negetive energy.

 

___The main point is that by use of the definition of energy, objects that are at rest relative to the observer also contain a value of energy that reduce motion. In the relationship energy is conserved, rest energy is put into 1/2 of the system, the moving counterpart(cp) and motion energy is put into the other half the system the rest 'cp'.

 

possibility:

___If light is theoretically constant in velocity relative to all independent frames, then their may be a form of energy that is theoretically constant in negetive velocity? or rest. but I havnt given this much thought yet.

[arkain101]

By the formal description and definition of energy, and furthering this concept that energy requires a pair of counterparts and that each part contains an equal energy value of crossed purposes.

 

I beleive we can describe energy as being a product of a limited potential of change in a system. A system that contains a set of simultaneous behaviors for the change.

 

The example of a negetive energy is the inertia effect of an object.

 

The object that accelerates sets the energy value for the system of counterparts.

 

An example; If you run into a heavy bar suspended in the air at your chest region it will knock you on your ***. This requires energy from the bar. The runner 'sets' the potential values of energy by the velocity he achieves. He gives himself a energy of moving inertia and the bar an energy value of rest inertia.

In this ineraction momentum is conserved. Momentum is the system as a whole, made of a set of counterparts of equal energy.

 

Which I think can be expressed as two sets of momentum. The momentum value is set by the velocity.

 

[math] K_e =\frac {(m*v)(m*v)}{2M}[/math]

 

(It is important to consider all thought experiments with two objects in space seperate of other disturbances to from the system. The reason for this is that if you have friction your mass is attatched to a mass outside of the system and to keep it basic and relative to universal fundamentals.)

 

This theoretical concept to energy (light):

 

The idea of energy being conserved can be interchanged with momentum. Energy is not conserved relative to an observering counterpart, it is conserved relative to the universe system, and the pair of counterparts of it are mass and EM energy, two forms of momentum.

 

With this considered, when the momentum of mass is converted to momentum of EM energy what should be left behind for the matter is the same as an object at rest, a form of negetive matter with properties of the negetive energy. This would be Matter or mass with no momentum.

 

(countepart) EM energy (massless matter) now containing the momentum of the 'system' would need to leave behind some kind of rest EM energy.

 

This gets a little confusing but to sumerize the model is,

 

The universe requires a paired relationship.

1)Momentum being energy type 1 -energy with property of motion-

2)A form of rest momentum (no momentum) energy type 2 -being energy with property of rest-

 

For matter with mass(with momentum), It contains either type 1 and type 2 energy relative to reference frame of the pair.

 

For matter with no mass EM Energy; it contains both type 1 and 2 energy.

 

For the exchange of mass with momentum to energy;

mass with momentum becomes mass with no momentum, to make energy with momentum .

 

For the change of em energy; matter with no mass with momentum -->into mass with momentum, a form of EM energy with no momentum is left behind.

 

This idea may sound rediculous but it offers the production of dark matter. That would be mass that loses all its momentum.

[Farsight]

Hmmn. Sorry arkain, I'm not keen on the above. I think you're making things more complicated instead of more simple and understandable. IMHO the two types of energy you're talking about can be boiled down to stress and tension, push and pull, action and reaction. These are simple things we can all understand, and we can also understand "negative" energy as something that results in less stress or less volume. Also, we've talked previously about the similarity between momentum and inertia. If I crash into you, my momentum knocks you over. But if I got my facts wrong and it was you who was moving, it's my inertia that knocks you over. My mass. All it really is, is some energy/momentum somehow tied down to one place. A photon has energy of hf and momentum of hf/c and is said to have no mass. But if it was somehow in one place it would have mass. Have a read of Mass Explained if you haven't already.

[arkain101]

I see how that appeared to complicate things.

 

This should clear things up much better.

 

But by how physics defines energy.

 

Even objects at rest have energy... duh! you might say? E=mc^2 !

 

Yes, but I am reaching that conclusion by stating that any object has potential kenetic energy of 1/2(mv^2) , yet it requires a counterpart for any interaction so there is a twin -1/2(mv^2) is there not?

This applies only for free floating objects.

Rest energy is just as existent as moving energy.

 

There is a difference of energy when thinking about it on earth, and energy thinking about in space I find and this is where I can stress my point best.

 

Take for example a 100,000kg rock. Lets say its moving 10m/s.

using a simple calculation we get 5,000,000 joules. This says it has the potential to peform a specific force over a distance with its 5x10^6j .

 

However, this is only when the object that interacts with that rock is equal or greater in mass (edited error: mass used to say velocity :) )

 

So we need a secondary rock of 100,000kg that is assuming 'rest'. It has -5x10^6j

 

The rest rock gives the moving rock all of its rest energy and stops it.

The moving rock gives the rest rock all of its moving energy and sends it into motion.

 

However, for any mass lower than the original 100,000kg rock, there can only be as much work performed, as the lesser mass is capable to trade.

Using a 50,000kg rock

We calculate its-Ke (using 10m/s) 1/2mv^2 = 2,500,000

 

This means this sytem can only exchange a set of 2,500,000 j's .

One set of -2,500,000, and one set of +2,500,000.

 

After the interaction no more work can be performed in that system. They are now seperating apart. (but even if you tie them together to use that seperating velocity you still can not harness the potential of the larger rock).

Now the energy is shared between the two objects, which can together perform the same value of work/energy that the first rock contained, this can continue (hitting more rocks) untill so many objects contain that original energy that none of them appear to be moving relative to eachother.

 

However Since we live on earth on a very massive planet, objects can attain energy up to the potential of earths mass.

earths mass = 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms approx.

 

This means the total work capable in the closed system on earth is up to earths mass. Which I calculate to be 2.655x10^41 j's . Which means that if all mass was obliterated into pure energy in this interaction it would be 2.655x10^41 j's x 2.

That is e=(mass earth+massobject)c^2.. e=mc^2

 

I realise I did not use the relativity factor of increasing mass, but I wonder does energy go into an objects mass as relativity preposes? Or is it only a potential that gains into another set of mass, for a specific observatoin frame.

I dont know, I couldnt say..

 

My point is that Energy is a potential product by the ratio of interacting masses.

 

And mass at rest only has a maximum ke energy interaction of 1/2mc^2 x 2 of that mass (noting equal only equal masses can make use of total mass interaction) where the equation obviously simplifies into mc^2

[Farsight]

I've got to go arkain. I'll look at it properly later. But for now: a rock has got kinetic energy like it's got stopping distance. No kidding.

[arkain101]

By breaking it down to absolute basics we can see my point more clearly.

 

If we invision the universe as a simple two object design.

 

We see that if the objects are traveling towards eachother, they can each claim they are at rest while the other is in motion, or they can each claim they are in motion while the other is at rest, or they can each claim they are both moving.

 

It is a) one or the other, :hihi: neither at rest with both containing motion.

 

With this consideration, two frames relative to eachother are a numerous amount of possibilites, but when we add a 3rd frame observer, it assumes it see's order.

 

The very foundations of quantum theory as I understand was built upon this realisation of the effects with the double slit experiment with light and electrons.

 

The two objects in this universe are always connected by radiation (black body radiation). Nor could they ever be seperated from this continuum of exhanging energy, that displays the passage of time, and change, and position.

 

As such the inertia of one object at rest is rightly so the motion of that same object, while not being comprehended, while the object in motion is rightly so the object at rest with inertia.

 

There is no proof as to which object is which, and as such, any change is equal upon both objects at the same time simunatiniously and equally.

 

The only difference the objects can create between eachother is the independent rotational velocity and direction of that spin.

[Dov Henis]

"Let’s start by saying that energy is the property of a thing. It is not a thing in its own right." (Popular, in post #1)

 

I don't understand. I learned that Singularity's "Energy" was/is/will be everything comprising the cosmos. See the para below.

 

To me it means that the Energy is the base element of mass. This is not a thing in its own right but a property of a thing?

 

Or is this a case of linguistic definition of the term energy ?

 

Dov

--------------------

 

A generally accepted cosmic genesis timeline:

 

WWU Planetarium - Big Bang

 

 

10^-35 seconds

The Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold. For an incomprehensibly small fraction of a second, the Universe is an infinitely dense, hot fireball. The prevailing theory describes a peculiar form of energy that can suddenly push out the fabric of space. On a rare occasion, a runaway process called "Inflation" can cause a vast expansion of space filled with this energy. The inflationary expansion is stopped only when this energy is transformed into matter and energy as we know it.

 

10^-6 seconds

After "inflation", one millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe continues to expand but not nearly so quickly. As it expands, it becomes less dense and cools. The most basic forces in nature become distinct: first gravity, then the strong force, which holds nuclei of atoms together, followed by the weak and electromagnetic forces. By the first second, the Universe is made up of fundamental particles and energy: quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos and less familiar types. These particles smash together to form protons and neutrons.

[Farsight]

That's a tricky one Dov. I wrote another essay after this one called MASS EXPLAINED, and that leans towards what you're saying. But not entirely, because it's space that has the energy property that makes it matter. And yet we could argue that if you took the energy away, maybe the space isn't there any more. There's something of George Washington's axe about all of this. Maybe I was kicking back too much after reading too much talk of "pure energy" and ought to tone it down. Maybe I ought to tackle the subject properly, separately. I'll look at it some more at a later date.

[Dov Henis]

Popular,

 

I've also been wondering, several years by now, if "dark energy" and "dark matter" were'nt the major Big-Bang's Singularity's initial products, and happened to evolve in many and bigger space enclosures not interacting with "our" fewer and smaller space enclosures. Thus the "dark" products have simply evolved in their own course(s), different from "ours".

 

Conjecturing,

 

Dov