Please kindly help my uncle with his energy understanding

[Doghouse Reilly]

My uncle has retained his intellectual curiosity up to an unusually late age and is seeking to improve his scientific understanding. I myself am not a scientist, but he asked me if I knew of any resources whereby he might find some assistance. Below is his email to me, and I don't feel qualified or capable of clarifying matters for him in any helpful way. I don't expect anyone here to really feel like taking the time to respond to this, but on the off chance that somebody does have some free time and this compels their attention, I would be very grateful.
How would you reply?



"I still do not understand energy vis a vis biomolecular
processes. I really wish I did.
But then upon reflection I realize I don't really understand
energy in the first place, except as sensible heat. Which of course
doesn't work in cells. I'm stuck with a 14th-century mentality trying
to understand 19th-, 20th-, and 21st-century concepts.
Then too I am as always baffled -- really -- by the
electromagnetic world. I do not BEGIN to grasp how anything can travel
through a vacuum and influence material objects a distance away. It's
all very fishy -- it's a wave? In what medium? Oh, there IS no medium.
Huh? Oh, it's a particle now, when it suits YOU! Huh, sure, right...
Liars! Liars! They're all men behind the curtain, working levers
and switches!
The fact that mathematical "descriptions" apply very well, and
indeed predict very well, does not mean anyone really understands what
in the universe is going on, does it?
Is mathematical thinking the only way to grasp, envision energy
and electromagnetic phenomena?

Can anyone help me?"

[CurtC]

I can't help with the biomolecular part, but as to how energy relates to physics, he's basically right. We have mathematical models that describe perfectly how it all works, but if you dig down and really try to get an intuitive grasp of waves through vacuum, or what electricity is, you can't get there. You end up building a metaphor in your head, but everything is just a metaphor.

[ponderingturtle]

This seems more like a rant than an actual question seeking understanding.

For example he touches on wave particle duality. Well I think that the best way to explain this is that on the level that quantum mechanics deals with there are not things called waves and particles, there is just stuff. This stuff has some properties we would associate with wave and some with particles, but it is not really either.

Biomolecular energy is just a chemical reaction not so fundamentaly different from burning wood.

[Perpetual Student]

Perhaps there is some confusion between mathematical modeling, about which we know a great deal and ultimate reality, of which we know virtually nothing.

[sol invictus]

There's no need to conflate so many things.

There's a question about energy.
Then there's something about wave-particle duality.
Then there's something about how EM radiation can be a wave without a medium.

I'd advise him to work on understanding one at a time, not all three at once.

[Roboramma]

He may find this at least somewhat clarifying:
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/

A series of six (or seven?) lectures presented by Richard Feynman in a very accessible way. And very funny as well.

[Rolfe]

For the first sentence, I'd start with glycolysis, the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation, showing how the fuel is "burned" so slowly and in such a controlled manner that the energy can be stored as high-energy phosphate bonds.

Then show the availablity of ATP to release this chemically-stored energy to enable reactions that require energy input to proceed.

Every reaction in the body is characterised by the amount of energy produced or consumed, measured in joules just the same as any other sort of energy. All highly elegant and extremely rational.

Rolfe.

[Michael Mozina]

Then too I am as always baffled -- really -- by the electromagnetic world. I do not BEGIN to grasp how anything can travel through a vacuum and influence material objects a distance away. It's
all very fishy -- it's a wave? In what medium? Oh, there IS no medium.

I believe that your uncle's misconceptions start here. The medium of space is called "plasma" and it just so happens to be an *excellent* (near perfect) conductor of electrical current. You might suggest that he pick up a plasma ball the next time he's at Walmart and turn in on. That's a excellent example of electrical currents traversing light plasma. The current flow tends to create "flowing current filaments" that act as "wires" or "conductors". When the current flow is cut (the power is turned off) the plasma filaments dissipate. The medium is plasma and it is a "conductor" of electrical current just like all conductors.

Huh? Oh, it's a particle now, when it suits YOU! Huh, sure, right...
Liars! Liars! They're all men behind the curtain, working levers
and switches!

You might suggest he envision a burst of photons as a complete "wave" or a "group/collection" of photons. There are individual photons in the wave that act like a particle, but collectively they act like wave, just like a wave on the ocean. Like a wave on the ocean, the particles/molecules in the wave act as individualized particles, but collectively they act as a "wave", not unlike a wave of water.

The fact that mathematical "descriptions" apply very well, and
indeed predict very well, does not mean anyone really understands what
in the universe is going on, does it?

No, it doesn't. If they knew what was really going on they wouldn't need some many "dark" gap fillers. :)

Is mathematical thinking the only way to grasp, envision energy
and electromagnetic phenomena?

No, not necessarily, but it can help to grasp the concept, particularly if one is mathematically inclined. Sometimes a "physical" understanding of what's going on is actually easier to comprehend.

[Michael Mozina]

There's no need to conflate so many things.

There's a question about energy.
Then there's something about wave-particle duality.
Then there's something about how EM radiation can be a wave without a medium.

I'd advise him to work on understanding one at a time, not all three at once.

I agree.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I believe that your uncle's misconceptions start here.

Should he choose to pay attention to you.

ETA: can't find a particular post amongst the thousands on this subject already so I'll just repeat: No, plasma is not the medium of space nor the medium that EM propagates through. Easily demonstrated by observing that EM propagates in the absence of plasma.

[Michael Mozina]

Should he choose to pay attention to you.

ETA: can't find a particular post amongst the thousands on this subject already so I'll just repeat: No, plasma is not the medium of space nor the medium that EM propagates through. Easily demonstrated by observing that EM propagates in the absence of plasma.

Well, I agree that the carrier particle of the EM field (the photon) will indeed travel through "empty space". Electrons can form "beams" that can also traverse empty space. Even a charged proton or ion can move through empty space. That does not mean that space is "empty".

[CurtC]

I believe that your uncle's misconceptions start here. The medium of space is called "plasma" and it just so happens to be an *excellent* (near perfect) conductor of electrical current.

Plasma may be a decent conductor, but that has nothing to do with the subject of waves through a vacuum.

[CurtC]

Well, I agree that the carrier particle of the EM field (the photon) will indeed travel through "empty space". Electrons can form "beams" that can also traverse empty space. Even a charged proton or ion can move through empty space. That does not mean that space is "empty".

Michael, no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

[Uncle Greg]

I'm the uncle referred to in the starting post of this thread. Here's where I am, in regard to my questions.
On a rote-memorization basis I can "understand" or
"know" molecular bond energy; electron A (electrons being not tiny
spheres but "probability clouds" of negative charge, I believe the
present understanding is) at an orbital [not orbit -- that term is
misleading and hence no longer used] farther from the nucleus than
electron B is at a higher energy state than electron B. It "has" more
energy. And if it gets drawn away from, say, carbon, which holds
electrons at such-and-so degree of affinity (degree of "attraction"
or, I like to imagine, fondness) to oxygen, which is one of the
electron-hungriest common elements around (thus is very often at the
end of electron-transfer chains in biomolecular processes), then in
some kind of way energy has been transferred. The energy that electron
A once had which maintained its status in the previous situation is
given up because with its transfer to oxygen electron A has taken a
lower-energy orbital. And the energy given up may have "powered" the
bonding of a phosphoryl group (phosphorous bonded to three oxygens) to
ADP (adenosine diphosphate) making the ADP become ATP, which can the
carry the stored energy to another part of the cell and release it as
appropriate to "power" the formation of some molecule or other.
OK, I have rote-memorized that scenario. But I don't believe that
constitutes "understanding," or "knowing."
I do note that working with a concept, be it highly cerebral or
even somewhat manual (e.g., welding, maneuvering a vessel in a
current), one can develop a feel for concepts, and the feeling goes
beyond expression in words. Maybe THAT is knowing.

[Horatius]

I do note that working with a concept, be it highly cerebral or even somewhat manual (e.g., welding, maneuvering a vessel in a current), one can develop a feel for concepts, and the feeling goes beyond expression in words. Maybe THAT is knowing.



That's part of the problem here. Concepts developed for the macro world (like waves and particles) don't really translate well for the quantum level world.

A photon isn't a particle or a wave, it's something else, that doesn't have a macro-world equivalent. We make analogies to waves and particles, because they do share some common traits, but it's a mistake to think that those analogies represent actual reality*.

And yes, you are correct, very few people really have a deep understanding of this, as distinct from understanding the math.




*It's a bit like the tale of the blind men and the elephant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#Jain)

[CurtC]

And yes, you are correct, very few people really have a deep understanding of this...[/URL]

Some Feynman quotes come to mind:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

"Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain,' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is."

[Horatius]

Some Feynman quotes come to mind:

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

"Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will get 'down the drain,' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is."



I wanted to avoid the absolute of "No one understands it", but I was thinking that. I've known one person that I suspected understood it, but since no one understood him, that was just speculation. ;)

[Perpetual Student]

I'm the uncle referred to in the starting post of this thread. Here's where I am, in regard to my questions.
On a rote-memorization basis I can "understand" or
"know" molecular bond energy; electron A (electrons being not tiny
spheres but "probability clouds" of negative charge, I believe the
present understanding is) at an orbital [not orbit -- that term is
misleading and hence no longer used] farther from the nucleus than
electron B is at a higher energy state than electron B. It "has" more
energy. And if it gets drawn away from, say, carbon, which holds
electrons at such-and-so degree of affinity (degree of "attraction"
or, I like to imagine, fondness) to oxygen, which is one of the
electron-hungriest common elements around (thus is very often at the
end of electron-transfer chains in biomolecular processes), then in
some kind of way energy has been transferred. The energy that electron
A once had which maintained its status in the previous situation is
given up because with its transfer to oxygen electron A has taken a
lower-energy orbital. And the energy given up may have "powered" the
bonding of a phosphoryl group (phosphorous bonded to three oxygens) to
ADP (adenosine diphosphate) making the ADP become ATP, which can the
carry the stored energy to another part of the cell and release it as
appropriate to "power" the formation of some molecule or other.
OK, I have rote-memorized that scenario. But I don't believe that
constitutes "understanding," or "knowing."
I do note that working with a concept, be it highly cerebral or
even somewhat manual (e.g., welding, maneuvering a vessel in a
current), one can develop a feel for concepts, and the feeling goes
beyond expression in words. Maybe THAT is knowing.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, all we really have are models of reality which work fairly well -- some are extremely accurate in as far as our experiments and observations have shown. But, the ultimate reality of even something as simple and basic to the universe as an electron remains a mystery. All we really have is some mathematics to tell us how it behaves under many circumstances. Whatever "understanding" some of us have is of the model, not reality, of which we know virtually nothing.