PDA

View Full Version : "Energy"


briandunning
2nd November 2006, 05:45 PM
Can someone PLEEEEASE sit down with the believers and explain to them what ENERGY is????

This is from the Evil Skeptoid Debunkatron podcast (http://skeptoid.com):

=======

The Evil Skeptoid Debunkatron is feeling a little low today, so he's going to tap into a source of energy from a neighboring dimension as a quick upper.

Faith in pseudoscience is rampant. Everywhere you turn, intelligent people fully accept the existence of anything from psychic phenomena, to angels, to new age healing techniques, to ancient health schemes based on mysterious energy fields not understood by science. Most of these paranormal phenomena rely on "energy," and when the performers are asked to explain, they'll gladly lecture about the body's energy fields, the universe's energy fields, Chi, Prana, Orgone, negative energy, positive energy, and just about anything else that needs a familiar sounding word to explain and justify it. Clearly, there are too many loose interpretations of the word energy, to the point where most people probably have no idea exactly what energy really is.

I believe that if more people had a clear understanding of energy — and it's not complicated — there would be less susceptibility to pseudoscience, and more attention paid to actual technologies and methods that are truly constructive and useful.

A friend told me of her ability to perform minor healings, and her best explanation was that she drew energy from another dimension. She had recently rented What the Bleep Do We Know, so she was well prepared to explain that alternate dimensions and realities should be taken for granted, since science doesn't really know anything, and thus those things cannot be disproven. That's fine, I'll concede that she can make contact with another dimension: after all, the latest M theories posit that there are probably ten or eleven of them floating around, and I'll just hope that my friend's is not one of those that are collapsed into impossibly small spaces. What I was really interested in was the nature of this vaguely defined energy that she could contact.

I asked what type of energy is it, and how is it stored? Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel? Is it an explosive compound? Is it food? These are examples of actual ways that energy can be stored.

In popular New Age culture, "energy" has somehow become a noun unto itself. "Energy" is considered to be literally like a glowing, hovering, shimmering cloud, from which adepts can draw power, and feel rejuvenated. Imagine a vaporous creature from the original Star Trek series, and you'll have a good idea of what New Agers think energy is.

In fact, energy is not really a noun at all. Energy is a measurement of something's ability to perform work. Given this context, when spiritualists talk about your body's energy fields, they're really saying nothing that's even remotely meaningful. Yet this kind of talk has become so pervasive in our society that the vast majority of Americans accept that energy exists as a self-contained force, floating around in glowing clouds, and can be commanded by spiritualist adepts to do just about anything.

There is well known authority for the simple, concrete, scientific definition of energy. Take Einstein's equation, E=mc2, that every schoolchild knows but so few spend the 30 seconds it takes to understand. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Simplify it. Mass can be expressed in grams, and speed can be expressed in meters per second. Thus, an object's energy equals the amount of work it takes to move a few grams a few meters in a few seconds. Energy is a measurement of work. If I lift a rock, I'm inputting enough potential energy to dent the surface of the table one centimeter when I drop it. The calories of chemical potential energy that my bloodstream absorbs when I eat a Power Bar charge up my muscles enough to dig two hundred pounds of dirt in my garden. Nowhere did Einstein discuss hovering glowing clouds, or fields of mystical power generated by human spirits.

When spiritualists discuss energy, don't blindly accept what they're saying simply because energy is a word you're familiar with, and that sounds scientific. In many cases, their usage of the word is meaningless. When you hear the word "energy" casually used to explain a mystical force or capability, require clarification. Require that the energy be defined. Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel?

Here's a good test. When you hear the word "energy" used in a spiritual or paranormal sense, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability." Does the usage still make sense? Are you actually being given any information that supports the claim being made? Remember, energy itself is not the thing being measured: energy is the measurement of work performed or of potential.

Take the following claim of Kundalini Yoga as an example: "The release and ascent of the dormant spiritual energy enables the aspirant to transcend the effects of the elements and achieve consciousness." This would be a great thing if energy was indeed that shimmering cloud that can go wherever it's needed and perform miracles. But it's not, so in this case, we substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and find that the sentence is not attempting to measure or quantify anything other than the word "energy" itself. We have a "dormant spiritual measurable work capability," and no further information. That's pretty vague, isn't it? For this claim to have any merit, they must at least describe how this energy is being stored or manifested. Is it potential energy stored in the chemistry of fat cells? Is it heat that can spread through the body? Is it a measurable amount of electromagnetism, and if so, where's the magnet? In any event, it must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or it can't be called energy, by definition.

There's a good reason why you don't hear medical doctors or pharmacists talking about energy fields: it's meaningless. I think it's generally good policy to remain open minded and be ready to hear claims that involve energy, but approach them skeptically, and scientifically. The next time you hear such a claim, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and you'll be well equipped to separate the silly from the solid.

Topspy
2nd November 2006, 07:07 PM
I hate to play devil's advocate - but when the woo specify 'energy' in the fashions you speak of it really violates nothing. It just doesn't specify the source or nature of said energy, much less how it is used or 'tapped.' If such a source or method of access could be demonstrated, perhaps they would have an arguement - but so far (as I know) none have.

Dark Jaguar
2nd November 2006, 07:15 PM
Come to think of it, what units were being used in E=MC^2?

Jimbo07
2nd November 2006, 07:22 PM
Come to think of it, what units were being used in E=MC^2?

[kg][m2/s2]?

[Nm]?

[J]?

Dark Jaguar
2nd November 2006, 07:28 PM
For example the speed of light, as a number, can be expressed many ways, meaning the formula gives different answers depending on which version (miles per second? Kilometers per hour?) is used in it. There's got to be some locked set of units that are being used in it, or at least some locked ratio between the units.

Back on topic, I have to agree "energy" is always just sort of called willy nilly. Not sure they think of it as a cloud, but it seems odd that energy can be without any sort of form. Like, not light energy, just "energy" energy, whatever that is. Some of them use the term "pure" energy. What's impure energy?

Topspy
2nd November 2006, 07:48 PM
For example the speed of light, as a number, can be expressed many ways, meaning the formula gives different answers depending on which version (miles per second? Kilometers per hour?) is used in it.

Not true. No matter the units used, the results are the same. Miles per second and kilometers per hour are interchangeable.b The end result is the same................

Dark Jaguar
2nd November 2006, 08:00 PM
But if I stick one number in there and multiply, the resulting number is different than if I stick in another number.

What I mean is, if I use joule as the unit of energy and gram as the unit of mass, I'm going to get a different result than if I use gigajoule as energy and centigram as mass. Obviously joule=gram (times the speed of light squared) is NOT equivilant to gigajoule=centigram (times the speed of light squared). And, in terms of pure numbers, multiplying something by 100 (assuming that's the number you get for the speed of light) is certainly going to net a different result than multiplying by 1000.

So there's got to be some idea of what units to use here. Depending on what units I use, mass is either not very much energy or it's a whole bunch of it.

Topspy
2nd November 2006, 08:13 PM
But if I stick one number in there and multiply, the resulting number is different than if I stick in another number.

What I mean is, if I use joule as the unit of energy and gram as the unit of mass, I'm going to get a different result than if I use gigajoule as energy and centigram as mass. Obviously joule=gram (times the speed of light squared) is NOT equivilant to gigajoule=centigram (times the speed of light squared). And, in terms of pure numbers, multiplying something by 100 (assuming that's the number you get for the speed of light) is certainly going to net a different result than multiplying by 1000.

So there's got to be some idea of what units to use here. Depending on what units I use, mass is either not very much energy or it's a whole bunch of it.

Duh. What the heck are you talking about? When you convert, they are the same - they HAVE to be, lol

Topspy
2nd November 2006, 08:18 PM
You just have to move a few decimal places in your example..............

Dark Jaguar
2nd November 2006, 08:20 PM
But what initial units am I starting from, so I know what to convert? If I don't know that, I can't do it. I didn't "convert" from joules to gigajoules, I simply have no idea which one is the "base" unit to start from? Let's say I have joules as energy. What's the unit of mass being used on the other side of that equation?

Topspy
2nd November 2006, 08:21 PM
as in 1 meter = 1000 millimeters. different numbers, same distance.

Topspy
2nd November 2006, 08:23 PM
But what initial units am I starting from, so I know what to convert? If I don't know that, I can't do it. I didn't "convert" from joules to gigajoules, I simply have no idea which one is the "base" unit to start from? Let's say I have joules as energy. What's the unit of mass being used on the other side of that equation?

what do you want to find?

Cecil
2nd November 2006, 08:26 PM
But what initial units am I starting from, so I know what to convert? If I don't know that, I can't do it. I didn't "convert" from joules to gigajoules, I simply have no idea which one is the "base" unit to start from? Let's say I have joules as energy. What's the unit of mass being used on the other side of that equation? Well, a Joule is defined as a Newton times a Metre, or kg * m^2 / s^2.

So if you have kg*m^2/s^2 on the left side of the equation, you have to have kg*m^2/s^2 on the right as well. Therefore, you would use kg for mass and m/s for c. As long as the units are the same on both sides, you're gold.

Topspy
2nd November 2006, 08:27 PM
Can be any unit you want

Topspy
2nd November 2006, 08:30 PM
just have to convert

Dark Jaguar
2nd November 2006, 08:32 PM
And that's the thing, I don't know what's "the same". I mean, what's a newton times a meter? Isn't that just 1 * 1? Where did you get kg * m^2 / s^2 from?

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm bad at math.

So yeah, I know how to convert and that, for example, if I START with 1 meter = 50 seconds, the conversion is simple if I multiply the left side by 1000. I just have no idea what I'm starting from. It's just "energy", and that could be any unit, and mass, which could also be any unit. And, if I start from the wrong set of units, I'm going to get the wrong answers.

Cecil
2nd November 2006, 08:45 PM
And that's the thing, I don't know what's "the same". I mean, what's a newton times a meter? Isn't that just 1 * 1? Where did you get kg * m^2 / s^2 from?

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm bad at math.

So yeah, I know how to convert and that, for example, if I START with 1 meter = 50 seconds, the conversion is simple if I multiply the left side by 1000. I just have no idea what I'm starting from. It's just "energy", and that could be any unit, and mass, which could also be any unit. And, if I start from the wrong set of units, I'm going to get the wrong answers. A newton times a metre, or 1 N * 1 m = 1 Nm. Units get multiplied as you run through formulas. A joule is defined as the energy required to exert a force of one newton through a distance of one metre, so its units are newtons times metres. A newton is further defined as the force required to accelerate a mass of 1 kilogram by 1 metre per second squared, so a newton is equivalent to a kg * m/s^2.

If you start with energy in kilojoules and mass in grams, you're going to end up with units that aren't equal on both sides. You'll then have to convert, which will force out the correct answer.

Dark Jaguar
2nd November 2006, 08:53 PM
I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture here (though I still don't get a clear picture of seeing it all "work out" wrong from the math itself just from using the wrong units). Is it possible to get perhaps an example, a sample of a properly "filled in" e=mc^2? I could then do it incorrectly and see exactly where I'd notice it had "gone wrong".

Cecil
2nd November 2006, 09:08 PM
I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture here (though I still don't get a clear picture of seeing it all "work out" wrong from the math itself just from using the wrong units). Is it possible to get perhaps an example, a sample of a properly "filled in" e=mc^2? I could then do it incorrectly and see exactly where I'd notice it had "gone wrong". Sure.

The energy in a car of mass 1500kg:

E = m c^2
E = 1500 kg * (300 000 000 m/s) ^2
E = 135 000 000 000 000 000 000 kg * m^2 / s^2
E = 1.35 * 10^20 J
E = 1.35 * 10^11 GJ, if you want to express it that way.

Incidentally, this is more than 10 times the energy needed to boil away all the world's liquid surface freshwater (roughly 10^19 J).

Cecil
2nd November 2006, 09:13 PM
Now, if you used g for mass and km/h for c, you'd wind up with units of g * km^2 / h^2 on the right side, which despite being a unit of energy, isn't a conveniently named one. If you wanted to see what your result was in joules, you'd have to convert that into kg and m/s anyway.

If you use kg and m/s, joules will pop out. If you use g and km/s, for example, you'll get GJ. It's just the way the units work out.

casebro
2nd November 2006, 09:21 PM
42

Dark Jaguar
2nd November 2006, 09:24 PM
Ya know that's the nice thing about ignorance. It's curable. Thanks. Now I know I was looking at it all wrong.

Cecil
2nd November 2006, 10:16 PM
Ya know that's the nice thing about ignorance. It's curable. Thanks. Now I know I was looking at it all wrong. :) Glad I could help.

SirPhilip
2nd November 2006, 11:10 PM
In fact, energy is not really a noun at all. Energy is a measurement of something's ability to perform work. Given this context, when spiritualists talk about your body's energy fields, they're really saying nothing that's even remotely meaningful. Yet this kind of talk has become so pervasive in our society that the vast majority of Americans accept that energy exists as a self-contained force, floating around in glowing clouds, and can be commanded by spiritualist adepts to do just about anything. While people undoubtedly claim to harness real magic and refer to it as energy, "energy" is most often simply used to refer to the mundane politics of the human body (although why anyone would use magic to refer to bodily functions is anyone's guess..), and involves corruptions of associative thinking, a conversational example of which being: "Man, that pint of Ben & Jerry's in the freezer has a gravity well of 5 g's. So I had a Cherry Coke and a Pop Tart, which surprisingly blocked it's energy by 40%.". It's stupid and not necessary but makes for curious rhetoric. Just not transcendent reality or human destiny..

Soapy Sam
3rd November 2006, 01:20 AM
I think we are all clear on what energy is not.
I would appreciate a concise definition of what it is.

(And, as JustGeoff would say- "What does "is" mean , in the context of the question?")

NeilC
3rd November 2006, 02:09 AM
Out of interest, how solid is the scientific definition of energy? I know it's "the ability to do work" but does that get to the nub of it?

Fell
3rd November 2006, 09:22 AM
Macroscopically energy is defined as the ability to do work. If you are limiting yourself to classical mechanics the defnition is solid (but arbitrary in the sense that there is no absolute energy scale). If so inclined you can also define energy through the Hamiltonian function. The former approach is Newtonian and the latter is...Hamiltonian.

In thermodynamics there are several concepts that use the word 'energy'. For instance you have one energy which is the ability to do work when the temperature is kept constant (Helmholtz free energy) and another which is the ability to do work when the pressure is kept constant etc. In any case thermodynamic energy is a well-defined quantity. One could argue that absolute zero introduces an absolute energy scale, but moving into those regions one really should take quantum mechanical effects into consideration.

Energy in quantum mechanics is defined as the eigenvalue of a certain mathematical operation. This is a mathematically more rigorous definition, that reduces to the classical concept of energy in the proper limit. There is also an absolute scale since every qmechanical system has a lowest energy state.

phildonnia
3rd November 2006, 10:27 AM
Out of interest, how solid is the scientific definition of energy? I know it's "the ability to do work" but does that get to the nub of it?

I like "The ability of a system to lift a weight located outside the system".

Quiz for the confused: Which would give you more energy if you ate it: half a cup of hydrogenated shortening, or two Vivarin and a cup of green tea with ginseng?

Steven Howard
3rd November 2006, 10:33 AM
I like "The ability of a system to lift a weight located outside the system".

Quiz for the confused: Which would give you more energy if you ate it: half a cup of hydrogenated shortening, or two Vivarin and a cup of green tea with ginseng?

The Vivarin and tea. Eating half a cup of shortening would just make me throw up.

SirPhilip
3rd November 2006, 12:11 PM
I think we are all clear on what energy is not.
I would appreciate a concise definition of what it is.A fluctuation of mind and matter over time in eternity?

(And, as JustGeoff would say- "What does "is" mean , in the context of the question?") Circumstance, or frame of reference, with respect to time. In short, all configurations of matter and the equilibrium between matter and space that can exist, should, but apparently when this happens everything else ceases to exist. What is fascinating about this freezing sh-thole is every force seems to be in complete balance. Even more fascinating (or important) is how you end up where you do. Recognizing one's fortunate state, and also recognizing that it's possible to have sex with Kim Jong II another trillion times, one should try their best to get out of this mess, and perhaps not piss the almighty off again.

:dio:

Heaven opened it's doors to me,
at a quarter past three on the clock of eternity
What can I say it was all rich
But that still doesn't mean
that evangelist isn't
a greedy sonofab-tch.

hammegk
3rd November 2006, 12:57 PM
.... In any case thermodynamic energy is a well-defined quantity...
I see. "Quantity" of what, exactly?


Energy in quantum mechanics is defined as the eigenvalue of a certain mathematical operation.
How very unhelpful, until you describe the essence of what is being defined.


Aww, who cares; we all have faith energy Exists (even if none of us -- or anyone else -- has the vaguest clue as to "what it IS"). Or maybe we should buy into the OP???? ROTFL :D

Crazycowbob
3rd November 2006, 01:27 PM
I wonder if maybe a lot of the woo ideas on energy have their basis in a bad interpretation of the old "ether" based physics? It would seem to fit their idea of some invisible pervading field that they can tap into to get whatever their little hearts desire.

Mind you, I don't discount the possibility of ether, it's just that the Theory of Relativity is able to explain the mechanics of the universe just as well, without the need for some undetectable "ether".

As always, I remain receptive to new evidence though :)

Dark Jaguar
3rd November 2006, 01:58 PM
Most of the ones I've talked to have never even heard of ether.

phildonnia
3rd November 2006, 05:04 PM
I see. "Quantity" of what, exactly?

I think he meant Energy is a number. It's not a quantity of any 'thing', it's just a quantity.

Like if I have 100 dollars, what is it I have 100 of? Nothing really, but the number describes precisely how many burritos I could acquire.

hammegk
3rd November 2006, 06:26 PM
You are wrong and/or didn't understand what I said.

Fell
4th November 2006, 04:21 AM
How very unhelpful, until you describe the essence of what is being defined.


As I wrote previously there are many different physical concepts that we call 'energy', all of them are purely abstracts. By that I mean that there is no way to directly measure the energy of a system. We can, however, measure e.g. position and momentum and from those calculate the energy. Energy is just a mathematical function of the relevant variables (velocity, position, area, curvature, rest mass etc.).

What is then the use of constructing such a function? The nice thing about energy that it is conserved in all physical processes (several caveats here) and is therefore an extremely useful bookkeeping tool when studying a system.

Zep
4th November 2006, 05:20 AM
You are wrong and/or didn't understand don't care what I said.Fixed.

hammegk
4th November 2006, 07:27 AM
:rub: