Is There Anything In The Universe Beyond Energy?

[maatorc]

Is there anything in the universe beyond energy?
If there is, what is it?

[fuelair]

Matter. Universe contains both and each can be converted to the other - though mostly it seems to go Matter to Energy.

[maatorc]

Matter. Universe contains both and each can be converted to the other - though mostly it seems to go Matter to Energy.
Is matter a form of energy?
Can there be energy without matter?
Can there be matter without energy?

[DavidS]

Is there anything in the universe beyond energy?
If there is, what is it?

Does it matter?

[maatorc]

[QUOTE=DavidS;2277440]Does it matter?[/QUOTE
In what sense?

[Tricky]

Matter. Universe contains both and each can be converted to the other - though mostly it seems to go Matter to Energy.
No, not so much, at least not around these parts. Every green plant on earth converts energy to matter. Explosions just are more noticable.

[fuelair]

In our universe, within the limits of our powers of observation, matter and energy are not the same thing (but can be converted into each other with no total loss - and Einsteins' E=mc^2 mathmatically defines/describes that conversion from one to the other. Basic description is matter is anything that has mass and takes up space - making density the First Property of matter (Density = mass/volume). Energy is the ability to do work and has no measurable mass or volume. Beyond that is experiment and/or conjecture. Whether there are other universes where this does not apply is currently not known though not without speculation.



Re: Tricky above - even in Nuclear Explosions, only a minor part of the matter is converted to energy and same for plants/food - the light energy is necessary but is a very small part (most of the food is converted matter but light is necessary for that conversion). The key to my statement was the word seems (and that sunlight is a tiny amount of the total sunlight produced from matter converting to energy in the sun!!).

[Tricky]

Is matter a form of energy?

No, the fact that one thing can be converted to another does not make them the same thing. Graphite can be converted to diamonds, but diamonds are not a form of graphite.

Can there be energy without matter?
Can there be matter without energy?
Locally, yes. A beam of light does not contain matter.

Theoretically, matter that was cooled to absolute zero would have no energy.

[Foster Zygote]

Not that this isn't a good topic for conversation (I think it is) but might it not be better placed in Science & Technology?

[Foster Zygote]

No, the fact that one thing can be converted to another does not make them the same thing. Graphite can be converted to diamonds, but diamonds are not a form of graphite.

Good point. But if graphite is converted to diamond the same atoms are involved but in a different arrangement, yes?

[maatorc]

Not that this isn't a good topic for conversation (I think it is) but might it not be better placed in Science & Technology?
What is the easy way to do that?

[DavidS]

Does it matter?
In what sense?

More sense might have bought a better pun.

Couldn't resist, sorry. Sort of.

[Jarom]

Energy isn't a thing; it's a mathematical abstraction. To make a long story short, scientists have found that whenever you've got a closed system, there's several quantities you can calculate, such as:

(half the mass times the velocity squared),
(mass times the speed of light squared),
(heat content),
(amount of work it would require to move the system from an arbitrary fixed point in a gravity well to its current point),
(half the moment of inertia times the angular velocity squared),
and many others.

There's nothing particularly fundamental about these, but it's an empirical fact that for any system, the sum of these quantities remains the same. We call this sum the "energy" of the system, and the various contributors to the sum "types" of energy.

So, to answer your question, it's not very coherent. Matter (mass) is one contributor to the sum we call energy (after multiplying the amount of matter by the speed of light squared, of course). Matter isn't a mathematical abstraction (probably), and you could convert it to other things that aren't mathematical abstractions, (heat, light, rotation, etc). But converting it to "energy", which is a mathematical abstraction? That's a category error, sorry.

[Ginarley]

Isn't "energy" just an accounting concept? I hope there is more to the world than accounting! ;)

ETA: dammit, beaten to it lol.

[maatorc]

Energy isn't a thing; it's a mathematical abstraction. To make a long story short, scientists have found that whenever you've got a closed system, there's several quantities you can calculate, such as:(half the mass times the velocity squared),(mass times the speed of light squared), (heat content), (amount of work it would require to move the system from an arbitrary fixed point in a gravity well to its current point), (half the moment of inertia times the angular velocity squared),and many others.There's nothing particularly fundamental about these, but it's an empirical fact that for any system, the sum of these quantities remains the same. We call this sum the "energy" of the system, and the various contributors to the sum "types" of energy.So, to answer your question, it's not very coherent. Matter (mass) is one contributor to the sum we call energy (after multiplying the amount of matter by the speed of light squared, of course). Matter isn't a mathematical abstraction (probably), and you could convert it to other things that aren't mathematical abstractions, (heat, light, rotation, etc). But converting it to "energy", which is a mathematical abstraction? That's a category error, sorry.
Is this to say energy is not equivalent to mass?

[Jarom]

Is this to say energy is not equivalent to mass?Careful, did you mean mass or matter? They're not the same thing, although it looks like some people have been trying to use them interchangeably (including me, thanks to a poor choice of phrasing, sorry). Either way, though, yes, neither is equivalent to energy.

If you did mean "mass", Mass is a mathematical abstraction that describes how much matter you have. It's not the same thing as energy, although it's related by the fact that if you take the mass, and multiply by the square of the speed of light, this gives you one of the terms ("mass energy") that you add up to calculate energy.

If you meant "matter", then it's much simpler. Energy is a mathematical abstraction, and matter is not. Therefore, they can't possibly be equivalent.

[SezMe]

Is there anything in the universe beyond energy?
If there is, what is it?
There is a lot of dark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy) and dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) in the universe. Maybe more than all the "regular" matter we know about.

[maatorc]

Careful, did you mean mass or matter? They're not the same thing, although it looks like some people have been trying to use them interchangeably (including me, thanks to a poor choice of phrasing, sorry). Either way, though, yes, neither is equivalent to energy.If you did mean "mass", Mass is a mathematical abstraction that describes how much matter you have. It's not the same thing as energy, although it's related by the fact that if you take the mass, and multiply by the square of the speed of light, this gives you one of the terms ("mass energy") that you add up to calculate energy.If you meant "matter", then it's much simpler. Energy is a mathematical abstraction, and matter is not. Therefore, they can't possibly be equivalent.

Energy here means a universal force or power to do or act as distinct from any 'thing'.
From what you say, are energy and mass but two aspects of an as yet unidentified or named state or condition about which it can only be postulated that 'it' is?

[fuelair]

No, the fact that one thing can be converted to another does not make them the same thing. Graphite can be converted to diamonds, but diamonds are not a form of graphite.


Locally, yes. A beam of light does not contain matter.

Theoretically, matter that was cooled to absolute zero would have no energy.
But, (and I am not trying to pick on you) current theory/math says that nothing can get to Absolute zero - at the heat death of the universe (which used to be taught as everything at AZ) now says everything at a few billionths of a degree above AZ. I think (not a physicist) that research into Bose-Einstein condensates may have had something to do with that.

[Jarom]

Energy here means a universal force or power to do or act as distinct from any 'thing'.
From what you say, are energy and mass but two aspects of an as yet unidentified or named state or condition about which it can only be postulated that 'it' is?

Oh, sorry, I may have misunderstood completely, then. The word 'energy' has several meanings:

1) The scientific meaning ("The heat energy released by the explosion was 6000 joules.")

2) The informal English meaning ("A cup of coffee in the morning gives me lots of energy")

3) The anti-scientific meaning ("I sensed some troublesome vibrations in his energy")

I assumed you were speaking of energy as in meaning 1 (the scientific meaning), and everything I've said applies only to that meaning. If what you actually meant was "a universal force or power to do or act as distinct from any 'thing'.", this sounds almost, but not quite, like meaning 3 and we're talking at cross purposes.

I'm just a bit puzzled as to why you used the word "energy" to refer to this concept of "a universal force or power to do or act as distinct from any 'thing'." Using a pre-existing word for a new concept is always likely to cause confusion. Why not call it "snarkle"? I don't think that phonetic combination is currently in widespread use, and so we can avoid any confusion with other concepts like the mathematical abstraction I was talking about.

So...is there anything in the universe beyond snarkle? I don't know. I'm not convinced the question is well defined.

[maatorc]

[B]......I'm just a bit puzzled as to why you used the word "energy" to refer to this concept of "a universal force or power to do or act as distinct from any 'thing'." ......
Because my original post used the word 'anything' and 'energy', which seemed to trouble you.

[fuelair]

With no offense and re post just prior to your last, if you are implying anything other than the scientific usage for matter and energy, then you are into philosophy not science and this thread is moot -and pointless. Not meant to be offensive, just pointing it out.

[maatorc]

With no offense and re post just prior to your last, if you are implying anything other than the scientific usage for matter and energy, then you are into philosophy not science and this thread is moot -and pointless. Not meant to be offensive, just pointing it out.
Am not into philosphy, strictly objective curiosity: Science does not seem to 'know', as pointed out by Richard Feynman, what energy actually IS!
If energy is not equivalent to mass, as has been put forward in this thread, does energy cause mass or does mass cause energy? My reason for asking about a possible underlying common source of energy and mass is the seeming independant activity of them both if the relativistic equivalence is not true.
But do not let this put you off: some recent ideas would have the whole accepted modern package as nonsense.
My OP is exactly what it looks like, allowing that I should not have used the word 'anything' in connection with 'energy': It is questioning in the sense of searching and is not challenging any views held by anyone.

[l0rca]

Energy isn't a thing; it's a mathematical abstraction. To make a long story short, scientists have found that whenever you've got a closed system, there's several quantities you can calculate, such as:

(half the mass times the velocity squared),
(mass times the speed of light squared),
(heat content),
(amount of work it would require to move the system from an arbitrary fixed point in a gravity well to its current point),
(half the moment of inertia times the angular velocity squared),
and many others.

There's nothing particularly fundamental about these, but it's an empirical fact that for any system, the sum of these quantities remains the same. We call this sum the "energy" of the system, and the various contributors to the sum "types" of energy.

So, to answer your question, it's not very coherent. Matter (mass) is one contributor to the sum we call energy (after multiplying the amount of matter by the speed of light squared, of course). Matter isn't a mathematical abstraction (probably), and you could convert it to other things that aren't mathematical abstractions, (heat, light, rotation, etc). But converting it to "energy", which is a mathematical abstraction? That's a category error, sorry.

As we have come to think, this is the right answer, so my response here is more or less a reiteration. Energy is a way to describe what matter is doing. For instance, if we claim that matter has no energy (absolute zero) (which is theoretical by the way), then matter is not doing anything.

The idea of energy in science, and our resolutions of its meaning in our math, has changed. We once considered energy to be an entity which was different than matter; it acted upon matter, and it was possible to have "matter-less energy". Now, like the idea of matter, we have a sort of semantic difference in context when we talk about energy. When we are talking about non-quantum effects, energy is as Jarom and I speak. But when we get to the quantum world, we consider energy to be another classification of matter. We call them "bosons," and they transfer force and act on other matter. There are also items called "virtual bosons"; which are mathematical, non-physical particles we make up to explain how we observe the interaction of matter in the quantum world. This craziness raises the questions we're arguing about in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71647

[hammegk]

Why, yes. The question remains: which is more real, the math, or the energy?;)

[MRC_Hans]

No, not so much, at least not around these parts. Every green plant on earth converts energy to matter. No [TM]. They make matter change to more energetic levels by adding sunlight energy. They don't convert energy into matter.

Hans

[hammegk]

IIRC, the change to a higher energy level would show up as increased mass if we could measure mass precisely enough.

[maatorc]

Why, yes. The question remains: which is more real, the math, or the energy?;)
Whether viewed as a mathematical abstraction or as an actual universal force, does science see energy as possessing or being characterised by any exclusively defining properties, as distinct from the many descriptions of what it does?

[Jarom]

Whether viewed as a mathematical abstraction or as an actual universal force, does science see energy as possessing or being characterised by any exclusively defining properties, as distinct from the many descriptions of what it does?

You'll need to clarify for me, before I can answer this: what do you mean when you use the word "energy"? It seems clear that you're not using the word in its scientific sense, because "energy" in the scientific sense could never be correctly described as an "actual universal force", and doesn't do anything, so one couldn't possibly have "many descriptions of what it does".

If you've made up a new definition for the word "energy", you'll have to tell us what this definition is in order to have a meaningful conversation. And then you'll have to justify your use of the word "energy" to refer to it, since using old words for new concepts tends to confuse. This might lead the more cynical of us to suppose that confusion was your goal.

[hammegk]

If you've made up a new definition for the word "energy", you'll have to tell us what this definition is in order to have a meaningful conversation. And then you'll have to justify your use of the word "energy" to refer to it, since using old words for new concepts tends to confuse.
What definition do you suggest is the old one?

[Jarom]

The definition I suggest is the one I discussed in post #20. To be more explicit than I was there:

To any given physical system, we assign a quantity. The details of calculating this quantity are complex; it's a sum of several terms, each of which corresponds to a different physical description of the system (how fast? how hot? how spinny? how big? how high?). We call this quantity the "energy" of the system.

That's the modern definition of energy. (I wouldn't call it "old").

A few other interesting things to note about energy, while we're on the topic:

1) Energy is measured in joules or equivalent units. For any concept, you can ask yourself, "Are joules an appropriate unit to measure this?" If the answer is "no", then this concept isn't energy.

2) Calculating the energy of a system involves some arbitrary choices (gravitational reference point, inertial frame, etc.). If you make different choices, you'll calculate a different energy. But that's okay, because:

3) The only important thing about energy, and the only reason we bother giving a name to such a conglomeration of calculations, is that it remains the same unless the system is acted on by an outside force. Why? Because we cheated; we deliberately added things together in such a way that other physical laws can be used to predict this invariance. This lets us make some predictions much more easily, like "when planets are closer to the sun, they'll be moving faster" (and lets us figure out how much faster, much more easily than breaking out the calculus and Newton's laws of motion)

4) If you want to know "what energy IS", you're wrong. There does not exist a thing such that energy is that thing. There is no "essence" of energy to be found, any more than you can find the "essence" of the number two. We're not going to discover that we're mistaken about the meaning of "energy" any more than we're going to discover that we're mistaken about the meaning of "cat".

[hammegk]

ROFL. Energy must be the cheshire cat's smile. ;)

I.E. Neither you nor anyone else has a clue on what "energy" might be, let alone how to define it.

Or perhaps you measure changes in something that doesn't exist?

[Jarom]

Neither you nor anyone else has a clue on what "energy" might be, let alone how to define it.I understand it. Physicists understand it. I tried to make you understand it. If I thought there were a better way to help you understand it, I'd do that. I'm sorry you don't. It's a good thing for science that it continues working (and energy keeps being a useful concept) in spite of your lack of understanding.
Or perhaps you measure changes in something that doesn't exist?Three is larger than two, yet neither three nor two exist. If a point moves around another point, staying the same distance away, it produces a circle, although neither points nor circles exist. We can discuss human-created concepts whether or not these concepts reference existent things. Mindboggling, isn't it?

[hammegk]

What's mind-boggling is your ability -- shared by most -- to accept what could as well be called magic even though we name it energy as the key to physics and reality. Well, energy, and Time; two keys.

[Jarom]

Whoa, slow down there! Who said energy was the key to physics and reality? (Or time, for that matter?) Certainly not me; I've done my best to point out the exact opposite: energy's lack of physical existence and total dependence on human construction.

"Key to physics and reality"? What HAVE you been reading? Not this thread, it's clear.

[hammegk]

Eventually, you might even understand what I said. :)

[maatorc]

......energy's lack of physical existence and total dependence on human construction.......Are you saying this is the official and generally agreed scientific position on energy? Is the relativity theory notion that energy and mass can be transformed into each other not true?

[Jarom]

Are you saying this is the official and generally agreed scientific position on energy?It's generally agreed. There isn't really an "offical" position.Is the relativity theory notion that energy and mass can be transformed into each other not true?Relativity is correct (as far as we know) but doesn't claim that energy and mass (or energy and matter) can be transformed into each other.

It's possible for events to occur in a system that will reduce the amount of matter, while increasing the amount of something else (light, heat, motion, etc. - NOT energy) This is often referred to, somewhat inaccurately, as "transforming" the matter into those things. If you want to know HOW MUCH light, heat, motion, etc. you'll get if you're able to decrease the amount of matter, the formula E=mc^2 will help you out...if you lost m = 1 gram of matter, you can predict that you'll get E = (1 gram)(3.00 * 10^8 m/s)^2 = 9.00 * 10^13 joules of other things, which is quite a lot.

Note that when a reaction like this takes place, the amount of energy never changes; that is, if we perform the calculations to get the total energy, we get the same answer at every time. One of the things we add in when calculating the energy is mc^2, and this term gets smaller by exactly the amount that other terms get larger. It would be very misleading to say that mass was converted to energy, because that would imply that you now have less mass (true) and more energy (false).

[Darth Rotor]

There is a lot of dark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy) and dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) in the universe. Maybe more than all the "regular" matter we know about.
Easy does it, you are delving into the secrets of the Sith Lords. Have a care when meddling with the Dark Side. :eye-poppi

DR

[VonNeumann]

Isn't it clear that the more fundamental quality of the universe is information?

I thought someone would have said that by now, but then, this concept apparently doesn't sit well with most people.

[maatorc]

Isn't it clear that the more fundamental quality of the universe is information?I thought someone would have said that by now, but then, this concept apparently doesn't sit well with most people.
Are you referring to "Programming The Universe" by Seth Lloyd?

[maatorc]

It's generally agreed. There isn't really an "offical" position.Relativity is correct (as far as we know) but doesn't claim that energy and mass (or energy and matter) can be transformed into each other.

Without saying you are wrong, I still have a problem with the statement there is actually no energy but only a mathematical abstraction of mass and matter in motion called energy.
Would it then be true to say that the cosmological equivalent of energy-mass is that 'being' is but an ontological abstraction of 'existence'?
This is leading somewhere but I do not want to rush it.

[edge]

The definition I suggest is the one I discussed in post #20. To be more explicit than I was there:

To any given physical system, we assign a quantity. The details of calculating this quantity are complex; it's a sum of several terms, each of which corresponds to a different physical description of the system (how fast? how hot? how spinny? how big? how high?). We call this quantity the "energy" of the system.

That's the modern definition of energy. (I wouldn't call it "old").

A few other interesting things to note about energy, while we're on the topic:

1) Energy is measured in joules or equivalent units. For any concept, you can ask yourself, "Are joules an appropriate unit to measure this?" If the answer is "no", then this concept isn't energy.

2) Calculating the energy of a system involves some arbitrary choices (gravitational reference point, inertial frame, etc.). If you make different choices, you'll calculate a different energy. But that's okay, because:

3) The only important thing about energy, and the only reason we bother giving a name to such a conglomeration of calculations, is that it remains the same unless the system is acted on by an outside force. Why? Because we cheated; we deliberately added things together in such a way that other physical laws can be used to predict this invariance. This lets us make some predictions much more easily, like "when planets are closer to the sun, they'll be moving faster" (and lets us figure out how much faster, much more easily than breaking out the calculus and Newton's laws of motion)

4) If you want to know "what energy IS", you're wrong. There does not exist a thing such that energy is that thing. There is no "essence" of energy to be found, any more than you can find the "essence" of the number two. We're not going to discover that we're mistaken about the meaning of "energy" any more than we're going to discover that we're mistaken about the meaning of "cat".

http://www.ldolphin.org/update.html

[edge]

http://setterfield.org/tworelativities.html

[Ginarley]

While this point may have been hammered to death already, here is a quote from Feynman I think summarises it very well:

“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.”

[edge]

Energy and matter doesn’t disappear.
Everything is going somewhere.
We just can't see where.
Is this what you mean?

[VonNeumann]

Are you referring to "Programming The Universe" by Seth Lloyd?

Aha! Someone else read his book. Did you read it?

...or the digital philosophy in general. Probably the oldest proponent still alive being Ed Fredkin - also of M.I.T.

[maatorc]

[QUOTE=VonNeumann;2314480]Aha! Someone else read his book. Did you read it?/QUOTE]
Yes, I have it. But must mention an Oxford don who moved in the same circles as the author told me it is more good self-promotion than good science. But it is certainly grist in the cosmological mill.
You may also find "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon of more than passing interest in that he challenges the whole structure of modern scientific theory.

[VonNeumann]

Aha! Someone else read his book. Did you read it?
Yes, I have it. But must mention an Oxford don who moved in the same circles as the author told me it is more good self-promotion than good science. But it is certainly grist in the cosmological mill.
You may also find "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon of more than passing interest in that he challenges the whole structure of modern scientific theory.
I can understand why the Oxford notable said that about Lloyd's book.

Thanks for the lead to the other book. I'll take a look.