[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 280 KB, 744x389, energy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11046433 No.11046433 [Reply] [Original]

What is energy?
By this I don't mean
>the ability to do work
I mean what is the stuff that everything, matter, radiation, fields, quantum fluctuations are or appear to be made of? What is it?

>> No.11046439

Information inspires total acceptance of energy

>> No.11046441

The future self interacts with subtle sexual energy

>> No.11046442

>>11046439
>everything is information
so it's a simulation

>> No.11046444

>>11046433
just like fields, it's just a number

>> No.11046446

>>11046444
But a value is a measure OF something. What is this something?

>> No.11046447

>>11046446
NRG

>> No.11046453

I suppose in this thread we are really just learning that we know nothing, just like Socrates originally implored us to recognize. So we're back to square zero.

>> No.11046455

>>11046433
If there were only one item in the entire universe, energy wouldn't exist, since it would be nothing to relate the energy to.

So, energy is chaos.

>> No.11046465

>>11046455
You can think of the entire universe as one item. This is why the identities of "individual" electrons are indistinguishable from one another. It is not "as if" they were all one and the same electron, THEY ARE all one and the same electron. There is only one electron.

>> No.11046467

>>11046465
What for some reason this makes a lot of sense, but what is all of this composed for? There's multiple universes, so why?

>> No.11046472

>>11046455
When you invoke chaos, and deny order and the immutability of the laws of physics that we know (and therefore Einstein's god, the one who made them so) you are indirectly admitting to the existence of the multiverse. YES, without direct, empirical evidence. Because what empirical evidence could there be for the existence of something that is causally separate from our plane of existence. The totality of all that exists does not have to play by our particular universe's rules.

>> No.11046475

>>11046467
In an endless sea of randomness, that which seems oddly "composed" is just happenstance.

>> No.11046481

>>11046433
The fundamental nature of energy comes from the fact that it is a Noether charge related to invariance wrt translations in time. What it represents is well-known from college-level physics courses.

>> No.11046490

e = mc^2
Therefore mass is energy

>> No.11046491

>>11046490
This formula is useless for massless particles, apply yourself

>> No.11046495

>>11046481
>*kicks the can down the road*
what is charge? time?

>> No.11046509

>>11046433
Energy is change

>> No.11046511

>>11046509
energy your underwear

>> No.11046512 [DELETED] 

Energy is the fundamental of nature

Everything is made of energy

Mass, movement, fundamental interactions

It's like looking at a brick building and asking, what is a brick, why is a brick, how is a brick? It just is.

>> No.11046520
File: 54 KB, 625x325, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11046520

>>11046512
>brick? It just is

>> No.11046527

>>11046433

Energy arise due symmetries.

https://youtu.be/PUn2izowBkw

https://youtu.be/04ERSb06dOg

>> No.11046531

>>11046495
Energy is a Noether charge, it's basic theor physics. Just like momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, etc.

>> No.11046536

>>11046433

A powerful accounting tool for describing the behaviour of the physical universe.

>> No.11046537

Axioms

>> No.11046542

>>11046433

The Law of Conservation of Energy arises because of symmetry, in particular, time translational symmetry. Energy is conserved if the physics of a system (for example the nature of a force field), stays the same over time. For every symmetry in our universe, there's a conserved quantity. Law of conservation of Momentum is due spatial translation symmetry.

>> No.11046549

>>11046527
>>11046542
Friendly reminder: it's "due to object", not "due object".

>> No.11046553

>>11046433
Substance. The one of which everything is composed of.

>> No.11046667

>>11046433
Energy is a number that (((things that exist))) have.

>> No.11046702

>>11046439
>>11046442
Hi JIDF

>> No.11046710
File: 152 KB, 377x372, Max_Tegmark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11046710

>>11046433
>I mean what is the stuff that everything, matter, radiation, fields, quantum fluctuations are or appear to be made of? What is it?
Math

>> No.11046717

>>11046433
Maybe it's just rarefied hydrogen. I don't know. It's kind of hard to measure something directly when it permeates the entire universe, passing even through solid matter as if it were as dense as a fart.

>> No.11046726

>>11046472

>invoke chaos, and deny order and the immutability of the laws of physics that we know

Key word here is 'know', chaos is just a lack of relevant information regarding what contemporarily transpires

>> No.11046731

E=mc^2 energy is mass and vice versa. How do you think we find new shit in particle colliders.

>> No.11046762

>>11046433
Eugh.

This feels like the Feynman magnet guy.
You just want something you can relate to, to satisfy you.

>> No.11046773

>>11046433
its mass.

atoms have electricity and a charge. everything does

>> No.11048417
File: 41 KB, 591x377, fengapapit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11048417

>>11046537
But wherefore axioms, mister Albert Einstein?
>god

>> No.11048429

>>11046731
Then why can’t we just convert the earth into energy? It has tons of mass.

>> No.11048470

Jesus fuck, you absolute brainlets.

Energy is expressed in its most basic form as what we call photons - massless particles. Matter consists of the bounded interactions of massless particles. It's literally all a conglomeration of photons.

>> No.11048796

>>11046710
God damn you Max Tegmark. God DAMN YOU

>> No.11048811

>>11046536
that sounds kind of like money
money is not a thing in itself
but a mere measure of the things that humans find valuable

>> No.11048812

>>11046433
nobody knows, because everything in the universe is made of it, we can't remove ourselves from it to place it into visible definition

it's the most fundamental thing there is, ultimately, you could just call it the most basic "something" that exists, however i like the connotation of fundamental and prefer to call it fundament

fundament is another word for a person's ass by the way, which is also a good way of looking at it

>> No.11048816

>>11048470
hmm

and what is a photon

...

and what is a particle

...

and what is a quantum field

...

?

>> No.11048823

>>11046710
and what is math made of

>> No.11048831

>>11048429
we do, sort of

every time you release energy you are actually destroying a minuscule amount of mass

>> No.11048834 [DELETED] 

>>11046536
Although this is a lesser question, let us ask why the universe behaves in this way and not some way? For the simple reason that it must behave in SOME way, for if it didn't, it wouldn't behave in any way. It simply wouldn't be at all, which is demonstrably impossible. This line of argument further corroborates determinism, even in the face of probability.

>> No.11048838

>>11046536
Although this is a lesser question, let us ask why the universe behaves in this way and not some other way? For the simple reason that it must behave in SOME way, for if it didn't, it wouldn't behave in any way. It simply wouldn't be at all, which is demonstrably impossible. This line of argument further corroborates determinism, even in the face of probability.

>> No.11048842

>>11048823
Math is made of turtles. Turtles all the way down.

>> No.11048843

>>11048838
>For the simple reason that it must behave in SOME way
that's not an actual reason, it's a tangent at best

>> No.11048844

>>11048842
what's down

>> No.11048857

>>11048812
I now understand what drives people to religion.

>> No.11048863

>>11048816
A system trying to analyse itself.

Massless particles (photons) don't "experience" time or the phenomenon of distance. From the perspective of a photon traveling from the Sun to the Earth, there is no actual traveling. Distance and time contraction are such that its trip is instantaneous and the start and end points are essentially the same place- the photon from a lightspeed perspective just represents an instant transfer of energy between two points.

Now extrapolate this concept out to every single massless particle (all energy in existence), whether free-traveling or bound in matter. None of them experience time or space- those things are a virtual consequence of the web of instantaneous interactions between the "particles," just like the phenomenon of mass. This causal web is the virtual "internal" structure of a single point, which occupies no space or time, but comprises all the energy in the universe.

>> No.11048866

>>11048863
and what is the system

>> No.11048869

>>11048866
Can you not fucking read?

>> No.11048872

>>11048869
yes, but what is it, what is it made of, why does it exist

>> No.11048875

>>11048812
A fundament of which we know nothing, and can never hope to know anything about. Why do people pursue scientific understanding knowing full well that there is this impenetrable roadblock at the end of all of that backbreaking work?

>> No.11048881

>>11048875
>and can never hope to know anything about.
i wholeheartedly disagree

if you admit that you know nothing, then you must also allow for the possibility of learning in the future

>> No.11048897

>>11048863
Good post. Didn't expect to see that here.

>> No.11048898

>>11048872
It's the only thing (probably), it's made of the only thing that things are made of (probably), and the last question is so stupid that the only way to properly address it is to call you a moron. We don't have a way to study anything outside of the causal web, because that's how causality works.

Is this the first time you've smoked pot or are you just 14?

>> No.11048899

>>11046433
Your question is too broad. Narrow it down. 'Energy' is a very generalized term.
You have to at least differentiate between 'potential energy' and 'energy expended' (i.e. 'work').
>A battery only contains *potential energy*, it's not 'energy (work)' until you apply it to something, like a lightbulb or a motor, for instance
>Once the 'potential energy' in the battery is applied to something to do 'work', then, in this case, the 'energy (work)' is expressed in Watts, or Joules.
>The 'energy' the motor produces is mechanical energy
>Gasoline has lots of 'potential energy' but you can't put that to work until you combust it
>Plutonium has a shitload of 'potential energy' but you don't get 'work' out of it until you employ it in something like a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb
>..and so on.
'Energy' isn't a 'thing', not in the sense you're thinking of it in.
>Everything, theoretically, has 'potential energy' because e=mc^2
>but you can't necessarily get the 'potential energy' out of it to do 'work'

>> No.11048901

>>11048898
if you can't find a causal reason for your interpretation of causality, then your interpretation is flawed at the most fundamental level

>> No.11048900

>>11048897
Good posts are rare here, you're right

>> No.11048912

>>11048863
In short, time is an illusion. Therefore, death is not a problem to be solved, but ultimate liberation from said illusion.

That's not to say that living things aren't doomed to live forever. Even after they die, they may come back a la Nietzsche's eternal return. Something which The New Yorker did a piece about recently. Look it up.

>> No.11048916

>>11048912
that's dumb, even if time is defined as an illusion that doesn't mean it's influence is automatically negative

>> No.11048930

>>11048898
This poster is correct. It exists because it must. And it must exist because inexistence mustn't.

>> No.11048937

>>11048901
I was probably overzealous and got assmad at the word "why"

In this interpretation, the point-source causal web only exists because it's the simplest format of existence and if it weren't there, it just wouldn't be and that's that. Think of the anthropic principle but for existence. And from the original concept, we can make some neat predictions. For example, if heat death is inevitable, then all photons in the causal web will eventually end up on non-intersecting paths, resulting in the point-universe "expanding" into new virtual space and time, in what I imagine would look like a big bang. The result is an endless progression of universes that are technically happening in sequence, but actually simultaneous, all in the same point.

>> No.11048940

>>11046433
Velocity of a mass or position in a force field

>> No.11048960

>>11048937
Finally someone is making sense.

>> No.11048961

>>11048912
More fun speculation- if there are realms of existence external to the point-universe which operate on different principles, the universe can be viewed as a static object. I can only imagine that at some point somebody up in hypothetical higher-order reality got the idea to extract all conscious minds from the static causal web and "save" them from death, and we would just have to reach the "end" of our mind's portion of the web before we can experience the extraction.

>> No.11048969

>>11048937
>anthropic principle
>In this interpretation, the point-source causal web only exists because it's the simplest format of existence and if it weren't there, it just wouldn't be and that's that.
that's not... that

it's plainly obvious what's in front of us is the most convenient format of existence in our environment, otherwise it wouldn't be in front of us to observe, but we don't know what that actually means, we don't know where it comes from, we don't know if something is hiding beyond our level of observation

>>11048960
it doesn't seem like sense to me, it seems more like the mental languor that people fall into when they don't have all the information necessary to solve a problem and just shrug

>> No.11048975

>>11048961
you just described heaven i guess

>> No.11048982

>>11048975
poors fuck off

>> No.11048983

>>11048937
>>11048863
How the fuck are such posts considered to be "finally good" or "quality posts are rare"?
It's either samefagging or /sci/ is more brainlet than I imagined. Have you people not have even a basic understanding of theoretical physics, relativity, unitary irreducible representations of the Poincare group?
It's like reading comments to a popsci video.

>> No.11048985

>>11048969
I know that's not that but we're talking about the levels of existence where clumsy analogies are pretty much the forefront of our understanding.

We can speculate all day but until somebody figures out a way to exit the causal web and view it from the outside along with any potential surroundings, the speculation is roughly equivalent to sitting around with a thumb up your ass.

>> No.11048988

>>11048969
>mental languor that people fall into when they don't have all the information necessary to solve a problem and just
invent a religion
this thread has seriously made me more understand of people who found religions
maybe not people who blindly follow them, because those are still mindless automatons
but certainly people who think so long and so hard that they can't help but invent some otherworldly explanation for all that they've gleaned
in the end, it seems like there are no good explanations for the deepest questions

>> No.11048990

>>11048982
it's always best to assume there's an afterlife, because you won't be disappointed either way

>>11048985
i don't think that's necessarily true, like i said before in this thread, not knowing something now doesn't mean it's impossible to know it in the future

>>11048988
well, the first bit of this post sums up my religious views i guess

>> No.11048992

>>11048983
I swear that I don't samefag. What specific issue do you have with my early-morning shitposts about the structure of reality?

>> No.11049001

>>11048990
>i don't think that's necessarily true, like i said before in this thread, not knowing something now doesn't mean it's impossible to know it in the future

Speculation is far less productive than working to devise a way to answer the question you're speculating about.

>> No.11049002

>>11048992
>"it was just a joke shitpost" retort

>> No.11049006

>>11049002
My shitposts are never jokes

>> No.11049008

>>11049001
i am not talking about speculation, i am saying that being certain either positively or negatively about your knowledge is a faulty way of thinking

>> No.11049051

>>11048985
>muh speculation
I am so certain of your wrongness that I don't even have to respond to you. But being the good samaritan that I am, I will attempt (almost certainly unsuccessfully, given the stupendousness of your stupidity) to educate you. A hypothesis is speculation.

>> No.11049406
File: 52 KB, 474x661, discrete mathematics with ducks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11049406

>>11048842
>implying math isn't made of ducks

>> No.11049411

>>11046433
Energy is a mathematical invariant.

>> No.11049412

>>11046472

based big brain poster

>> No.11049413

>>11049406
Ducksu
Gulolious ducksu

>> No.11049415

energy is just a way to describe shit happening and interacting with each other afaik . or maybe thats time. time is energy? hehe.

>> No.11049417
File: 257 KB, 462x544, 1564559783101.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11049417

>>11049412
Hurr durr muh plane of existence

>> No.11049419

>>11049417

sure pal, keep posting anime girls that will make you feel smart.

>> No.11050364

>>11049051
Go ahead, test any hypothesis concerning something causally disconnected from the universe.

>> No.11050384

>>11048863
What the deal with speed of light if photons don't move?

>> No.11050481

>>11046433
>what is energy

Energy is not something specific. It's what something does (an action) and cannot be differentiated from that something.

For instance, if i remove what light does then it ceases to illuminate. It ceases "to be" light. If i remove every action that defined you (such as your heartbeat and electrical impulses in your brain and nerves), then you cease to be you. If i go even further and take away the actions of your rotting corpse (rotting) then it is no longer even a thing to be discussed for I have removed all action to be defined.

>>11046442
Simulation of what?

>> No.11050498

>>11046467
>There's multiple universes
UNIverse: The concept encompassing all reality, of which by definition there is only One. Hence, UNIverse.

>> No.11050512

>>11048470
>Jesus fuck, you absolute brainlets.
>Proceeds to confuse energy, a property of bodies quantifying their capacity to do work, with photons, the boson that carries the electromagnetic force.
By your logic, the nuclear strong force doesn't exist, mass is unequal to energy, and light is the only form of radiation.

>> No.11050528

>>11048961
This is literally religion.

>> No.11050588

>>11048988
>this thread has seriously made me more understand of people who found religions
>maybe not people who blindly follow them
That's because there are two sides to religion: philosophy, theology, metaphysics and socioeconomics; and easily digestible fables with the same "do bad things get punished, do good things get rewarded" lesson.
The latter was invented for the masses so that the true religious people can philosophise in peace. Religion is really ontology and metaphysics, but philosophers can't exist if every human cant stop killing and fucking everything they see, so you convince these stupid apes that if they don't stop burning down your library, they will burn forever, so sayeth the magical titan in the sky.
You can easily differentiate between actual religious people and pain-fearing sheep.
Now that you understand what religion *actually is* (congrats, it literally means you are wiser since you realised it by yourself), you will understand why almost every single renowned scientist, mathematician or philosopher was openly or secretly religious and why almost every true religious leader trusts in scientific discoveries and welcomes them as simply 'humans uncovering the will of God by observing Nature'. God is simply the name for whatever the source and substance of reality is.
You are now aware everything good in the world appears either naturally or is taught by philosophers.
You are now aware that "science vs religion" is popular marionette show not unlike sports.
You are now aware that true religion is super logical and true science admits the presence of faith (namely, that subjective observations have anything to do with objective reality). Both use "logos" as a primary tool.

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
Werner Heisenberg

>> No.11050653

>>11050588
dubs of truth

>> No.11051341

>>11050384
The "speed" of light is actually a sort of misleading term. Mass, spacetime, and the concept of movement are really emergent virtual effects within the causal web borne of that fact that all massless particle interactions are occurring simultaneously yet in sequence nonetheless. The value of the "speed" of a photon in meters/second or whatever unit you care to use is almost meaningless.

>> No.11051351

>>11050512
Shouldn't have narrowed down to photons, that was my mistake, more accurate to just stick with massless particles

>> No.11051388

It’s actually all goo

>> No.11051413

>>11046509
best answer so far

>> No.11051558

>>11046433
Science is the study of cause and effect. It doesnt tell you what things are but rather what they do.

>> No.11051613

Imagine the big bang as an explosion , pretend it's a fireball, but it was really pure electromagnetic radiation, completely broadband in every frequency up until it's energy becomes so great it reaches the speed of light.
This ball of energy is so incredibly high that it compresses this EMF to the point where it condenses into matter.
Similar to when a drop of water lands on something hot and forms a insoluble sphere.
Matter is just condensed energy.
Energy is just the opposition of attractive and repellant forces of EMF and matter.
We are basically in a really slow explosion.
Matter and energy interacting is what we perceive as work.
If you want to see an interactive field try and push to magnets together at the same pole. This is analogous to how energy forces work.

>> No.11051643

>>11051413
Its possibly one of the worst, since the amount of energy is always constant and a transfer of energy isn't energy. How is the energy of a chemical bond 'change'? Does mass equal 'change'? When there is an excitation and a change in energy, is it a change of change?

>> No.11051665

>>11051613
>Imagine the big bang as an explosion ,
Horrible analogy
>pretend it's a fireball, but it was really pure electromagnetic radiation,
It was much more than just photons
>completely broadband in every frequency up until it's energy becomes so great it reaches the speed of light.
This is physically impossible. Light is already at lightspeed, and things slower than light (massive particles) would require infinite energy to reach light speed. Also, there is no gain of energy at the Big Bang, conservation of energy would be violated for no reason.
>This ball of energy is so incredibly high that it compresses this EMF to the point where it condenses into matter.
Matter creation came *after* the expansion started because heterogeneity is required for photon photon interactions.
>Similar to when a drop of water lands on something hot and forms a insoluble sphere.
'Insoluble sphere'? Why can it not be dissolved, exactly, and what the hell are you talking about?
>Matter is just condensed energy.
Energy =/= light. Energy is a property that matter, radiation and the vacuum possess.
>Energy is just the opposition of attractive and repellant forces of EMF and matter.
Can you define energy for us, please?
>We are basically in a really slow explosion.
Not everything is an exothermic reaction.
>Matter and energy interacting is what we perceive as work.
Energy is what is transfered when work is performed. You're confusing elementary bosons with a physical property.
>If you want to see an interactive field try and push to magnets together at the same pole. This is analogous to how energy forces work.
'energy forces'? This entire post reeks of highschool dropout.

>> No.11051671

>>11051351
Correct, and also, massless particle aren't energy. Energy is a property that particles (massive or otherwise) possess and is always conserved. It is a dimension not unlike charge and spin.

>> No.11051675

>>11051671
> It is a dimension not unlike charge and spin.
Charge yes (since both are Noether conserved), but spin no. Spin is more fundamental just as mass is because it enumerates the representations of the Poincare group.

>> No.11051701

>>11051675
I assumed spin was a spinor dimension associated with parity symmetry. The mathematical formulation behind physical properties exceeds me.

>> No.11051807

>>11051665
I like your work.
It's an analogy to make it as simple as possible, all the other explanations take paragraphs of quantum mechanical definitions and equations.
I was trying to do the simplest analogy as if explaining it to a child or something.

>> No.11052213

what do you mean explicitly when you say "what is"? what sort of answer are you looking for? when you ask such a questions youre toeing that annoying line between philosophy and science n shit. the reason this threads filled with bs is because this questions is ill defined. One answer to your question could be that energy is a quantity that is sort of used as a measure for a sort of way of bookkeeping - we know there exists a quantity about physical systems that is conserved, among its other properties. we call this quantity energy

>> No.11052216

>>11049417
>smug anime grills
hhnnngg

>> No.11052252

>>11051341
But why is there a limit of the speed of light?