[ 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: 32 KB, 400x265, A JAR OF PURE ENERGY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6534311 No.6534311 [Reply] [Original]

WTF IS "ENERGY"???

>> No.6534329

>>6534311

mass * distance^2 / duration^2

>> No.6534333

e = mc^2
e = 0.5mv^2
e = fd
e = hf
e = mgh
e = w + q
e = TdS - PdV

>> No.6534335

>>6534311
I think OP might be looking for a biology lesson

>> No.6534342

>>6534311
A concept that works fantastically to make predictions about how a physical system will behave under certain conditions.

>> No.6534347

I actually was wondering this, in the equation
e=mc^2
What unit of energy are they talking about? Volts? Amps?
Usually e when I've seen it is in volts.
So the potential is mass times the speed of light squared?

>> No.6534355

>>6534347
No, it's in electron-volts, a unit of energy.
To understand this, keep in mind that the definition of an electron volt is the quantity of kinetic energy that an electron gains when it's accelerated by a potential of V=1 V.
So E=mc^2 has the units: [mass]*[distance/time]^2, which are units for energy.
I hope i made it clear, English is not my native language

>> No.6534360

>>6534355
You're good, I understand most of that. I've not taken physics yet so I just wasn't sure of the notation.

>> No.6534373

>>6534355
>>6534347
>>6534333
>>6534329
I want to know what energy is physically, substantially, essentially; not how to measure it.

If I asked you what distance was you wouldn't say, d = s*t, would you?

>> No.6534377

>>6534373
Energy is anything with potential to do work. Work is defined as Force x Distance.
You measure how much energy potential it can have in those units.

>> No.6534381

>>6534373
Energy is the ability for something to do work. As in, it's used to describe motion, heat, electricity, etc. All things that can be turned into each other mechanically and cause physical change in anything measurable.

>>6534377
fucking scooped me

>> No.6534384

>>6534373
The thing is, it's not that easy to explain.
It's a concept, and it's so useful that it's used in almost every single branch of science out there (and quacks use it to justify whatever bullshit they are trying to sell you, as if saying "energy" justifies anything).
The definition (which is mathematical) implies that is a property of objects, which depends in the, say, quantity of object you have. And what this thing do? Well, it allows you for example to move things around, to start a movement.

>> No.6534388

>>6534311
It's the quantity which is conserved in terms of the second-derivative of the motion of fundamental particles through (Minkowski) space.

>> No.6534389

>>6534355
>>6534347
its Joules you fucking tards

>> No.6534390

>>6534373
It kind of is, Distance is the amount traveled with a certain speed over a certain interval.
There is no such thing as "pure energy" as a physical object.
You can't hold energy in your hand. You can measure how much energy potential you have in certain units. Then when you transfer that energy to work (like electrifying a nail to make it become a magnet), you measure how much work is done per unit of energy spent.

I'm not even a physics student and I know that.

>> No.6534391

>>6534384
That being said, energy can be defined in other areas. For example, we say that objects have internal energy, which is the energy of the movement of it's constitutents. So for example, if we consider temperature to be a measure of how fast it's particles are moving, then a "hotter" object will have it's particles moving faster, and so it will have a greater internal energy. And a bigger object will have more energy just because it is bigger (by big i mean more massive).
Energy can also exist in transit, going from point A to point B, usually by means of some particle, for example a photon.
In relativity, things get a bit weirder: we say that if there is mass, there is energy, and vice-versa, which means that if we have energy, we have mass (not exactly, but it helps to give you a general idea of the E=mc^2).
In quantum mechanics, the energy of any particle is E=hf, where f is the frequency, that is the amount of times the particle vibrates, per unit of time.
You can see that in general energy is related to movement in some way or another.
I can explain more to you if you wish

>> No.6534396

>>6534389
He asked if it could be volts*velocity^2, probably had read electron-volts somewhere and thought it was the same as volts. Remember that
1 eV= idontknowhamny Joules, so i don't know why you are so butthurt

>> No.6534406

>>6534391
I forgot: Energy cannot be destroyed nor created, it can only be transformed from one form into the other.
For example, if you are standing on the roof of a 10 meters tall building, and suddenly let yourself fall to the ground, the energy you had before falling was (your mass)*(9.8 m/s^2)*(10 meters), and the instant before you hit the ground the energy that you now have is the same, but is know kinetic energy of the form E=0.5*(your mass) (your velocity)^2. After you crash into the ground, the energy is now transformed partly into heat, partly into sound, partly into kinetic energy of the parts of you that are now scattering all over the place. But all this energy that has been scattered in the crash will be equal to the one you had before it;no more, no less.

>> No.6534435

>>6534396
joules are the units for energy
anybody who uses eV is a complete waste of space

>> No.6534439

>>6534311
electrons

>> No.6534445

Energy is like honey:

It never spoils.
Nobody's ever observed it being created or destroyed.
It has carrier bees.
It's often used in bad analogies.
It appears in this post.

>> No.6534452

>joules are the units for energy

or wattseconds or newtonmeters or electronvolts or ..

in SI base units it's simply kg*m^2/s^2

>> No.6534454

>>6534445
Wow man that was beautiful.
You're like a shark, you just can't stop... making analogies.

>> No.6534455

>>6534435
Middle schooler please go.

>> No.6534460

OP wants to know what the essence of energy is. What is it "made" of? Does it even exist outside of our equations?

>> No.6534469

>>6534445

ebin

also semiebin for almost quads

:^)

>> No.6534473

>>6534452
>in SI base units it's simply kg*m^2/s^2

That's a Joule.

>> No.6534475

The capacity to cause change.

>> No.6534479

>>6534311
>>6534373
Here's a full answer:

Energy is a number. You can calculate the energy of any physical system (though in quantum systems, the energy may not be definitely known) using a set of well-known expressions.
Energy is often defined as "the capacity to do work", but work is just an exchange of energy. So it's not a very useful definition.

Energy, as a concept, is important because for any ISOLATED system, <span class="math">energy\,is\,conserved[/spoiler]. Conserved, as in the total energy does not change.
Why? The best explanation for this is given by a deep physical and mathematical fact known as Noether's theorem (named after its discoverer, Emmy Noether). The theorem applies to all levels of physics, from Newtonian mechanics to Quantum Field Theory.
Noether's theorem states that any continuous symmetry of a physical system (as in, a transformation that would leave the physical laws invariant) corresponds to a conserved quantity.

Time-translation invariance is the physical symmetry that gives rise to the conserved quantity of energy.

So energy conservation is not only useful (for solving problems), but it is deeply connected with the physical properties of the universe.

Another important property of energy is that in most branches of physics, only <span class="math">differences[/spoiler] in energy have physical meaning.
For example, one result of Quantum Field Theory is that the vacuum of space contains an infinite amount of energy! However, since only <span class="math">differences[/spoiler] in energy can be measured, physicists can just "subtract" this infinite vacuum energy.

>> No.6534481

>>6534475
>>6534475
So energy is dependent upon time then? Because without time, there would be no change. So we have to take into account a notion of time when defining energy.

>> No.6534483

>>6534481
>take into account a notion of time when defining energy

Yes, always.

And vice versa in some weird and awesome ways.

>> No.6534485

Get a closed system. In the classical setting, time is absolute therefore it is preserved under a galilean transformation.
Because the physics is the same in inertial frames, this implies that your laws can't contain time explicitly(your lagrangian for example doesn't depend on time).
This implies that there is a scalar quantity which doesn't vary, which we call energy.

>> No.6534487

>>6534311
does energy actually exist? or is energy just potential?

>> No.6534488

>>6534479
>Energy is a number.

Is it greater or smaller than pi?

>Energy is often defined as "the capacity to do work", but work is just an exchange of energy.

Yeah, that would be saying, "energy is the capacity to exchange energy"; nonsensical.

>Energy, as a concept, is important because for any ISOLATED system, energyisconserved. Conserved, as in the total energy does not change.

That's fantastic, but I still don't know what energy is (other than it being a number), so I have no idea what exactly is being conserved. I suppose the number pi is conserved in all isolated systems too. If I told you vimbo was conserved in all isolated systems, you wouldn't be able to disagree with me because you have no idea what vimbo is.

So is energy like a gold syrupy substance that is stored in things? Do objects "have" energy? If so, how is it stored?

>> No.6534493

>>6534485
Why energy? Why not call it vimbo? If energy really is just a "scalar quantity" why not use a word like vimbo, and not a word like "energy" which tempts New Agers and pseudoscientists in their odd theories?

>> No.6534494

>>6534487
There is nothing in the universe that is not, in a very literal way, energy. So yes energy exists since existence exists.

>> No.6534496

>>6534488
>Yeah, that would be saying, "energy is the capacity to exchange energy"; nonsensical.

It's not nonsensical. Work is QUANTIFIED in energy, but it's quite easy to see what it is in examples, e.g. lifting something heavy or heating up a pot of water. We can compare those two things directly by how much energy is involved.

>> No.6534499

>>6534494
So energy is a pantheistic God? You really are attracting the attention of New Agers.

>> No.6534501

>>6534473
>That's a Joule.
Or any other derived unit for energy.

>> No.6534503

>>6534501
>Or any other derived unit for energy.

Nope, just a Joule.

>> No.6534509

>>6534496
So basically, energy is a quantity and definitely not a quality? It's just that in vernacular we talk of energy as being a quality, e.g. "he's energetic".

>> No.6534510

>>6534488.
>Yeah, that would be saying, "energy is the capacity to exchange energy"; nonsensical.
It's not nonsensical, but it's not a useful way to define energy.

>That's fantastic, but I still don't know what energy is (other than it being a number), so I have no idea what exactly is being conserved. I suppose the number pi is conserved in all isolated systems too. If I told you vimbo was conserved in all isolated systems, you wouldn't be able to disagree with me because you have no idea what vimbo is.
Did you even read this post: >>6534479 ? Or did you just skim the top of it and then reply angrily?
I will quote from it again:
>Noether's theorem states that any continuous symmetry of a physical system (as in, a transformation that would leave the physical laws invariant) corresponds to a conserved quantity.
>Time-translation invariance is the physical symmetry that gives rise to the conserved quantity of energy.
>So energy conservation is not only useful (for solving problems), but it is deeply connected with the physical properties of the universe.
Try reading the post more carefully.

>> No.6534515

>>6534509

Yes.

>> No.6534517

So how does an electron 'carry' energy?

>> No.6534518

>>6534499
I'd address that specifically that If I knew or cared what that meant.

>> No.6534532

>>6534517
In little plastic bags.

>> No.6534535

>>6534517
>So how does an electron 'carry' energy?
An electron doesn't physically "carry" anything. Energy is simply a value that can be calculated, based on the electron's mass and speed.

As was mentioned before, energy conservation is due to the time invariance of the universe. Look up "noether's theorem."

>> No.6534538

>>6534535
> Energy is simply a value that can be calculated

Why do I get the feeling that physicists will say this about anything?

>> No.6534550

The capacity to change a system from its current state.

>> No.6534552

>>6534535
So in a circuit, the electron moves faster before reaching a resistor, but it still has the same pace? That makes sense to me. Is that how we believe it works?

>> No.6534556

>>6534538
>Why do I get the feeling that physicists will say this about anything?
Well... at the end of the day, EVERYTHING is just numbers.
The point I was trying to make was simply that energy isn't some physical "substance" or some kind of fluid.

>> No.6534558

>>6534538
Because that's what everything in physics is. A model that we can use to predict outcomes in the real world. Energy happens to be a useful quantity to define when working with this sort of thing.

>> No.6534560

>>6534552
>So in a circuit, the electron moves faster before reaching a resistor, but it still has the same pace? That makes sense to me. Is that how we believe it works?
In a circuit, the electrons are under a constant force due to the battery (or whatever power source is being used). However, the electrons keep bumping into atoms and stuff, so when viewed as a whole, we can just say that the electrons are moving with a constant velocity, the "drift velocity."

>> No.6534580

>>6534560
Thank you

>> No.6534599

the ability to do work

>> No.6534604

>>6534493
Because new agers and pseudoscientists started using energy after they saw how well did this construct work: change the word to vimbo and in some time in the future you would have them spouting bullshit about vimbo.

>> No.6534625

>>6534311

The ability to do work.

>> No.6535359

>>6534435
>anybody who uses eV is a complete waste of space
Okay, let's just use Joules all the time for quantum physics then

>> No.6535365

>>6534311
It's a number that systems of stuff have that measures their ability to do things to other stuff.

>> No.6535366

>>6534493
Because energy translates to "work" in Greek, and classical physicists were all about those Greek roots. If you're going to pick a name, pick a name that means something.

>> No.6535411

>>6534435
>anybody who uses eV is a complete waste of space
if you don't use eV to denote energy and temperature, you're not doing anything important

>> No.6535415

>eV versus Joules
>using units at all

Energy is an amalgation of other physics quantities which is sometimes conserved, which makes it sometimes useful to describe physical systems.

>> No.6535417

>>6535411
>if you don't use eV to denote energy and temperature, you're not doing anything important

whoever designed the powerplants that allowed you to heave vitriol over this imageboard obviously did nothing important.

>> No.6535442

>>6534479
>Emmy Noether

Never heard that name. It pisses me off that all throughout high school and college, in all my textbooks, they never talk about the important people and their discoveries. I know because when people on /sci/ start talking about complicated strong theory shit, they throw names and theories I never learned. For me its always been "neils bohr" or "muh einstein"

>> No.6535690

>>6534479
>The best explanation for this is given by a deep physical and mathematical fact known as Noether's theorem
The real deep thing is that we assume the motions of objects in our universe are subjected to differential equations that are always the same (i.e. laws of physics that don't change between now and next second or next year), so when you integrate these differential equations between some given initial and final states, the result will be the same whether you do the integration now or at any other time. For instance if an object is subjected to Newton's law of gravitation m.r''(t) = -GmM/r(t)^2 (which is assumed to hold at any time), its integral between times t1 and t2 will always be (1/2).m.v(t2)^2 - (1/2).m.v(t1)^2 = GmM/r(t2) - GmM/r(t1), so between times t1 and t2 the quantity (1/2).m.v(t)^2 - GmM/r(t) is always conserved.

@OP: in the above example we call (1/2).m.v(t)^2 kinetic energy and -GmM/r(t) gravitational potential energy. If additionally the object was subjected to Coulomb's law (which is also assumed to hold at any time), the conserved quantity would be (1/2).m.v(t)^2 - GmM/r(t) + kqQ/r(t), where we call kqQ/r(t) electric potential energy. If it was additionally subjected to other laws there would be additional terms in the conserved quantity. All these energies are just numbers. If you assume that things in our universe are subjected to laws that are always the same, then there is a quantity that is always conserved, which we call energy. Conservation of energy follows from the assumption that laws of physics are constant through time. If we find that some laws of physics change with time then conservation of energy does not hold.

>> No.6535723

>>6534347
E=mc^2 simply says that if an object emits an amount E of energy, its mass will decrease by an amount E/c^2. Of course it doesn't really emit 'energy' which is just a number, what it emits are photons, which have the ability to accelerate for instance electrons to some velocity v, and the value we give to that energy is the value (1/2).M*v^2 where M is the mass of the electron. So if an object of mass m emits 10^9 photons, each of which having the ability to accelerate an electron of mass M to the velocity v, then E=10^9*(1/2)*M*v^2, which means the object will lose an amount 5*10^8*(v/c)^2*M of mass.

The value of (1/2).M.v^2 is determined through experiments. Turns out this value is proportional to the frequency of the photon, that is (1/2).M.v^2 = h.f. So if you know the frequency of the photons the object emits, and how many it emits, you can predict how much mass it will lose.

All along the above reasoning energy is only an intermediary mathematical tool, a number, which is made evident by the fact you could make the same prediction without talking about energy at all. For instance you could find experimentally that the amount of mass an object loses depends on the frequency of the photons it emits and how many it emits, such that the emission of a photon of frequency f decreases the mass of the object by the amount h.f/c^2, where h is Planck's constant (which you determine experimentally), and at no point did you need to refer to energy. The formula E=mc^2 is just a convenient way to sum it up.

>> No.6535736

>>6534373

Couldn't u simply say energy is that which causes physical change?

Can physical change occur without energy?

I'm just musing here. Of course I suppose the change is simply the effect of energy, not energy itself.

Can we actually define anything? I mean if you ask anybody to define something we do so by describing it's characteristics, it's capabilities, or it's effects. There's really no way to define the 'thing' itself, we simply use abstractions to describe it.

>> No.6535743

Energy is how much effort god put in to create a certain object/system.

>> No.6535759

>>6535736
>Couldn't u simply say energy is that which causes physical change?

No, because that's very vague. What does "change" mean, and in what sense does energy "cause" it? Is there always change where there is energy? Are they proportional somehow?

>> No.6535778

>>6534558
That is obvious, but when you put a disclaimer in front of everything saying "this is not necessarily real, its just an interpretation etc" it only serves to make people who are trying to understand even more confused.

Let them get the physics first and then tackle the philosophy after

>> No.6535890

>>6535778
Not to mention people who will try to discredit science with "its just a theory (a geuss)"

>> No.6535991

>>6535890
Lol if those people have any standing then obviously your evidence is lacking.

>> No.6535997

Energy is movement.

Temperature is a measurement of energy. The system is moving faster, thus more energy.

At absolute 0... there is no movement, no energy, and no time.

Therefore Energy = Movement.

>> No.6536061

>>6535997
>energy = movement

Movement (kinetic energy) is only one type of energy. Every other type of energy is some form of Potential Energy which works through the medium of one of the four fundamental forces, which are gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear.

Any of these energy types can be transformed between each other by various physical interactions. Photosynthesis? Photons bumping electrons around. Nuclear bomb? Chain reaction of flying neutrons forcing nuclei to fuse or split enough to release their nuclear potential energy (strong and weak) into kinetic/thermal energy. You lift a weight? Chemical (electrical potential) energy in your body making muscle fibers pull on each other and your bones (EM repulsion, source of all mechanical interactions) to make your arm pull on a weight to lift it through Earth's gravitational field, gaining gravitational potential energy until you let to and said energy is converted back to kinetic (falling) and then to sonic/thermal/mechanical energy (again, all derived from EM).

Thermal absolute zero is impossible to reach due to thermodynamics, which is the way it is due to quantum mechanics. Btw, even if you had a perfect absolute zero crystal lattice of atoms, they would still have EM potential energy exerting force between every atom in that lattice. So, no dice on "energy is movement and ONLY movement," bro.

>> No.6536075
File: 12 KB, 473x300, exo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6536075

>> No.6536089

No for real, what is energy really? How is it just there? How and why is the way it is?

>> No.6536124

What is force? Newton DEFINED it to be [mass]*[acceleration], while also defining acceleration, velocity, distance and time. You don't feel any force unless you define what force is. Same thing with energy and work. They are definitions and we derive theories under these axioms. That's physics, there is no beauty into it, math is where the world keeps its secrets.
So energy is [mass][length]^2[time]^-2

>> No.6536183

How do we know that entropy and energy exist and aren't just fudge factors designed to make the math work?

Bonus points: Don't use any analogies, especially those involving a messy room.

>> No.6536188

>>6536183

What do you mean by "fudge factors designed to make the math work?" What math?

>> No.6536218

>>6536183
entropy is waste heat, energy that is unusable to do work. and energy is what we use to do work

>> No.6536318

>>6534311
Energy is the ability to push stuff. It's not a "thing" it's an "ability"

>> No.6536319

>>6534435
Virgin detected.

>> No.6536384

>>6536124
>What is force? Newton DEFINED it to be [mass]*[acceleration]
Nice to see I'm not the only one around here who realized this. Force, energy, work, mass, acceleration, velocity, all of these are defined quantities. You can describe how the universe works just as well talking only about distances and times (with the addition of probabilities in quantum mechanics). It's just more complicated, which is the reason why we use higher level abstractions.

For instance velocity is defined to be distance traveled in a given time. Acceleration is defined to be the change in velocity in a given time. Mass is defined as a ratio of accelerations (if in the same experiment object A accelerates twice faster than object B, object A is said to have a mass twice lower than object B). Force is defined as mass*acceleration. Work as the integral of force*distance. Energy as the ability to do work. When you measure an electric current, a temperature or a pressure, you are always measuring a combination of distances and times.

Even time is not so fundamental, it is a measure of motion relative to other motions: for instance you can define the velocity of some object as the distance traveled by that object while some other object has traveled 1 metre.

Then distance is something you measure inside the representation that your brain makes of the outside world from the input of some of your senses (sight mostly). Without the senses of sight, touch and hearing we wouldn't even have a notion of distance. It could be that with senses different to ours we would have an elaborate perception of the world in which distance is not even definable. Physics describes the representation that your brain produces with mathematical laws. An alien with different senses might have a completely different representation with completely different laws. And it might be that probabilities in quantum mechanics arise because of things we cannot perceive acting on those things we do perceive.

>> No.6536430

>>6534373
Energy is a quantity that is conserved is the best that I can do

>> No.6536473

>>6536384
You can't get away with just distance and time. You need to also have the basic properties such as mass, charge, etc. The ratio of accelerations only gives you the ratio of masses, not both masses individually. Mass is a property unto itself.

>> No.6536490

>>6536384
>>6536124
Force isnt defined as mass*acceleration, Force is defined as the time derivative of linear momentum.

P=mv --> dP/dt=d(mv)/dt=m(dv/dt)+v(dm/dt) but if dm/dt=0 then dP/dt=m(dv/dt) and since dv/dt=a then dP/dt=ma=F.

F=ma only applies when dm/dt=0.

>> No.6536497

So I know energy is the ability to do work. But what really gives something the ability to do work? I know electricity is electrons. Is it electrons? Is it photons? I don't quite get it.

>> No.6536503

A form of book keeping. Energy is not in itself a tangible thing that exists in reality. It is a way to explain the magnitude of reactions within the current mathematical framework we use to describe our observations of the physical universe around us.

>> No.6536527

>>6536473
>The ratio of accelerations only gives you the ratio of masses, not both masses individually
Just where do you think we got the unit of mass, the kilogram? Out of our asses that's where. You take one object that you define to be one unit of mass, and then from the ratios of accelerations you derive the masses of other bodies.

>charge, etc
Same thing, charge shows up as a ratio of accelerations.

>>6536490
>Force isnt defined as mass*acceleration
That's how Newton defined it.

>Force is defined as the time derivative of linear momentum
That's just how it was generalized later on. F=ma implicitly assumes that the mass remains constant. If the mass changes then it's equivalent to the case where you have two objects of masses m1 and m2 (such that m=m1+m2) initially stuck together which move away from each other, then F=ma applies to both objects of masses m1 and m2.

>> No.6536529

>Mass-Energy Equivalence
>Time-Space Equivalence

What about Energy-Space?
Surely there is one given the vacuum energy.
Then we could just tell OP energy is everything.

>> No.6536531

>>6536497
>But what really gives something the ability to do work?
Why do things have the ability to accelerate other things? We have no idea, probably never will, but if they didn't then everything would be moving at a constant velocity and we wouldn't be here to wonder about it

>> No.6536560

>>6536497
It's not a tangible thing, it is a mathematical concept that works out on paper.

>> No.6536564

>>6536560
>implying
light is energy you bitch, which is tangible

>> No.6536580

>>6536529
Time and space have dimensionality of -1, and energy and mass have dimensionality of +1. Time-space is therefore opposite to energy-mass.
Also, action (and angular momentum) and velocity are dimensionless quantities.

Look up "dimensional analysis in quantum field theory" for more. In QFT, you use units in which <span class="math">\hbar = c = 1[/spoiler].

>> No.6536612

>>6536564
>light is energy
No it's not.

>> No.6536621

What a meaningless question. "energy" is the end of the turtles all the way down. After you ask what "energy" is you are not asking anything.

>> No.6536628

>>6536612
kek

>> No.6536631
File: 700 KB, 650x736, retard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6536631

>>6536612

>> No.6536655

>>6536612
> >light is energy
> No it's not.
obvious bait is obvious. are you even trying?

>> No.6536659

>>6534311
That which must be conserved.

>> No.6536661

> electrons are energy

>> No.6536662

>>6534311

A time symmetric invariant.

>> No.6536717

>>6536628
>>6536631
>>6536655
forgive me for not being aware of one of your shit memes, I happen to have a life

>> No.6536723

>>6536717
>memes
uwotm8 are u retarded

>> No.6536734

>>6536717
>I happen to have a life
so why does that make you retarded enough to say "light isn't energy"?

>> No.6537340

If it's a "force" then what is a force? Is it an object or is it not an object? If it is an object then where is it, if it is not an object then how can something bodiless cause motion in bodies (isn't that like a ghost or spirit)?

What annoys me is how I am told at one time that gravity is a"force", and at another time that it is "curvature in spacetime". Which is it? Am I glued to the globe by a mystical, omnipresent force, or by an invisible curvature in an invisible "spacetime"?

Does gravity even exist?

>> No.6537345

Everything in the universe is part energy. If our minds were at peace with the energy, we would be in heaven. (Energy is potentially infinite). Suck on that non-believers.

>> No.6537356

>nobody knows op
>just assume it cam from the big bang
>everything still is the big bang to a certain extent

>> No.6537363

>>6534391
>In quantum mechanics, the energy of any particle is E=hf, where f is the frequency, that is the amount of times the particle vibrates, per unit of time.


I must correct that. The frequency is the amount of times the wavefunction vibrates, not the particle. This wavefunction is the square root of the probability of finding the particle in a certain position.

>> No.6537460

>>6536734
Is it still bait or this was no meme and you are actually so uneducated as to believe light is energy? Energy is a number, light is not a number.

>> No.6537466

>>6537340
Mass tells space-time how to curve, curved space-time tells mass where to go.

>> No.6537472

>>6537340
You again? I answered to you numerous times in your threads, what is it you still do not get? Force is a mathematical tool, spacetime is a mathematical tool, force and spacetime are not substances or physical entities, they are mathematical tools. Your frustration comes from the fact textbooks and scientific articles keep referring to forces and curvature of spacetime as causes, while they are merely mathematical descriptions. NOBODY has any idea why you are glued to the globe, we just observe that you are, and we observe that in fact all matter attracts other matter. Sometimes they repel or attract more than usual, we have no idea why either, but we quantify it and we call it electricity and magnetism. We quantify how much matter attracts other matter, we don't explain why, but if you weren't glued to the globe then you wouldn't be here to ask the question a hundred times.