Energy, something or nothing?

[redhawk14506]

We all know about the proven existence of energy. Energy is used to complete a task. But what about energy itself? Is energy something that has mass? Does energy exist in such a way that you could hold it?
I say no. I think energy is something from nothing, meaning that it is like 1/0. It exists but not as a physical entity like atoms. It channels power through atoms but energy itself is comprised of nothing. What are your views?

[Drakain Zeil]

Energy is not matter, therefore it cannot have a state or a state change, energy is energy. It can be slowed down, like light has been, but it is not matter, it is energy, this is why it is seperate from matter.

[redhawk14506]

This is believed to be true. But when you break down matter what do you get? Atoms, and when you break those down? Protons, neutrons, electrons, and when you break those down? quarks, and some other tiny stuff. But what about when you break those down? You will reach a point where it cant be broken down, where there are a few charged paricles wizzing around. When you break these down do you know what you will find? Energy. Energy is the nothing that makes up everything. Energy is undestroyable so you cant even break it down. It is unfathomable, the powers of energy. (Pardon the pun). You are right, to our knowledge it is not matter, but how many dimensions are there? 3? More? we don't know, so maybe we haven't found all the states of matter yet. So maybe it is. Remember: A closed mind lets in no air.

There is a lot more here. just 150 years ago physics had no good way of explaining atoms. Maybe energy is something we thought it wasn't. Maybe it is another dimension, like x,y,z. But what is the parralel? Most dimensions tend towards symmetry, meaning that x,y,z, and even time move at the same pace. Is energy different? No, if you have the same reaction with the same numbers of atoms the same energy level will be present. Meaning that Energy is measurable, like the popular E=MC^2 equation. Energy is not random, it is symmeterical, so it could very well be a dimension.

[RoadClosed]

I argue that energy is matter. Without matter there can be no energy?
Energy is excited matter.

[bballad]

Originally posted here by Drakain Zeil
Energy is not matter, therefore it cannot have a state or a state change, energy is energy. It can be slowed down, like light has been, but it is not matter, it is energy, this is why it is seperate from matter.

I think that atomic eneergy and atomic weapons have shown taht enstine was right and energy is matter, they are the same thing in a difrent forms, and we can turn matter into energy (heat, light, and kenetic being the most often created.), now if we could figure out how to pull of the reverse we would be getting somewhere.

[Drakain Zeil]

I believe you mean cold fuision.

[rapier57]

IIRC from high school science and chemistry, you can turn matter in to energy, but not the reverse. Has to do with the Law of Thermodynamics or something. So, yes, to a point, matter and energy are the same thing. But something gets lost in the translation when one becomes the other.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, matter loses mass when it is converted to energy.

Homework assignment: everybody write a haiku on the Law of Thermodynamics.

[TheRepublican]

I think that energy is just the movement of particles, like heat is molecules in an exited state, and electricity is just electrons moving through a conductor. So, because it is the movement of particles it sould have no mass as it is not the particles themselves.

[bballad]

Originally posted here by Drakain Zeil
I believe you mean cold fuision.

close but not exaxctly, fusion is the process of taking to atoms and turning them into one atom (of a slightly smaller size then the mass of the two indavidualy). This generates a lot of energy and can be done in a controlled enviroment now, unfortunitly it takes a *LOT* of heat to produce fusion (in fact it takes more energy then it creates.) so its a no go for energy production...now if (relativly) cold fusion where made poss. we would solve the worlds energy needs.

Originally posted here by rapier57
IIRC from high school science and chemistry, you can turn matter in to energy, but not the reverse. Has to do with the Law of Thermodynamics or something. So, yes, to a point, matter and energy are the same thing. But something gets lost in the translation when one becomes the other.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, matter loses mass when it is converted to energy.

Homework assignment: everybody write a haiku on the Law of Thermodynamics.

look at the equation E(energy)=M(mass)*C^2(speed of light ^2)
well takeing a small amount of mass we get a large amount of energy bucause that constant is a stupidly big number but E/c^2 = M IT would take a *Very* large amount of energy to make a very small amount of mass, not very cost effective.

[RoadClosed]

Lol I was going to use good old Einstein's equation on Energy Mass Relation as an argument. It states energy and mass are related and you can even find out how much energy is needed to bind the nucleus of atoms from that E=MC^2 thing. You see, through this equation and his mathematics, he states that energy and mass are equivalent.

Now for the argument that energy is only channeled through atoms and it not tangible. I have been pondering that but got side tracked by the matter/energy relationship because in my understanding of the universe, based on measured experiments: matter and energy are the same and related directly. Energy is particles of matter in and excited state.

Even if you break molecules down to atoms and atoms to electrons etc..., the underlying energy or "force" holding it all together are magnetic fields. In fact the electron theory or how energy is transmitted through a conductor is a theory. We can't see electrons. We can detect something and make a hypothesis and it all seems to work because we can accurately explain how molecules are made and map and predict which valence electrons need to be exchanged in order to make something like water (H2O) out of available and known elements.

The underlying substrate of all atoms and particles is good old magnetic flux, and possibly gravity. The correlation to another dimension has nothing to do with energy. It's the lack of anything or "free space" that implies the possibility of alternate space time continuums. When you get that small there is A LOT of free space, something on the magnitude of 99.99999999 percent? The problem is, this free space is the size of a proton or so. And that leads into threads and other purely hypothetical alternate dimension and time travel theories. Hmm all these recent topics seem to be pointing to: proving or disproving time related entities?

The theory goes something like, since there is all this SPACE, something extremely small could exist in that space and not be part of that atom’s makeup and is undetectable in our universe or more accurately called our “continuum” It’s only relation to energy that I can see is it’s orientation to the flux of our universe. If it’s aligned, we could perceive it, if not aligned it’s completely invisible.

Using this train of thought, a particle such as a neutrino could theoretically exist inside and outside of our continuum because it can fit in this tiny area of free space outside the make up of an atom of matter. I could buy that and as more research is refined I could begin to accept it, it’s definitely plausible. But once again that does not preclude or even substantiate any means of time travel and we would have no way to ever detect the object unless the flux is changed.

Copyright 2003
Road Closed