Energy explained (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, August 05, 2014, 22:24 (3763 days ago)
A good review:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-can-neither-be-created-nor-destroyed/?&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20140805
Energy explained, again
by David Turell , Saturday, March 18, 2017, 21:11 (2807 days ago) @ David Turell
A good review:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-can-neither-be-created-nor-destroyed/
Another good explanation:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/what-is-energy
"Any physics textbook will tell you energy is “the capacity to do work”. Then it usually goes on to explain that “work” is the action of moving something against a force. But isn’t this definition kind of unsatisfying? It’s a bit like Plato’s definition of man as a “featherless biped” – it’s hard to poke holes in the reasoning, but you can’t help but feel something is missing.
"The reason energy is so hard to define is because it’s an abstract notion. In physics, the concept of “energy” is really just a kind of shorthand, a tool to help balance the books. Energy is always conserved (or converted into mass) so is incredibly useful in working out the results of any kind of physical or chemical process.
"'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.
"The classic example of kinetic energy is a billiard ball rolling across a table. The heavier the ball, the faster it moves, the more energy it carries. In other words, the more painful it will be if it pops off the table and lands on your little toe.
"Another form of kinetic energy is known as heat. The temperature of something is a direct measurement of how fast the atoms inside it are moving.
***
"Throw an iron bar into the fire and its atoms start moving faster too, although in this case the atoms are bound in position, and so the movement is the form of a jiggling vibration.
***
"Sometimes an object is pulled or pushed in a particular direction, but its movement is stopped by some other force. In this case, the object is said to have potential energy. Potential energy means the potential to move.
"It’s a bit like a racing car driver pressing the accelerator with the handbrake still on – nothing much happens until she releases the brake.
"A glass sitting on a table is being pulled down by the force of gravity. But any movement is being stopped by a much stronger force – the electrical repulsion of the atoms in the table. Give the glass a nudge off the table, though, and it falls.
"What about chemical energy, electrical energy, or nuclear energy? These are a bit more complicated, but in the final analysis, all these forms of energy also involve a type of movement or a potential to move.
"For example, lots of energy is locked, like a coiled spring, inside atomic nuclei. This energy can be released when a uranium nucleus splits in two. The two halves are both positively charged, and so just after the split they are electrically repelled by other another and fly apart. Thus the nuclear potential energy ends up as kinetic energy.
"As the Russian physicist Lev Okun said, “The more basic is a physical notion, the more difficult to define it in words.” For energy, the best we can do is say it’s the capacity to cause movement."
Comment: So energy is a potential quantity concealed in the particles that form matter.
Energy explained, again
QUOTE: "'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.”
This caught my eye, since you have suggested that your God is “pure energy”, and prior to his creation of the universe, there was nothing except conscious “pure energy”. The article is not concerned with metaphysics, but it does raise the issue of definition in relation to your idea of the first cause. If energy is always “carried by something”, I’m not sure how it can actually exist without matter.
Energy explained, again
by David Turell , Sunday, March 19, 2017, 14:50 (2806 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: QUOTE: "'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.”
This caught my eye, since you have suggested that your God is “pure energy”, and prior to his creation of the universe, there was nothing except conscious “pure energy”. The article is not concerned with metaphysics, but it does raise the issue of definition in relation to your idea of the first cause. If energy is always “carried by something”, I’m not sure how it can actually exist without matter.
We are trapped by our own confused view of quantum mechanics. The particles which contain the energy are waves and fields, all smudged out until measured as points of energy. Matter is energy on the outside and mind is energy on the inside to quote my philosophy professor again, who was a doctor of divinity. God is pure mind, no particles.
Energy explained, again
dhw: QUOTE: "'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.”
This caught my eye, since you have suggested that your God is “pure energy”, and prior to his creation of the universe, there was nothing except conscious “pure energy”. The article is not concerned with metaphysics, but it does raise the issue of definition in relation to your idea of the first cause. If energy is always “carried by something”, I’m not sure how it can actually exist without matter.
DAVID: We are trapped by our own confused view of quantum mechanics. The particles which contain the energy are waves and fields, all smudged out until measured as points of energy. Matter is energy on the outside and mind is energy on the inside to quote my philosophy professor again, who was a doctor of divinity. God is pure mind, no particles.
Sweet, but did your philosophy professor explain how you can have an inside without an outside?
Energy explained, again
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 21, 2017, 14:06 (2804 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: QUOTE: "'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.”
This caught my eye, since you have suggested that your God is “pure energy”, and prior to his creation of the universe, there was nothing except conscious “pure energy”. The article is not concerned with metaphysics, but it does raise the issue of definition in relation to your idea of the first cause. If energy is always “carried by something”, I’m not sure how it can actually exist without matter.DAVID: We are trapped by our own confused view of quantum mechanics. The particles which contain the energy are waves and fields, all smudged out until measured as points of energy. Matter is energy on the outside and mind is energy on the inside to quote my philosophy professor again, who was a doctor of divinity. God is pure mind, no particles.
dhw: Sweet, but did your philosophy professor explain how you can have an inside without an outside?
Sweet, but one of the major insights I ever received! It forms one leg of my theology. I'll ask you, have you ever seen he outside of your consciousness?
Energy explained, again
dhw: QUOTE: "'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.”
This caught my eye, since you have suggested that your God is “pure energy”, and prior to his creation of the universe, there was nothing except conscious “pure energy”. The article is not concerned with metaphysics, but it does raise the issue of definition in relation to your idea of the first cause. If energy is always “carried by something”, I’m not sure how it can actually exist without matter.
DAVID: We are trapped by our own confused view of quantum mechanics. The particles which contain the energy are waves and fields, all smudged out until measured as points of energy. Matter is energy on the outside and mind is energy on the inside to quote my philosophy professor again, who was a doctor of divinity. God is pure mind, no particles.
dhw: Sweet, but did your philosophy professor explain how you can have an inside without an outside?
DAVID: Sweet, but one of the major insights I ever received! It forms one leg of my theology. I'll ask you, have you ever seen he outside of your consciousness?
That is the essence of the problem. Materialists think that matter is the outside of consciousness – in humans, the brain. Have you ever seen consciousness that is not housed by materials?
Energy explained, again
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 22, 2017, 13:43 (2803 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Sweet, but did your philosophy professor explain how you can have an inside without an outside?[/i]
DAVID: Sweet, but one of the major insights I ever received! It forms one leg of my theology. I'll ask you, have you ever seen he outside of your consciousness?dhw: That is the essence of the problem. Materialists think that matter is the outside of consciousness – in humans, the brain. Have you ever seen consciousness that is not housed by materials?
I have stated consciousness requires a receiver.
Energy explained, again
dhw: Sweet, but did your philosophy professor explain how you can have an inside without an outside?
DAVID: Sweet, but one of the major insights I ever received! It forms one leg of my theology. I'll ask you, have you ever seen he outside of your consciousness?
dhw: That is the essence of the problem. Materialists think that matter is the outside of consciousness – in humans, the brain. Have you ever seen consciousness that is not housed by materials?
DAVID: I have stated consciousness requires a receiver.
Indeed. Back to the beginning of this discussion:
QUOTE: "'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.”
Dhw: This caught my eye, since you have suggested that your God is “pure energy”, and prior to his creation of the universe, there was nothing except conscious “pure energy”. The article is not concerned with metaphysics, but it does raise the issue of definition in relation to your idea of the first cause. If energy is always “carried by something”, I’m not sure how it can actually exist without matter.
You see the problem?
Energy explained, again
by David Turell , Thursday, March 23, 2017, 14:28 (2802 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.”Dhw: This caught my eye, since you have suggested that your God is “pure energy”, and prior to his creation of the universe, there was nothing except conscious “pure energy”. The article is not concerned with metaphysics, but it does raise the issue of definition in relation to your idea of the first cause. If energy is always “carried by something”, I’m not sure how it can actually exist without matter.
You see the problem?
No. God can be whatever He wants to be. He does not necessarily fit the energy/matter physics theories as we know them. After all He sits behind Heisenberg's wall of uncertainty. See the entry today about his wall.
Energy explained, again
QUOTE: "'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.”
Dhw: This caught my eye, since you have suggested that your God is “pure energy”, and prior to his creation of the universe, there was nothing except conscious “pure energy”. The article is not concerned with metaphysics, but it does raise the issue of definition in relation to your idea of the first cause. If energy is always “carried by something”, I’m not sure how it can actually exist without matter.
You see the problem?
David: No. God can be whatever He wants to be. He does not necessarily fit the energy/matter physics theories as we know them. After all He sits behind Heisenberg's wall of uncertainty. See the entry today about his wall.
One might perhaps put it another way. Since he sits/hides behind a wall of uncertainty – or alternatively, there may nothing at all behind this wall of uncertainty – God can be whatever you want him to be.
Energy explained, again
by David Turell , Friday, March 24, 2017, 13:43 (2801 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "'There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”. Energy is always carried by something, usually in the form of movement.”
Dhw: This caught my eye, since you have suggested that your God is “pure energy”, and prior to his creation of the universe, there was nothing except conscious “pure energy”. The article is not concerned with metaphysics, but it does raise the issue of definition in relation to your idea of the first cause. If energy is always “carried by something”, I’m not sure how it can actually exist without matter.
You see the problem?David: No. God can be whatever He wants to be. He does not necessarily fit the energy/matter physics theories as we know them. After all He sits behind Heisenberg's wall of uncertainty. See the entry today about his wall.
dhw: One might perhaps put it another way. Since he sits/hides behind a wall of uncertainty – or alternatively, there may nothing at all behind this wall of uncertainty – God can be whatever you want him to be.
Of course God can be whatever seems right. That's faith for you!
Energy explained, again; example of plasma, pure energy
by David Turell , Saturday, August 11, 2018, 19:44 (2296 days ago) @ David Turell
Experimental production of nanoplasma:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/incredibly-tiny-explosion-packs-a-big-punch
"Japanese researchers have captured the birth of a nanoplasma – a mixture of highly charged ions and electrons – in exquisite detail, as a high-powered X-ray laser roasted a microscopic cluster of atoms, tearing off electrons.
***
"To untangle the complicated web of processes going on the team chose a very simple structure to study, a cluster of about 5000 xenon atoms injected into a vacuum, which they then hit with an X-ray laser pulse.
"A second laser pulse followed, this time from an infrared laser, which was absorbed by the fragments and ions. The patterns of the absorption told the scientists what the nanoplasma contained. By repeating the experiment, each time delaying the infrared laser a little more, they built a set of snapshots of the nanoplasma’s birth.
"Previous experiments had shown that on average at least six electrons eventually get blasted off each xenon atom, but the team’s set of new snapshots, published in the journal Physical Review X, show that it doesn’t all happen immediately.
"Instead, within 10 femtoseconds many of the xenon atoms have absorbed a lot of energy but not lost any electrons. Some atoms do lose electrons, and the attraction between the positive ions and the free electrons holds the plasma together. This leads to many collisions, which share the energy among the neutral atoms. The number of these atoms then declines over the next several hundred femtoseconds, as more ions form.
"Kumagai says the large initial population of highly-excited neutral xenon atoms were gateway states to the nanoplasma formation.
“'The excited atoms play an important role in the charge transfer and energy migration. It’s the first time we’ve caught this very fast step in nanoplasma formation,” he says."
comment: An example of pure energy plasma which was prent in an early state of the universe