[mxplxxx (OP)]

mxplxxx, I would try to debate, but I see now that it is not worth my time, so I will leave you with this:

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

I do hope that you will eventually open your mind to the possibility of experimentally determining facts, but I can not and will not force you to try to understand. Good day.

Pretty condescending! I repeat - this forum demonstrates, only too well,we cannot directly measure the energy of a photon and those methods that measure it indirectly do so for limited sets of photons.

[Bored chemist]

Pretty condescending! I

No, just accurate.

I repeat - this forum demonstrates, only too well,we cannot directly measure the energy of a photon and those methods that measure it indirectly do so for limited sets of photons.

You certainly do repeat that.
Many times.

It still isn't right.

People really have measured photon energies.

[alancalverd]

Perhaps mxplxxx would care to give us his definition of energy?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Quote from: mxplxxx on Today at 03:39:40
Pretty condescending! I
No, just accurate.

Definitely condescending, as you often are, as per:

Dictionary result for condescending
/kɒndɪˈsɛndɪŋ/Submit
adjective
having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority.
"she thought the teachers were arrogant and condescending"
synonyms:   patronizing, supercilious, superior, sn

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Perhaps mxplxxx would care to give us his definition of energy?

Don't like the standard "work" definition in physics mainly because it doesn't include that fact that energy is relative. For me a finite state machine-oriented definition is the go:

Energy is the ability of one object to change another object  based on the current states of the two objects.

It is interesting to note that because of relativity and the speed of light, a particular photon will have the same relationship and therefore the same energy with respect to all other particles in the universe. And vice versa, a particular particle will have the same relationship as all other particles in the universe to a particular photon. This is a very good reason why photons must travel at the speed of light. In other words events in the universe must appear the same to all particles in the universe.

[alancalverd]

Energy is the ability of one object to change another object  based on the current states of the two objects.

There is the nub of the problem. You might find a discussion more to your taste in a forum devoted to New Age thinking or even metaphysics, but you won't get much sympathy from scientists if you insist on speaking a wholly idiosyncratic language in which conventionally precise words have imprecise meanings..

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: mxplxxx on Today at 03:39:40
Pretty condescending! I
No, just accurate.

Definitely condescending, as you often are, as per:

Dictionary result for condescending
/kɒndɪˈsɛndɪŋ/Submit
adjective
having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority.
"she thought the teachers were arrogant and condescending"
synonyms:   patronizing, supercilious, superior, sn

How do you distinguish that from simply being right?


Given that you seem to be trying to change the definitions of terms like energy while explaining that everybody except you is wrong, who is being arrogant and condescending?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

How do you distinguish that from simply being right?

By the effect on me. Maybe I am too touchy but I am a degree-qualified life coach so this possibility is remote.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Given that you seem to be trying to change the definitions of terms like energy while explaining that everybody except you is wrong

Not true, I was asked for my definition of energy and where have I said that physics is wrong?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You might find a discussion more to your taste in a forum devoted to New Age thinking or even metaphysics

Condescending! You asked me for my definition of energy. I gave it:).

[alancalverd]

Perceptive, not condescending. The use of "energy" to mean something other than the capacity to do work, is characteristic of New Age discussions and some branches of metaphysics, and has no place in a scientific forum.

[PmbPhy]

You might find a discussion more to your taste in a forum devoted to New Age thinking or even metaphysics

Condescending! You asked me for my definition of energy. I gave it:).

The definition is on my website at
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/cm/what_is_energy.htm

Its what Feynman used in his Lectures.

[yor_on]

Reading your link Pete reminded me of what JP called it. 'A coin of exchange' I think it was.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Perceptive, not condescending. The use of "energy" to mean something other than the capacity to do work, is characteristic of New Age discussions and some branches of metaphysics, and has no place in a scientific forum.

Maybe. But YOU asked for it!

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There is the nub of the problem. You might find a discussion more to your taste in a forum devoted to New Age thinking or even metaphysics, but you won't get much sympathy from scientists if you insist on speaking a wholly idiosyncratic language in which conventionally precise words have imprecise meanings..

What problem?

My definition I would have thought is a easily understood generalization (or abstraction if you like). It is not meant to be precise but there is nothing idiosyncratic about it that I can see (and 2 of my top 7 strengths are "explainer" and "simplifier"). A  concrete definition would , maybe, involve the momentum of two objects.

The standard physics definition of energy as "work", as I said, does not involve the relative nature of energy. It is also a local definition that relies on the gravity of earth which differs from point to point. Not to mention that when I google "work" I get it defined in terms of energy! 18th century stuff that needs updating.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You might find a discussion more to your taste in a forum devoted to New Age thinking or even metaphysics

Condescending! You asked me for my definition of energy. I gave it:).

The definition is on my website at
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/cm/what_is_energy.htm

Its what Feynman used in his Lectures.

Thx PmbPhy. You point out that defining something like energy is not easy. I couldn't agree more. But you don't give Feynman's definition of energy. In fact you say:

Richard Feynman wrote [2]

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives “28” -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.

[PmbPhy]

Thx PmbPhy. You point out that defining something like energy is not easy. I couldn't agree more. But you don't give Feynman's definition of energy. In fact you say:

Richard Feynman wrote [2]

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives “28” -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.

In fact my page doesn't define energy. It just describes the concept. I should have pointed that out. Feynman doesn't define energy either.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So, it would seem that physics cannot precisely define what energy is. That would seem to make measuring the energy of a photon very difficult! Sort of like a Will of the Wisp:)

[yor_on]

Knowing what 'energy' is isn't the same thing as not being able to measure it mxplxxx?
Temperature is a measure of 'energy' for example.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Temperature is a measure of 'energy' for example.

Temperature is a measure of Thermal energy of an object. And thermal energy is the internal energy of an atom. Both Googled.
You could go on forever and still not be sure what you are measuring in a photon.