[Just thinking]

Hi.

@Just thinking
   Your last post is profound.   There are a great many scientists that now think energy should be divided into two types:   Kinetic   and   Potential   and that is all.    Furthermore, potential is just the ability (the potential) to provide the other form of energy.  So they would say there is only one genuinely observable form of energy - Kinetic, the energy of movement.

Best Wishes.

Thank you Eternal Student Yes potential energy is like the sun it is broiling away but the actual energy is the heat that arrives having moved from the sun one can say we are energy but only if we get off the couch and walk to the refrigerator to get a bear is that energy realized. If this is not so then all things sitting must be called energy. Does a dead man have energy only if he moves?

[alancalverd]

I think the most simple answer to what is energy is the power of movement.

Oh dear! Anyone who uses "energy" and "power" interchangeably runs the risk of being labelled as a politician or journalist. Would you use "distance" and "speed" in the same way?

walk to the refrigerator to get a bear

A polar bear?  Or has the barbecue culture gone too far? Strewth, Bruce, it's time to put a grizzly on the griddle...

[Just thinking]

Would you use "distance" and "speed" in the same way?

You have got me there.

[Aeris (OP)]

I'm starting to think that maybe I'm asking too many "We honestly don't know." questions on here...

[Just thinking]

I'm starting to think that maybe I'm asking too many "We honestly don't know." questions on here.

I don't think you can ask too many questions but I'm not sure what your statement is.

[Colin2B]

I'm starting to think that maybe I'm asking too many "We honestly don't know." questions on here...

We know a lot, but you have to read and understand the @chiralSPO post

[Aeris (OP)]

I don't think you can ask too many questions but I'm not sure what your statement is.
[/quote]

I mean I'm asking the kind of questions that you can't give a 100% accurate answer to because they deal with things that we can't test, observe or comprehend.

[Aeris (OP)]

We know a lot, but you have to read and understand the @chiralSPO post
[/quote]

But like, even professionals still use those terms as if they know what exactly they're saying and it leads to me being very confused as to what's right and wrong, simplified and accurate and outdated and currently agreed upon. 

[Just thinking]

I mean I'm asking the kind of questions that you can't give a 100% accurate answer to because they deal with things that we can't test, observe or comprehend.

I think your question about what is energy has been answered in many ways but can be refined and discussed further.

[Aeris (OP)]

I think your question about what is energy has been answered in many ways but can be refined and discussed further.
[/quote]

I know. I just kinda wish that we had a definitive, 100% correct answer that we can write off as a fact the same way we can write off 2 + 2 = 4 as a fact. That's not very realistic though, and that's what I meant early by my statement.

[Just thinking]

I think your question about what is energy has been answered in many ways but can be refined and discussed further.

I know. I just kinda wish that we had a definitive, 100% correct answer that we can write off as a fact the same way we can write off 2 + 2 = 4 as a fact. That's not very realistic though, and that's what I meant early by my statement. [/quote]
There is static energy like is stored in a battery or one may call it potential energy in the battery but when it is drawn a pond it is actual energy as it is now in motion/moving. Energy in action not standing idle/potential.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

I'm starting to think that maybe I'm asking too many "We honestly don't know." questions on here...

   The thing is, you ask them well.  It seems (to me anyway) that you didn't want a short definitive answer and some of us prefer to discuss rather than lecture.

If you want the shortest possible answer then it's something like this:
    Energy is just a number.  Something we can calculate as a relation between some variables in a system.

If we go back to your original post and take a hard line approach to it then this is wrong:

Photons, which are LITERALLY made of energy....

    Photons are NOT made of energy.  They are NOT a pure or naked form of energy, there just isn't one.   We have never isolated a quantity of stuff we can call "energy",  it's always something in a particle, carried by a particle or possessed by a whole system.
    Photons are not energy they are something else,   they are oscillations in the electric and magnetic field if you want to see it that way and they transfer energy because those electric and magnetic fields interact with other things.  They have energy associated with them but they are NOT energy.
    All attempts to consider energy as "stuff" or some sort of substance have failed.  It is just a number, something we can calculate.

   Thanks for asking good questions and phrasing them well, sorry if some of us (that'll probably be me) say too much, rather than firing out a quick answer. 
   
Best Wishes.

[Aeris (OP)]

Quote The thing is, you ask them well.  It seems (to me anyway) that you didn't want a short definitive answer and some of us prefer to discuss rather than lecture.

Aw, thanks. I do try to be as concise as possible with my questions. I didn't necessarily want a short answer though. Just a definitive one (which again, isn't very realistic for questions like this and my very first post).

Quote If you want the shortest possible answer then it's something like this:
    Energy is just a number.  Something we can calculate as a relation between some variables in a system.

Honestly if this was all energy really was, I'd be 110% ok with that. It's just that a ton of people way smarter than me treat energy like something so much more than that. Fiction has also admittedly given me a misleading idea on how energy actually works given how many characters in fiction can do things like project energy bolts/beams, absorb electrical energy, command the flow of heat, etc. The whole matter-energy conversion thing and the various different descriptions of the Big Bang theory also don't help much either.


Quote Photons are NOT made of energy.  They are NOT a pure or naked form of energy, there just isn't one.   We have never isolated a quantity of stuff we can call "energy",  it's always something in a particle, carried by a particle or possessed by a whole system.
    Photons are not energy they are something else,   they are oscillations in the electric and magnetic field if you want to see it that way and they transfer energy because those electric and magnetic fields interact with other things.  They have energy associated with them but they are NOT energy.
    All attempts to consider energy as "stuff" or some sort of substance have failed.  It is just a number, something we can calculate.

So... Photons are the vibrations of an electromagnetic field that manifest as massless particles that can carry both energy and momentum? Am I right in saying this? Because if I am, that just leaves me with even more questions like what are they actually transferring, where do they get their momentum from and where does this electric field exist (is it a property of matter or space?)? 

Quote Thanks for asking good questions and phrasing them well, sorry if some of us (that'll probably be me) say too much, rather than firing out a quick answer. 
   
I should be the one thanking you and everyone else here honestly. Again, I don't have a problem whatsoever with long answers (I actually love the fact that I sparked up this large discussion), I just wish we could live in a universe where everything was so simple to the point that we could comfortably define fact from theory (the actual definition of theory, not the way scientists use the word). 

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

Honestly if this was all energy really was, I'd be 110% ok with that.

   Well that is the best, shortest and most current answer.  ChiralSPO said it earlier but this version is even shorter.

So... Photons are the vibrations of an electromagnetic field that manifest as massless particles that can carry both energy and momentum? Am I right in saying this?

   Sounds reasonable.  Fine details could be argued over but you seem to be seeking short answers.  (Let's take one obvious example we could argue over - light only sometimes has particle properties  and/or particles aren't quite what we might have thought they are).

that just leaves me with even more questions like what are they actually transferring, where do they get their momentum from and where does this electric field exist (is it a property of matter or space?)?

   Perfectly good questions.  Put them in another thread or make it clear you do want those answered. 
There's a long answer involving the "ether" that was once though to exist but I'm not sure you want that.  You probably want the shortest, best and most current explanations again.   Anyway, many good physicist's have pondered over these questions and came up with all sorts of ideas.

I just wish we could live in a universe where everything was so simple...

   No you don't.  That would be the end of the story or process we call Science.  You want more questions and mysteries, always and it doesn't hurt if the universe is complicated and/or difficult to understand.

Best Wishes.

[Aeris (OP)]

Quote Perfectly good questions.  Put them in another thread or make it clear you do want those answered. 
There's a long answer involving the "ether" that was once though to exist but I'm not sure you want that.  You probably want the shortest, best and most current explanations again.   Anyway, many good physicist's have pondered over these questions and came up with all sorts of ideas.

When you say ideas, do you mean hypothesizes based on our current understanding of physics? Because if you do (and I cannot stress this enough), I will happily accept the most scientifically-sound/agreed-upon hypothesis as an answer. I know some questions in science simply aren't possible to answer, given certain limitations, so I'll gladly treat well educated guesses as more or less the same thing.     

Quote No you don't.  That would be the end of the story or process we call Science.  You want more questions and mysteries, always and it doesn't hurt if the universe is complicated and/or difficult to understand.

You're right. I don't want an answer to EVERY question and mystery in the Universe. Just the ones I have on this little old list of mine that keep me up at 01:00 AM at night and make me question why any of us are alive.

On a related note. Since I have so many more questions similar to this one, can I post all of them at once on a single thread? Like, is that allowed? Asking multiple questions in a single thread?

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

When you say ideas, do you mean hypothesizes based on our current understanding of physics? Because if you do (and I cannot stress this enough), I will happily accept the most scientifically-sound/agreed-upon hypothesis as an answer.

   No,  I meant there is some history, various ideas that are now discredited, some sideline discussions that will surely pop up along the way,  more general discussion around the topic   etc.
   If you are seeking short and specific answers, perhaps you should flag that in bold  or  NEON - I am seeking the shortest and most current answer please.    (Although, t.b.h. there are many others who do just give short answers all the time,  I honestly don't know how they do it and how they can sleep at night).

Since I have so many more questions similar to this one, can I post all of them at once on a single thread? Like, is that allowed? Asking multiple questions in a single thread?

   I'm not a moderator but the following seems reasonable:
1.  It's not a good idea to post multiple questions on the same thread, especially if they are easily separated. 
  No one can read posts of hundreds of pages and the original title won't attract people who could answer the latest questions anyway.  Most people like self-contained bite-sized chunks of discussion.

2.  Provided you don't spam the site but are just keen to get answers to questions and/or discuss things sensibly and/or  answer other peoples questions  ... then this site is quite tolerant.  Many threads do have multiple questions and side-line discussions that pop into them.
    My personal advice is to be careful about "hijacking" someone else's thread completely - check that they are OK with whatever the thread has turned into.  Where possible, if your questions are easily separated then it is sensible to separate them.

Best Wishes.

[Bored chemist]

When I was at school, you could get full marks in the exam by saying "Energy is the capacity to do work".
An earlier question would probably have required an answer like
"Work is done when a force moves through a distance".

(You need to be careful about the directions- your weight sliding across the surface of a smooth skating rink doesn't do much work, but when you climb the stairs you certainly have to)

[alancalverd]

your weight sliding across the surface of a smooth skating rink doesn't do much work,

It is a great shame that uttering the scientific definition "Conservative forces do no work" would get you banned from the BBC.

[Bored chemist]

your weight sliding across the surface of a smooth skating rink doesn't do much work,

It is a great shame that uttering the scientific definition "Conservative forces do no work" would get you banned from the BBC.

very funny.
Gravity is a conservative force and quite often does work.

[alancalverd]

The example of sliding on ice is one where gravity is conservative. But it is nonconservative when a rock falls.