Energy Life - Neil Tyson

[torridon]

You are just describing one form of life that you are familiar with.  That need not be the norm in all conditions and states.

Nobody had thought of Parallel Universes existing within inches of us. Now they do.  Nobody had thought of matter that couldn't be sensed at all. Now we do.

Thinking laterally is the norm now and even Tyson who is usually fairly conservative  seems to have thought out of the box. 

Life existing in some amorphous form is certainly possible.

I think you'd need to justify that last statement.

Information needs an encoding medium.  You can encode your broadband signal on top of a domestic alternating current supply, but you cannot encode it on nothing.  Schoolboy arithmetic says that anything times zero will always be zero; and that is a logic principle, and will just be just as true in the heart of the Sun or in a parallel universe or in a cloud of 'dark matter'.

[Sriram]

I think you'd need to justify that last statement.

Information needs an encoding medium.  You can encode your broadband signal on top of a domestic alternating current supply, but you cannot encode it on nothing.  Schoolboy arithmetic says that anything times zero will always be zero; and that is a logic principle, and will just be just as true in the heart of the Sun or in a parallel universe or in a cloud of 'dark matter'.

You and many science enthusiasts see life as the result of certain processes. You are defining life in a  particular way based on a specific process and mechanism....and then expecting to see the same process as the basis of all life everywhere.   This need not be true.

Life could be much more elemental than that. Life  could in fact exist everywhere in an amorphous state which takes form using material processes. Its the manifestation of this Life in a material form that requires a process.....not the existence of life itself.   

[Stranger]

You and many science enthusiasts see life as the result of certain processes.

Well, yes, that is what we have observed.

You are defining life in a  particular way based on a specific process and mechanism....and then expecting to see the same process as the basis of all life everywhere.   This need not be true.

As has been pointed out, defining life is not easy and it is indeed possible that we might find something that we want to define as life, that is based on something other than complex carbon chemistry (which is the only example we have).

Life could be much more elemental than that. Life  could in fact exist everywhere in an amorphous state which takes form using material processes.

Now you seem to have drifted off into the realm of baseless speculation. Yes, I guess it could, but how would that relate to the complex carbon chemistry that is the only example we have? More to the point, what reasoning or evidence (if any) lies behind this speculation? Is it any more than a bizarre guess?

Its the manifestation of this Life in a material form that requires a process.....not the existence of life itself.

Moving from baseless speculation to baseless assertion...

[torridon]

You and many science enthusiasts see life as the result of certain processes. You are defining life in a  particular way based on a specific process and mechanism....and then expecting to see the same process as the basis of all life everywhere.   This need not be true.

Life could be much more elemental than that. Life  could in fact exist everywhere in an amorphous state which takes form using material processes. Its the manifestation of this Life in a material form that requires a process.....not the existence of life itself.

That isn't a justification of your position, its merely a restatement of it. I don't see that information can be present or stored in a vacuum; it is a logic problem.  You're claiming in effect that although 0 x 27 = 0 as far as we know, 0 x 27 might actually give some other result in some 'other' reality. That's not valid reasoning; 'thinking outside the box' does not equate to abandoning all reason.

[Sriram]

That isn't a justification of your position, its merely a restatement of it. I don't see that information can be present or stored in a vacuum; it is a logic problem.  You're claiming in effect that although 0 x 27 = 0 as far as we know, 0 x 27 might actually give some other result in some 'other' reality. That's not valid reasoning; 'thinking outside the box' does not equate to abandoning all reason.

Well....it does... if...our assumptions, old theories and extrapolations of these ideas restrict our world view.  The world is not going to restrict itself to our logic. We have to look for explanations (however weird) to fit reality.

[Stranger]

We have to look for explanations (however weird) to fit reality.

What part of reality do you imagine requires your bizarre speculations...?

[torridon]

Well....it does... if...our assumptions, old theories and extrapolations of these ideas restrict our world view.  The world is not going to restrict itself to our logic. We have to look for explanations (however weird) to fit reality.

An explanation that is meaningless would not be an explanation of anything though.

[jeremyp]

But E=MC squared.  Energy can be derived from matter and vice versa. So....energy can exist by itself and not just as an attribute of matter.

Energy isn't a thing. It's just a number that is calculated according to certain rules. It's like a universal rate of exchange for certain quantities.

E=mc² doesn't tell you that mass can be converted to energy
, it only tells you when mass is converted to (say) photons, how many there will be and what sort.

[Bubbles]

Or work = force x distance.

I need an incredible amount of force to drag me away from here to do the distance and some work  ( in this case ironing) 

I really haven't got the energy 

That's my excuse........
Energy ( work)
Work ( ironing) = force ( a boot up the bum) x distance ( to the ironing board)

As I'm at rest, no work is being done, so no energy   

 

[Sriram]

Energy isn't a thing. It's just a number that is calculated according to certain rules. It's like a universal rate of exchange for certain quantities.

?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?   

[Stranger]

?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?   

You really need to read this:-

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
http://tinyurl.com/lnc3oz3

• Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
• Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse.  Each  definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons.  Consumer beware!  Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
• Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway).  But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
• The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all.  It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
• Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar.  All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
• The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles.  At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.

   

[jeremyp]

?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?   

Objects have properties. For instance, a book has various properties. It has mass and velocity and height above the floor (let's say it is sitting on a table 1 metre above the ground). It's mass is 1kg and because it is not moving, its velocity is 0.

There's a number we can calculate called potential energy, which in the Earth's gravitational field can be calculated as

    PE = mgh

where m is the mass (1kg), g is the acceleration due to gravity (10 m/s/s) and h is the height (1m). PE is just a number (10 joules, in fact) that results from the two attributes of the book and the gravity. There is no stuff.

There's another number called kinetic energy which is calculated as

    KE = (1/2)mv²

where m is the mass of the object and v is its velocity. There is not stuff. The kinetic energy of the book is zero because it is at rest on the table.

There is a law called the Conservation of Energy that says if we add up all these energies, we always come to the same number. So the total energy of the book (in Newtonian terms) is

    TE = KE + PE = 0 + 10 joules.

If I push the book off the table the PE starts decreasing because the height of the book is getting less and less. The KE is increasing because the book is getting faster and faster. However, the conservation of energy tells us that TE is always 10. Just before the book hits the ground, the PE is pretty much zero since the height is zero. The KE must therefore be 10 which tells us that the velocity must be the square root of 20.

No actual stuff has been converted from one form to another. All that has happened is the height of the book has got less and the speed of it has increased.

After the book has hit the floor, its PE is zero because its height is zero and its KE is zero because it is not moving. However, the impact causes the atoms of the air, book and floor to move about more. This we know because we hear the impact and also, with a good enough thermometer, we can measure that the book, air and floor are all slightly warmer. There are ways of calculating the energy of heat and sound and we find that, if we do, we get the number 10 again. Still, no stuff has been converted from one form to another, all that has happened is that the book's impact with the floor has caused molecules to jiggle about more vigorously.

Energy is just a number.

[Sriram]

?  ?  ?  ?  ? 

[jeremyp]

?  ?  ?  ?  ? 

What are you having difficulty with? The maths or a grasp of reality?

[Sriram]

What are you having difficulty with? The maths or a grasp of reality?

Have you read the OP and Tyson's views? What has your 'learned' discourse about potential energy and kinetic energy got to do with it?

Are you denying that EM radiation is energy or that electrons behave both as particles and as waves?

What exactly is your point in relation to the OP? 

[jeremyp]

Have you read the OP and Tyson's views?

Did you know NdGT is frequently wrong about things?

What has your 'learned' discourse about potential energy and kinetic energy got to do with it?

It's an example to demonstrate to you that energy is not a thing. You can't have pure energy.

Are you denying that EM radiation is energy

Yes. EM radiation is made of photons. There is a certain number associated with a photon which is called its energy, but it is just a number.

or that electrons behave both as particles and as waves?

Electrons are quantum objects that behave in some respects like particles and other respects like waves. There is a number associated with an electron which is called its energy, but it is just a number.

What exactly is your point in relation to the OP?

The idea of pure energy is nonsense.

[Sriram]

LOL! Thanks jeremyp.  Your idea of energy being only a number and not a real thing is 'unique'...at least to me.

I am surprised (shocked) that all the science enthusiasts on here are willing to go along with that and no one is contesting it.  Shows how much a kinship in belief system can foster togetherness.

Thanks again. I have nothing more to say.

 

[Shaker]

LOL! Thanks jeremyp.  Your idea of energy being only a number and not a real thing is 'unique'...at least to me.

It is a real thing, but not in the abstract - it's a property of something. As Jeremy said the idea of pure energy divorced from something possessing that energy is nonsense. If you don't get it now you never will.

[Sriram]

Yeah Right!!! 

[Shaker]

Demonstrate otherwise and pick up your Nobel Prize, or take your scientific illiteracy elsewhere.

[Stranger]

Your idea of energy being only a number and not a real thing is 'unique'...at least to me.

I suggest getting an education .

I am surprised (shocked) that all the science enthusiasts on here are willing to go along with that and no one is contesting it.  Shows how much a kinship in belief system can foster togetherness.

It has nothing to do with kinship - it's just how science defines the term "energy". It is not the sort of thing that can be contested - it's a definition. Contesting it would be like trying to contest that density is mass per unit volume.

Go look it up...

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

1. Energy cannot be just an attribute of something. It is a real thing that forms an integral part of all matter.

2. Energy does get transformed into different forms to suit the requirement....but still can be measured.

3. All energy on earth has probably come from the sun in the form of light and heat. It then got transformed into different types and activated all things. That's an amazing feature of the world btw.

4. Energy is not just kinetic or potential energy....meant to do work. That is how it was first understood in the 19th century while studying simple machines and inventing new complex machines.  Energy in the form of heat (thermal energy) was thereby understood. 

5. Light and other EM radiation were understood subsequently as energy. Then nuclear energy was understood.

6. Light is energy. A photon is a mass less packet of energy. It is a quantum of radiation.  A photon is not matter...it is energy. There is no distinction between a photon and its energy. Its just the name given to describe the particle behavior of light under certain circumstances as in photo electric effect.

7. Light is probably the nearest to 'pure energy' because there is no 'matter' 'carrying' that energy.

8. 'Life' as pure energy is of course  speculative and is a philosophical point.....but no more so than many other 'scientific' postulates of recent years. People normally speak of God and other spiritual beings as 'light'...btw.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

1. Energy cannot be just an attribute of something. It is a real thing that forms an integral part of all matter.

Assertion.

2. Energy does get transformed into different forms to suit the requirement....but still can be measured.

Suit what requirement? Generally, it can be calculated from measurements.

3. All energy on earth has probably come from the sun in the form of light and heat. It then got transformed into different types and activated all things. That's an amazing feature of the world btw.

Half understood waffle.

5. Light and other EM radiation were understood subsequently as energy. Then nuclear energy was understood.

EM radiation is not energy - it has energy.

6. Light is energy. A photon is a mass less packet of energy. It is a quantum of radiation.  A photon is not matter...it is energy. There is no distinction between a photon and its energy. Its just the name given to describe the particle behavior of light under certain circumstances as in photo electric effect.

Nobody said a photon was matter (which is an ambiguous term anyway) - neither is it energy.

The idea that "everything is matter or energy" is a misunderstanding.

7. Light is probably the nearest to 'pure energy' because there is no 'matter' 'carrying' that energy.

It's only the "nearest to", now? It the light dawning in your mind?

8. 'Life' as pure energy is of course  speculative and is a philosophical point.....but no more so than many other 'scientific' postulates of recent years. People normally speak of God and other spiritual beings as 'light'...btw.

Life can't be energy 'cos energy isn't stuff.

For goodness sake read this:-
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
http://tinyurl.com/lnc3oz3

And this:-
Noether’s Theorem:-
http://tinyurl.com/m9g36

[Sriram]

Never mind about Life energy. A discussion on that is too much to expect from here. I just mentioned it because Tyson commented on it.

What is light if not matter or energy?

[Stranger]

Never mind about Life energy. A discussion on that is too much to expect from here. I just mentioned it because Tyson commented on it.

What is light if not matter or energy?

If you'd just follow the links, you'd learn a lot.

What is meant by "pure energy"?  This is almost always used in reference to photons, commonly in the context of an electron and a positron (or some other massive particle and anti-particle) annihilating to make two photons (recall the antiparticle of a photon is also a photon.)  But it’s a terrible thing to do.  Energy is something that photons have; it is not what photons are.  [I have height and weight; that does not mean I am height and weight.]

The term "pure energy" is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.  Since photons have no mass, they have no mass-energy, and that means their energy is "purely motion-energy".  But that does not mean the same thing, either in physics or intuitively to the non-expert, as saying photons are "pure energy". Photons are particles just as electrons are particles; they both are ripples in a corresponding field, and they both have energy.  The electron and positron that annihilated had energy too — the same amount of energy as the photons to which they annihilate, in fact, since energy is conserved (i.e. the total amount does not change during the annihilation process.)

http://tinyurl.com/lnc3oz3 [original emphasis]