Energy Life - Neil Tyson

[jeremyp]

Hi everyone,

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

How do you explain how an object gains energy just by being lifted up then?

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

How do you measure energy?

4. Energy is not just kinetic or potential energy....meant to do work.

Nobody claimed it is.

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. 

Bad example: heat is just kinetic energy of molecules.

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

EM radiation is not energy, it is photons.

Then nuclear energy was understood.

Not by you apparently.

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.

Photons are quantum particles like electrons and protons. It happens to be massless, but it has energy as an attribute, just like all the others.

[Sriram]

Again....according to you...if Light is neither matter nor energy....what is it?! 

[Stranger]

Again....according to you...if Light is neither matter nor energy....what is it?!

Why won't you read the articles I linked to? What are you afraid of?

I actually went out of my way to find Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy http://tinyurl.com/lnc3oz3 just for this thread and those who might be interested in the relatively common misconception that everything must be matter or energy. I looked for an article because it's quite complicated and I thought somebody had probably written about it.

Perhaps, you aren't really interested in the answer?

Anyway - to answer your question succinctly: light (both photons and the wave properties) is an excitation of a quantum field. So is an electron, so is a proton. So is every wave and particle in the universe (as far as we know at present).

The term matter is not well defined in physics and can refer to several different subsets of particles.

The term energy is well defined and has been explained at length already.

[Edited for typos]

[Sriram]

Why won't you read the articles I linked to? What are you afraid of?

I actually went out of my way to find Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy http://tinyurl.com/lnc3oz3 just for this thread and those who might be interested in the relatively common misconception that everything must be matter or energy. I looked for an article because it's quite complicated and I thought somebody had probably written about it.

Perhaps, you aren't really interested in the answer?

Anyway - to answer your question succinctly: light (both photons and the wave properties) is an excitation of a quantum field. So is an electron, so is a proton. So is every wave and particle in the universe (as far as we know at present).

The term matter is not well defined in physics and can refer to several different subsets of particles.

The term energy is well defined and has been explained at length already.

[Edited for typos]

If photons and electrons and protons are all merely excitation's of quantum fields then they are all basically the same as far as we are concerned. Which translates to the energy - matter equivalence.  Anything can therefore behave as either matter (particle) or as energy (wave). We know this. No problem so far.

But you argued that energy is not a real thing and just an attribute of matter. Now you are saying we don't know what matter is but we understand energy well.  Make up your mind.

[Stranger]

If photons and electrons and protons are all merely excitation's of quantum fields then they are all basically the same as far as we are concerned.

Yes.

Which translates to the energy - matter equivalence.  Anything can therefore behave as either matter (particle) or as energy (wave). We know this. No problem so far.

It translates to nothing of the kind - unless you are translating to your very own language that re-defines the scientific terms so that they mean something completely different to you than to everybody else.

But you argued that energy is not a real thing and just an attribute of matter.

Not matter - unless I slipped up. I think I used either stuff or things. I did that to avoid using the term excitation of a quantum field because it isn't really necessary to go that far to understand on a simpler level - except by you, it seems.

Now you are saying we don't know what matter is but we understand energy well.  Make up your mind.

I've not changed my mind.

Why are you afraid of reading the article? It explains all this well.

I even quoted the bit that says energy is well defined but matter isn't back in #35. Seems you are too afraid or too lazy to read it, even if it's quoted and right in front of you.

[jeremyp]

Again....according to you...if Light is neither matter nor energy....what is it?!

Light is photons.

Photons are fundamental particles with a charge of zero and a mass of zero. They belong to the class of particles known as bosons which means (in very rough terms) they don't bump into each other.

Are photons matter? Well, I think that depends on your definition of matter. If matter is "everything that is not energy", then, yes they are matter, but so is everything else. If you define matter as "everything that has mass" (as I think you suggest), then they are not matter, but if you use that definition, the idea that everything is either matter or energy is a false dichotomy.

[Sriram]

Well...I have seen the article of 2012 by Matt Strassler. You people have almost quoted him verbatim. All that sounds very clever and all that but...there are many other articles (more up to date) about matter and energy and their equivalence which you have ignored.

I can understand that matter and energy could be further analysed and we might come up with quantum fields.....or Strings or whatever as the basis for them. That's fine.  I have no problem with that.

We have to discuss everything at the level at which it is relevant. If we are talking of two humans meeting we can't talk of their atomic constituents. Reductionism can become absurd.

It becomes an irrelevance while discussing matter and energy at the level of their equivalence and the fact that Light is energy.  That remains true...at that level.

[Stranger]

Well...I have seen the article of 2012 by Matt Strassler. You people have almost quoted him verbatim. All that sounds very clever and all that but...there are many other articles (more up to date) about matter and energy and their equivalence which you have ignored.

...for example....?

I can understand that matter and energy could be further analysed and we might come up with quantum fields.....or Strings or whatever as the basis for them. That's fine.  I have no problem with that.

Quantum field theory is standard physics now and has been for some time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_field_theory

WTF - you obviously don't care about finding out what science has to say on the subject.

What I don't get is why. Does some supposed justification of your blind faith beliefs rely on this matter-energy misunderstanding somehow...?

[Sriram]

...for example....?

Quantum field theory is standard physics now and has been for some time...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_field_theory

WTF - you obviously don't care about finding out what science has to say on the subject.

What I don't get is why. Does some supposed justification of your blind faith beliefs rely on this matter-energy misunderstanding somehow...?

Ha Ha....I have no problem with quantum fields or whatever. I started this thread because I came across Tyson's comment about pure energy....and he is a well known scientist.

You and some others have had a problem with that. 

[Stranger]

....and he is a well known scientist.

He is not infallible.

You and some others have had a problem with that.

The only problem is that he was wrong. He made a mistake, which is perfectly understandable in a live phone-in like that; or perhaps he deliberately glossed over the point to avoid getting too technical or telling the questioner they didn't understand basic physics. I don't know.

What I do know, from my own formal education, from several textbooks and from other sources, is that he was technically incorrect.

There is even a quote (from Mark Eichenlaub) on the page in the OP that makes the same point.

This didn't start out as a disagreement - I was just trying point out a fairly common misunderstanding about matter and energy.

You could find out for yourself, if you do some research and concentrate on textbooks and education sites (avoiding pop science and press).

It's up to you - cling to your misunderstanding or get better informed....