Matter is not "condensed energy".
Energy is not a particle; it is not a material "thing". It is a concept. It can be measured, sure, but in order to do so you cannot measure the energy since it is just a concept, you must measure THE MATTER THAT IS SAID TO BE ENERGETIC. To measure the temperature of air you are taking a reading of the air. Energy measurements are taken by measuring aspects of matter but not just in one SI unit, but in a great variety of them. Energy is a property of matter that has a different measurement for each way matter interacts with matter, energy is the description of those interactions at the point where energy is transferred from one to the other in the SI unit that describes the nature of the interaction.
At its core, regardless in which form it ultimately manifests, energy is matter in motion. The force and momentum of a moving cannon ball isn't much different to moving excited particles we sense as heat.
Each property of matter can be measured. In it's essence all of the ways energy manifests is as matter in motion acting or reacting with other matter.
On all scales this can ultimately be measured as some form of energy. It is a general concept that motion of matter in blanket terms covers many forms of energy often described through other properties of matter.
We have given specific terms to each particular expression or manifestation of "energy" as well as potential energy (when the attributes are there but the interaction has not yet occurred so no direct measurement can be taken, and no SI unit exists yet to take a reading, we have very good equations that can predict what the SI units will be that approximate reality incredibly well in some cases).
Each type of energy has a name, and each has units.
Such as:
- Temperature/heat/degrees°
- Pressure/Kilopascals
- Current/voltage
- Force/momentum/weight/Nmeters/Kg
- Calories/kilijoules
- Horsepower/Torque/kilowatts
- Etc
The rate at which power is delivered or energy is liberated plots each dynamic over time. Or in some cases, from the above list for example, time has already been factored in as a determing aspect of the energy delivery system or it is combination of properties of matter to give a very precise concept of the type of energetic dynamics at play:
- Force = mass x acceleration (f=ma)
- SI unit is the Newton
- Acceleration (a) is the change in velocity (Δv) over the change in time (Δt), represented by the equation a = Δv/Δt. This allows you to measure how fast velocity changes in meters per second squared (m/s^2). Acceleration is also a vector quantity, so it includes both magnitude and direction.
Or
- Momentum = mass x velocity (p=mv)
- Current I =
I =
You could make a case for weight simply being force, since the mutual attraction between two massive objects in a gravitational field is ultimately what is being described. On earth we use grams and kilograms to describe this force instead of Newtons.
Mass is itself a property of matter, it gives the correct energy output in a gravitational system but despite what you may have heard, it has not been shown definitively to be a universal constant in relation to the content of matter, or number of atoms of any given element. Regardless, it's correct in Newtons equations of motion but it should never have been directly linked instead of matter itself with energy In the statement of mass/energy equivalence described by Einsteins E=mc2)
 |
| Gravity and the electrostatic force |
E=mc2
E=mc2 is not an equation in the way many people think of it. Many assume it has utilitarian use ie used as with Newtons equations of motion or Maxwell's equations used in electrical engineering. It is NOT used in the atomic bomb or anywhere like that, even broken down as above.
It is simply a statement in the form of an equation that represents a principle
That principle is the concept of mass energy equivalence.
I feel that this principle even by itself a misunderstood concept. At best it's a stab at energy potential of matter when liberated not just at the electron level like with chemical reactions in chemistry (valency)and electricity, but by it's full potential by liberating it from the atoms core, the nuclear "Weak force" and "strong force".
MATTER CANNOT TRANSFORM INTO ENERGY. THERE ARE NO ENERGY PARTICLES, ENERGY ALWAYS DESCRIBES MATTER, THEREFORE ENERGY IS A PROPERTY OF MATTER, NOT ANY FORM OF MATTER. IE NOT A MATERIAL THING.
How can we be sure?
In a universe without matter there can be no energy . There can be no mass either since each is a property of matter.
Einstein's massless photons of light contradict his own equation/statement because the energy is measured in quanta that are wavelength spectrum specific, a property of wave delivered energy. More importantly Einstein was clear as daylight that without ether (some still say ether has not been definitively disproved) no wave propagated energy in the near vacuum of space was possible. There was "nothing to wave". It followed logically at the time that a photons energy was delivered through momentum.
But does it follow logically? Well, we know from the core fundamentals of Newtonian physics of motion that the only experimentally evidenced conceivable means of getting direct evidence (direct measurements) to confirm and quantify such energy through momentum are p=mv and I suppose f=ma. But what happens the momentum figure the instant you insert 0 in place of the m variable? You end up with no possible measurement of force or momentum! It's always zero.
This solved nothing. But science never let's that stand in it's way...
So they coughed up a field equation by reverse engineering a bit of algebra to correspond with the measurements they already had, and they shat out a field equation. Not an equation based on predictions and then experimentally verified. Instead this was acheived working backwards from the answer. Guess how many equations are theoretically possible using such a method? Infinite! There are infinite possible field equations that could describe relationships between the variables one decides to select, given freedom to choose the variables and in what manner they relate to each other. Arbitrary selection of the first equation they proposed is not grounds to put forward the notion that anything "is"
My conclusion is the same as the good sense classical physics perspective would require:
We cannot be sure of mass energy equivalence, only matter energy equivalence.
General Relativity
VIOLATES
Special Relativity?
Beyond the supposed event horizon of a theoretical black hole we ultimately are told we reach the point mass singularity where the weak force of gravity somehow overpowers the electromagnetic and nuclear forces and matter supposedly becomes infinitely dense.
This is of course pure speculation based on unsound reasoning. The consequence is that matter beyond the event horizon supposedly adopts infinite mass by virtue of its loss of its it's 3 physical spacial dimensions and adopting instead another alltogether different and meaningless property.
This property is not one of matter or anything materially real in three dimensions, but instead a property of a concept. That property is geometry.
So, we get infinite "curvature of spacetime".
This "spacetime" presents a number of probems. Regarding the topic of energy the problem is serious, since by Einstein's mass/ energy equivalence principle the black hole's centre is not just a singularity in terms of being infinitely massive, it's also infinitely energetic. Again, this is according to mass/energy equivalence principle.
The precise impossibility of infinite energy is related to Einstein's universal speed limit c.
The problem should be becoming obvious:
Nothing with mass would supposedly ever travel at c because nothing could be infinitely energetic.
It's another intractable logical conflict, but more importantly it contradicts Einstein himself so there is no out-clause for those still pushing both principles that can conveniently be hidden behind.
I don't know how you feel, but I am no longer I keen on the possibility that we can be invited to put aside incredulity and marvel by invitation of astrophysicists at how wonderfully mysterious the universe is, and how it can be "counter-intuitive".
You can decide for yourself about that.
In this case, in this specific application, Einstein himself is off the hook since both he and Oppenheimer both wrote papers on how black holes cannot exist, citing such things as angular momentum, or because the asymptotic dilation of of time would never allow a singularity to form. Terrible reasons when it can easily be shown that gravity could never get to anywhere it needs to get to in order to overpower the EM force, but there it is. The papers exist and it must be pegged on the followers of Einstein instead. In terms of infinite energetic systems existing where "the laws of physics break down" I prefer to say, "where your theory breaks down since it requires breaking the laws of nature in order to be upheld". If you want an explanation for the bright X-ray spots in the sky that we call black holes, then here it is.
Regarding c requiring infinite energy and therefore being impossible, and infinite energy being possible inside black holes, I'm sorry but both statements cannot be right. One or the other is not necessarily correct either. No deductive or logical reasoning requires one or the other to be correct, since of course they can BOTH be wrong without any intractable logical conflicts....
What does E=mc2 solve?
I am not aware of anything that is specifically and uniquely solved by it. Same with the field equation yeilding momentum energy of a massless photon. The only scrutiny it faced was the confirmation of it balancing. What use is that if the actual selection of variables in play and why they are in play, is speculative. If they and they alone have not been experimentally evidenced in any exclusive way demonstrating they uniquely yield the solution, or even a single of the infinite possible solutions.
This immediately red flags the principle as being bankrupt of any scientific rigour or intellectual fortitude.
With equations of motion available for energy put forward as delivered by momentum, and thermodynamics/chemistry/ electrostatics/ electrodynamics we can work from particles proposed at minimum WITH MASS and always in three spacial dimensions so that we have physically real means to directly measure whatever we are measuring, since now they yield MATERIAL PROPERTIES.
With the property we call heat we have means using the knowledge the movement of the excited particles moving faster, or however we describe what's going on. That energy is described as heat energy and it's SI unit is temperature in degrees. Electrical energy uses a combination of variables like current, voltage etc to describe the work done to such precise degrees our entire power grid is set up to power all manner of electrical machinery and electronic devices. Chemical reaction energy as with nitroglycerin, is obvious. Igniting a plasma state with chemical reactions, a catalyst, or a flashpoint bring reached, like the internal combustion engine for example when driven by petroleum or diesel, uses kilowatts.
Nuclear energy has nuclear chemistry and nuclear physics for releasing energy in a fission reactor but no measurements are taken in any SI unit involving E= mc2. Nuclear weapons (atomic bombs) speak about kilotons. Nuclear power stations (which ultimately heat water) ending up measured as kilowatt hours.
So each means of yielding energy is ultimately quantified by the order of magnitude or by the way that matter in motion is assigned an SI unit, a number, as an output. Its an output of the process that matter interacts with other MATTER, or perhaps "reacts" can also be a word that describes it.
It is in this way that energy is liberated, not through turning matter into energy.
Formulas can be established for each. The particular character that energy adopts as it ultimately manifests as in our world of varied properties also assigns related numbers to each component involved in the measurements. Not just electrical like charge, amps, volts and resistance, and of course heat, a consequence of friction due to the resistance commensurate with current strength.
Causality and the speed of light (C).
Why is it stated that INFORMATION cannot travel faster than light?
This is an implicit fundamental contradiction demonstrating the lack of a basic critical scientific criterion: It must be self consistent.
If two objects at the fartherest ends of the universe head towards each other at 99% of c, time is said to dilate since they would approach each other at almost 2 x c, supposedly impossible.
However, by starting the journey accross the known universe from each objects start point (say 13.8 billion light years apart) at a given speed, the universe needs to know immediately so that the two objects moving towards each other don't violate c by confounding their speed, which would happen immediately unless time were also dilated immediately. The universe must "figure out" that time must be dilated. This involves receiving info about the speed of each and direction.
The news of their respective approach speed cannot wait the supposed 13.8 billion years the c limit would put on information that far apart taking to reach the opposing object for the universe to understand it's own workings just so that time can dilate. How could it? otherwise they will reach nearly 2 x c in real time.
SO
The information that each is moving, and what it's live time velocity is, must reach the other object INSTANTLY if matter is to be prevented from exceeding c.
By such reasoning information MUST by far exceed c in each case. Or in other words, news must be instant so mass can have a speed limit. For Einstein to be correct about the universal speed limit of c, this cannot be possible unless information always and only violates c in every case.
This entire problem is sidestepped simply by removing the nonsense concept of "time dilation" and have no relative universal speed limits, even if c does turn out to be limit a body possesing mass can accelerate to from a specific frame of reference.
Two bodies across the universe need not to know about each other, they need the energy required from moving from one from speed in a frame of reference to another. Simple.
I understand that reducing everything to matter and its properties sounds materialist in the philosophical sense. This need not be so.
Other ways energy can be misrepresented.
The case for the materialist in physics:
Philosophically speaking I cannot with certainty advocate materialism. But physics is very prosaic in terms of the simple cause/effect problems it solves. It is not designed for the "why" questions but more for the "what" or "how" questions.
I have noticed that an esoteric or metaphysical adoption of the word "energy" is widespread. This is fine. Language allows for many different contexts and much subtlety and nuance.
That being said, its worth noting that there is an attempt to bring the general use of the word "energy" into physics and with nonsense reasoning try to rubbish the materialist approach taken in classical physics, when real science was done before the nonsense of GR and Quantum Electrodynamics.
It is put forward that matter is not material at the end of the day, and that the universe is actually based on vibrations, energy, frequency and resonance....
Now it does not matter one iota if stuff actually is material, as long as it's material in measurable units relative to other matter, since we measure properties of matter in terms of its other properties, and magnetic, electric and gravitational fields are also properties of matter. Matter and fields are two sides of the same coin.
My only question to the emerging esoteric would-be physicist is the following:
Vibration, frequency or resonance ...OF WHAT?
.jpg)