/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

The ability to make change, whether it be an increase in magnitude, change of direction, etc. It takes energy to do anything, basically, even stopping an object in motion requires friction, the dissipation of that object's energy. Energy is essentially, a non existent mathematical tool.

>>3087

>The ability to make change

I'm not an expert by any means but that sounds a lot like the concept of time. Unless time is just the result of energy, since time itself could be defined as change.

>>3104

nah time is a dimension, not anything that causes change in dimension.

Energy is the quantity conserved in all and only systems under time-translation invariant physics.

>>3121

Aren't there other quantities that are conserved? So what you said is closer to a property of energy, not to an explanation of what energy is.

>>3087

If it doesn't exist, then why do we get a fuckton of it whenever we destroy something made of matter (such as in nuclear fission)?

>>3150

But does matter exist?

>>3153

People exist and are made of matter, therefore matter exists.

And before you go off claiming people don't exist, recall that you're a person. If you didn't exist, then you'd be unable to make any posts.

>>3155

>people are made of matter

nice implication there

>>3145

The conservation of energy is directly related to time-translation symmetry. Other conserved quantities are related to other symmetries.

I would say a set of more-or-less fundamental properties each related to and interchangeable with each other. In a broad sense (well beyond our technological capacity to fully demonstrate) I guess all observable quantities could be considered to be associated with energy.

I will admit though, some 'forms' of energy are not really fundamental when they are considered on, say, a quantum level. Electricity takes on a whole new meaning when it's defined by leptons rather than a nebulous flow

>>3087

This definition is circular and fallacious. If all matter is a form of energy (which it is) and energy is the ability to make change in the world around us (matter) then energy is being defined as the ability to make changes to a form of energy which is completely circular and useless as a definition.

Personally, I define energy and matter as certain types gravitational distortions of space-time. I'm not sure why certain distortions of space-time such as electrons and protons have other properties such as electrical charge associated with them though.

>>3222

Of course, one can only measure gravitational distortions in space-time via other matter so this is still sort of circular, I guess.

>>3225

>>3220

>>3225

>Posting weak short test explanation

>Being this literal with sci-jargon

>Ignoring presentation of half-baked system of equations

>Not presenting attempt at full-baked system of equations

This is why we don't have more users.

>>3087

I really hate this layman definition because it's absolutely useless for doing any actual calculations.

The correct definition is: Integral of force over distance. inb4 that's work: Work is the change in energy, so work is to energy is what a transaction is to a bank account balance. In practice it comes down to the same thing.

Once you realize this, all the ridiculous philosophizing about "the nature of energy" immediately goes away and you see it for what it is: A simple conservation law.

>>3236

So, what is this force you integrate over distance in a thermodynamical system?

energy is the sand in our sandbox. there is a particular amount and none may be added or taken away. we can pile it up or dig holes or do whatever. but, at any given time interval, there is always the same amount of sand in the box.

E^2 = m^2 + p^2

(in natural units where c = 1)

this is the more important version of E = mc^2. This version of the equation shows how energy is sort of like momentum along the time axis. When you try to rectify this equation with quantum mechanics the existence of anti-matter pops out because E^2 = m^2 and (-E)^2 = (-m)^2 are both solutions.