Forced by What?

[Twilight Hue]

It is, actually. These terms have exact definitions in the context of science. Hence we know that energy is always a property of physical systems because that's how it's defined.

And Pluto was once a planet.

 

[ratiocinator]

And Pluto was once a planet.

Not the same sort of thing at all. The taxonomy of things in the world is not the same and the precise and mathematical definition of basic concepts in physics. We're not going to redefine energy any more than (for example) momentum (to which it is closely related: #20), electric charge, velocity, or temperature.

What's more, even if we were, your statement would still be wrong, because of the current definition.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not the same sort of thing at all. The taxonomy of things in the world is not the same and the precise and mathematical definition of basic concepts in physics. We're not going to redefine energy any more than (for example) momentum (to which it is closely related: #20), electric charge, velocity, or temperature.

What's more, even if we were, your statement would still be wrong, because of the current definition.

At present it is. But with new information that can easily change definitions.

We are still woefully inept in knowing what energy exactly is and I think we always will because the event horizon of our knowledge will go only as far as the composition of our tools and technology.

I accept the present definition, but it will never be the actual definition although I think and suspect we will go a little deeper in the rabbit hole someday.

 

[ratiocinator]

We are still woefully inept in knowing what energy exactly is...

No, we're not. The definition is absolutely exact. It has dimensions of M L² T⁻², in other words, we measure it in kg m² s⁻². There is no 'wriggle room' to redefine it to mean something else.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, we're not. The definition is absolutely exact. It has dimensions of M L² T⁻², in other words, we measure it in kg m² s⁻². There is no 'wriggle room' to redefine it to mean something else.

Measurement defines the quantitative attributes of phenomena, but doesn’t say much about their fundamental qualities.

 

[ratiocinator]

Measurement defines the quantitative attributes of phenomena, but doesn’t say much about their fundamental qualities.

In this case it's telling us that we simply can't have energy without something or other that has the energy. You need a thing or system of things that we can assess the energy of.

Relativistically, it's not even a fixed quantity. In special relativity, each frame of reference will see a constant quantity of energy but they won't agree about how much there is.

 

[exchemist]

I disagree. Take Einstein's famous equation for instance : E=mc^2. What is E a property of here? The equation is basically understood to mean that energy and mass(matter) are interchangeable. They are considered to be different forms of the same thing. If we rearrange the equation with some simple algebra we can see that m=E/c^2. In other words mass is simply bound energy. A lot of energy.
If energy were merely a property of a system we would then have energy being a property of itself -nonsensical- which leaves us with the same question. If energy is defined as "the ability to do work" and work to mean "the transference of energy" - the energy needed to do a task, by making a force move through a distance and force to be "an external agent capable of changing a body's state of rest or motion" - all common relevant physics definitions - then what is it that is actually doing the work and what is this external agent defined as a force?

No, but that is because your comparing apples to oranges.
This all depends on how your defining property. Momentum is a relational property. I am talking about intrinsic properties.

Actually, this begs the question...given Einstein's equivalency equation apparently you can. In theory.

That is because...as I've said, momentum is only a relational property. It doesn't describe anything that inherently exists. It only describes a relational observation.

As described above...not all of those things you mentioned are intrinsic properties. For instance temperature is an extrinsic property of matter and it doesn't make much sense to consider a property to be a property of itself as shown with energy above. Does it? Am I missing something?

Another question. What is a field and how does is bind if its simply a mathematical construct of probable reality?

Yes, all this is high school textbook physics. My question deals with what between the observations. What actually, fundamentally...materialistically is energy, fields, and forces based on?
What are we actually observing here?

This doesn't answer the question of what the fundamental foundations a force is as concerns particle physics. What happens to the force when its not doing work? Does it disappear? Does it just wait idly by until its called upon to define the boundaries of reality again? Do we define "whatever" only as a force when it does work? What is the electric charge or magnetic field when its not doing work? What is it that makes it capable of doing work?

What is this ionization energy that makes it capable of exerting a force?

Sounds about right. Its seems to me that because we seem incapable of knowing things in themselves we are bound to having faith in those observations continuing to be as expected, meanwhile between the thinking we know and the known may sit a religious experience.

Yes @ratiocinator is right. You are just suffering from the very common misconception that E=mc2 means mass and energy are interconvertible.

It says no such thing. It actually says rest mass (not matter) goes hand in hand with energy. Where you have one, you automatically have the other. Far from being alternatives, they go together. When you charge a torch battery it gets heavier, due to the energy input (Though you would struggle to measure it).

Mass is not an entity either. It is just one property of those particles that make up matter. Those same particles have other properties too, like charge, spin etc. When an electron and a positron collide and annihilate one another, their rest mass is converted to radiation. That radiation, like particles of matter, has various properties: frequency, speed wavelength, momentum, polarisation…….and energy. Again, energy is a mere property of the radiation, not a thing in Itself with an independent existence.

I’ll respond to your other points separately.

 

[exchemist]

I disagree. Take Einstein's famous equation for instance : E=mc^2. What is E a property of here? The equation is basically understood to mean that energy and mass(matter) are interchangeable. They are considered to be different forms of the same thing. If we rearrange the equation with some simple algebra we can see that m=E/c^2. In other words mass is simply bound energy. A lot of energy.
If energy were merely a property of a system we would then have energy being a property of itself -nonsensical- which leaves us with the same question. If energy is defined as "the ability to do work" and work to mean "the transference of energy" - the energy needed to do a task, by making a force move through a distance and force to be "an external agent capable of changing a body's state of rest or motion" - all common relevant physics definitions - then what is it that is actually doing the work and what is this external agent defined as a force?

No, but that is because your comparing apples to oranges.
This all depends on how your defining property. Momentum is a relational property. I am talking about intrinsic properties.

Actually, this begs the question...given Einstein's equivalency equation apparently you can. In theory.

That is because...as I've said, momentum is only a relational property. It doesn't describe anything that inherently exists. It only describes a relational observation.

As described above...not all of those things you mentioned are intrinsic properties. For instance temperature is an extrinsic property of matter and it doesn't make much sense to consider a property to be a property of itself as shown with energy above. Does it? Am I missing something?

Another question. What is a field and how does is bind if its simply a mathematical construct of probable reality?

Yes, all this is high school textbook physics. My question deals with what between the observations. What actually, fundamentally...materialistically is energy, fields, and forces based on?
What are we actually observing here?

This doesn't answer the question of what the fundamental foundations a force is as concerns particle physics. What happens to the force when its not doing work? Does it disappear? Does it just wait idly by until its called upon to define the boundaries of reality again? Do we define "whatever" only as a force when it does work? What is the electric charge or magnetic field when its not doing work? What is it that makes it capable of doing work?

What is this ionization energy that makes it capable of exerting a force?

Sounds about right. Its seems to me that because we seem incapable of knowing things in themselves we are bound to having faith in those observations continuing to be as expected, meanwhile between the thinking we know and the known may sit a religious experience.

Ionisation energy does not exert a force. There is an electrostatic force of attraction between the electron and the nucleus of an atom. To ionise the atom, by pulling an electron off, energy has to be put in to do work against this force, that’s all. This can be done thermally, as in plasmas, or by absorption of light.

The electrostatic force is one manifestation of the electromagnetic interaction, one of the four fundamental interactions that seem to govern the behaviour of all entities in nature. As to what they are, or why there are four, we have no answer in science. We just find that we can account for all observations of nature in terms of them and their effects.

 

[setarcos]

It relates mass (another property of things) to energy.

Its doesn't just relate. It equates on the most fundamental level of reality.
The equation describes the amount of energy contained within the "resting" state of a given amount of matter. This amount can be adjusted for acceleration. Mass is related to energy like ice is related to liquid water. Matter is bound energy within a given volume of space/time.

Doesn't follow. Mass and energy are properties that are related.

I'm not sure your understanding the equation. Their respective states in reality are related but with Einstein's equation we see that they are equated. We see this demonstrated in experiments with matter and anti-matter collisions. In such cases the respective particles are annihilated - they cease to exist. Their masses are converted into energy which is theoretically conserved through conversion of that mass into "massless" photons. The bound energy contained within the mass of the particles is "released" leaving no mass left.

Whatever it is that has the necessary energy.

I'm not sure your grasping the implication of the question. Probably because its hard for me to grammatically represent what I mean.
Consider two interacting particles. There is a force between them - say represented by their respective charges - which causes an attractive or repulsive change of state between them. The particles themselves have specific properties - volume and density used to define their mass(bound resting state energy). These properties of the particles have specific boundaries in space/time however the effective interaction between the two charges extends beyond this boundary into a "field". My question concerns this charge field between the two particles. I believe its been shown in quantum mechanics that fields are probability waves empty of any specific energy of their own. That is they don't actually do any work.

Not at all. In fact they are very closely related. In relativity they even get combined.

I don't think your getting the context of which I am referring.
Momentum is a relational property of mass. Energy is an intrinsic property of matter. Momentum describes the relational state of matter to other matter. Energy is the foundational property of matter.
I've already explained relational qualities above. If by combined you mean equated then your mistaken. Momentum is definitely not the same as energy. They aren't even in the same class of properties. Its like asking what water is versus what temperature that water is.
If by combined you mean in a relational sense then I can agree.
I have to wonder if you actually understand the parts of the Special and General relativity theories you've quoted and how they are relevant to this discussion. If you do...impressive.
What I know...is that momentum is a vector quantity but kinetic energy is a scalar and both vector's and scalar's are types of tensors. They are related to each other only in that they are both related to velocity. Never the less they are apples and oranges when trying to equate them in the same class of properties of matter. Incidentally potential energy has zero momentum and momentum does not cause a force but a force is needed to change momentum.

They are also both quantities that are conserved because of symmetries in the laws of physics (Noether's theorem). Momentum is conserved because the laws of physics don't vary from place to place and energy is conserved because they don't vary over time.

Sorry, you'll have to describe for me how Noether's theorem is relevant to this discussion. What does it clarify or add?

No, you can't. Both mass and energy are propitiates. You can't have a jug of either.

You'll have to explain what you mean by propitiates. Considering that mass is a measure of matter and water is considered to be matter I'd say you most certainly can have a jug of mass. That is something that has density and volume. What's more, considering Einstein's equivalency equation, whatever matter you fill that jug with you've filled it with a quantity of energy. I don't know why this is difficult to understand. A jug basically can be considered to enclose a certain volume. Both matter and energy - that is whatever has the ability to do work - can be enclosed in a finite volume.

Gravity is a field that bonds the moon to the earth.

At its simplest a field (in physics) is something that has a value

Isn't that what I said? A mathematic probability construct.

It can bond things because fields can cause a force of attraction between different things.

Um...okay? It bonds things because its value causes a force. That clarifies everything.

Gravity is a field that bonds the moon to the earth.

Not according to Einstein.

Not sure where you get a "mathematical construct of probable reality".

Because...fields apparently exist only as a mathematical description of reality. They have no properties beyond their mathematical description if I'm understanding correctly. We have ideas about what a particle is for instance - the idea describes something else - but a field IS the idea. It is an expression of probability in reality.

As for what a force is, have you actually read any basic stuff?

 

[exchemist]

Its doesn't just relate. It equates on the most fundamental level of reality.
The equation describes the amount of energy contained within the "resting" state of a given amount of matter. This amount can be adjusted for acceleration. Mass is related to energy like ice is related to liquid water. Matter is bound energy within a given volume of space/time.

I'm not sure your understanding the equation. Their respective states in reality are related but with Einstein's equation we see that they are equated. We see this demonstrated in experiments with matter and anti-matter collisions. In such cases the respective particles are annihilated - they cease to exist. Their masses are converted into energy which is theoretically conserved through conversion of that mass into "massless" photons. The bound energy contained within the mass of the particles is "released" leaving no mass left.

I'm not sure your grasping the implication of the question. Probably because its hard for me to grammatically represent what I mean.
Consider two interacting particles. There is a force between them - say represented by their respective charges - which causes an attractive or repulsive change of state between them. The particles themselves have specific properties - volume and density used to define their mass(bound resting state energy). These properties of the particles have specific boundaries in space/time however the effective interaction between the two charges extends beyond this boundary into a "field". My question concerns this charge field between the two particles. I believe its been shown in quantum mechanics that fields are probability waves empty of any specific energy of their own. That is they don't actually do any work.

I don't think your getting the context of which I am referring.
Momentum is a relational property of mass. Energy is an intrinsic property of matter. Momentum describes the relational state of matter to other matter. Energy is the foundational property of matter.
I've already explained relational qualities above. If by combined you mean equated then your mistaken. Momentum is definitely not the same as energy. They aren't even in the same class of properties. Its like asking what water is versus what temperature that water is.
If by combined you mean in a relational sense then I can agree.
I have to wonder if you actually understand the parts of the Special and General relativity theories you've quoted and how they are relevant to this discussion. If you do...impressive.
What I know...is that momentum is a vector quantity but kinetic energy is a scalar and both vector's and scalar's are types of tensors. They are related to each other only in that they are both related to velocity. Never the less they are apples and oranges when trying to equate them in the same class of properties of matter. Incidentally potential energy has zero momentum and momentum does not cause a force but a force is needed to change momentum.

Sorry, you'll have to describe for me how Noether's theorem is relevant to this discussion. What does it clarify or add?


You'll have to explain what you mean by propitiates. Considering that mass is a measure of matter and water is considered to be matter I'd say you most certainly can have a jug of mass. That is something that has density and volume. What's more, considering Einstein's equivalency equation, whatever matter you fill that jug with you've filled it with a quantity of energy. I don't know why this is difficult to understand. A jug basically can be considered to enclose a certain volume. Both matter and energy - that is whatever has the ability to do work - can be enclosed in a finite volume.

Isn't that what I said? A mathematic probability construct.

Um...okay? It bonds things because its value causes a force. That clarifies everything.


Not according to Einstein.

Because...fields apparently exist only as a mathematical description of reality. They have no properties beyond their mathematical description if I'm understanding correctly. We have ideas about what a particle is for instance - the idea describes something else - but a field IS the idea. It is an expression of probability in reality.

A lot of this is unscientific gobbledegook, I’m afraid. You won’t get far by trying to flatly contradict people like @ratiocinator who have clearly actually studied physical science. Your continued treatment of matter and energy as if they are somehow alternatives is completely misconceived. This has already been pointed out to you but you carry on regardless. Momentum and energy are indeed comparable, in being conserved quantities that are mere calculated properties. If you won’t listen, further discussion is fairly pointless.

 

[Pete in Panama]

A lot of this is unscientific gobbledegook, I’m afraid. You won’t get far by trying to flatly contradict people like @ratiocinator who have clearly actually studied physical science. Your continued treatment of matter and energy as if they are somehow alternatives is completely misconceived. This has already been pointed out to you but you carry on regardless. Momentum and energy are indeed comparable, in being conserved quantities that are mere calculated properties. If you won’t listen, further discussion is fairly pointless.

Didn't anyone here ever have a high school physics class where they taught that force is mass times acceleration and energy is mass times the velocity squared? iow, if u apply a force to a mass, its velocity will increase. The energy you've put into the mass is equal to the mass times the resultant velocity squared.

Am I going to fast for anyone?

 

[ratiocinator]

Its doesn't just relate. It equates on the most fundamental level of reality.
The equation describes the amount of energy contained within the "resting" state of a given amount of matter. This amount can be adjusted for acceleration. Mass is related to energy like ice is related to liquid water. Matter is bound energy within a given volume of space/time.

I'm well aware of the theory. I've studied it.

Their masses are converted into energy which is theoretically conserved through conversion of that mass into "massless" photons. The bound energy contained within the mass of the particles is "released" leaving no mass left.

Indeed. Not sure why you put massless in scare quotes but this is true. So what? The mass was a property of the particles before and the energy is a property of the massless particles.

Momentum is a relational property of mass. Energy is an intrinsic property of matter. Momentum describes the relational state of matter to other matter. Energy is the foundational property of matter.

Do you think kinetic energy isn't relational? In fact, in relativity, different frames of reference will (in general) see different total energy in any given system. In special relativity, all frames will see energy conserved but will disagree about the total. In general relativity, even energy conservation becomes somewhat difficult to define. See:

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It has a section on Noether's theorem, special relativity, and general relativity.

Momentum is definitely not the same as energy. They aren't even in the same class of properties. Its like asking what water is versus what temperature that water is.

I'll post my references again of how they are literally aspects of the same thing in relativity:
Special relativity: Energy-momentum 4-vector.
General relativity: Stress–energy–momentum tensor.

Sorry, you'll have to describe for me how Noether's theorem is relevant to this discussion. What does it clarify or add?

It clarifies that neither momentum or energy are actual 'stuff'. They are quantities we can calculate that are conserved only because the laws of physics have certain symmetries. If the laws of physics did not have these symmetries, both would be useless.

You'll have to explain what you mean by propitiates. Considering that mass is a measure of matter and water is considered to be matter I'd say you most certainly can have a jug of mass.

Of course not. Mass isn't "a measure of matter" it's a property of certain particles. They have mass, they are not the same as mass, any more than they are the same as any other of their properties like electric charge or spin. 'Matter' isn't really a well defined term in physics at all. What is considered to be matter will depend on the context. That being said, force-carrier particles are not generally considered to be matter and some of those have mass (W and Z bosons - the force-carriers for the weak nuclear force).

Water is not mass, it has mass. Do you really not understand what a property is? What's the confusion?

What's more, considering Einstein's equivalency equation, whatever matter you fill that jug with you've filled it with a quantity of energy. I don't know why this is difficult to understand. A jug basically can be considered to enclose a certain volume. Both matter and energy - that is whatever has the ability to do work - can be enclosed in a finite volume.

You seem to have entirely missed the point. If you go back to the original point that you can't have a jug of energy, then you'll see that it is saying that you can't have jug of energy by itself. You can have a jug of some stuff that has energy, but then you can have a jug of some stuff that has temperature too, or momentum. The momentum and energy of what's in a jug will both be different in different frames of reference.

 

[ratiocinator]

Isn't that what I said? A mathematic probability construct.

No. You really do need to get your head around the idea of classical fields before you go on the quantum filed theory. You've got to learn to crawl before trying to run a marathon. The link I gave you pretty much says what I said:

"In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a scalar, vector, or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time."

Gravity is a field that bonds the moon to the earth.

Not according to Einstein.

In general relativity, the geometry of space-time is what gives rise to gravity. That geometry ('curvature') at any given point is defined by the metric. The metric is a (rank 2) tensor and it has a value at every point in space-time, so it forms a tensor field.

 

[setarcos]

Yes @ratiocinator is right. You are just suffering from the very common misconception that E=mc2 means mass and energy are interconvertible.

I don't know how this became an argument. With all due respect it would seem you know something that the rest of the scientific community doesn't and that would include the originator of the equation or else I'm not quite understanding your argument.
Perhaps if I quote from somebody else...

E = mc2. It's the world's most famous equation, but what does it really mean? "Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa. From NOVA

Einstein Explains the Equivalence of Energy and Matter​

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."​

From the American Institute of Physics.

in this fourth paper, Einstein explained the relationship between energy and mass, described by E=mc2.
"E=mc2 means that, from the standpoint of physics, energy and mass are interchangeable. "
From article on EarthSky website.

I guess I must have caught whatever the rest of these guys are suffering from.

It actually says rest mass (not matter) goes hand in hand with energy.

Good grief. We are dealing with matter that has mass. That's a given.

Where you have one, you automatically have the other. Far from being alternatives, they go together.

? Okay? How can you not when they are different manifestations of the same thing?

Mass is not an entity either. It is just one property of those particles that make up matter. Those same particles have other properties too, like charge, spin etc.

Do you not understand that mass is a measurement of matter? What it is measuring is the density and volume of all those fundamental particles taken together which themselves are different manifestations of bound energy...according to Einstein.
When I say "entity" as related to energy I'm referring to energy "that thing that does work" as a fundamental aspect of reality. Given that mass is merely a measurement of that aspect "energy" I use the reference in the same manner.

When an electron and a positron collide and annihilate one another, their rest mass is converted to radiation.

Which is itself an aspect of energy. The mass has converted in this case.

That radiation, like particles of matter, has various properties: frequency, speed wavelength, momentum, polarisation…….and energy. Again, energy is a mere property of the radiation, not a thing in Itself with an independent existence.

I agreed until you considered energy to be a mere property. That would be considered a purely classical conception whose calculations work within classical assumptions.
Einstein changed those classical assumptions about the relationship between matter and energy.

Again, energy is a mere property of the radiation, not a thing in Itself with an independent existence.

Consider the hawking equations and other scientists considered opinions about the nature of the singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang. There was nothing existent for energy to be a property of. The singularity would have been the nearest equivalent to pure energy that we can conceive of.

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you not understand that mass is a measurement of matter?

No, it isn't. It's a property.

What it is measuring is the density and volume of all those fundamental particles taken together which themselves are different manifestations of bound energy...according to Einstein.

No. Fundamental participles are considered to be points. They have no volume (at least not in the conventional sense).

Which is itself an aspect of energy.

Wrong. Radiation is not an "aspect of energy" at all. It has energy, just like matter does.

Einstein changed those classical assumptions about the relationship between matter and energy.

Wrong again. There is no direct relationship between matter (which isn't even well defined in physics) and energy. The relationship is between mass and energy, both of which are properties.

If you won't listen to us, how about reading what a professional theoretical physicist has to say?

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

Matt Strassler [April 12, 2012] It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, a…

profmattstrassler.com

• 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.

 

[sayak83]

Its doesn't just relate. It equates on the most fundamental level of reality.
The equation describes the amount of energy contained within the "resting" state of a given amount of matter. This amount can be adjusted for acceleration. Mass is related to energy like ice is related to liquid water. Matter is bound energy within a given volume of space/time.

I'm not sure your understanding the equation. Their respective states in reality are related but with Einstein's equation we see that they are equated. We see this demonstrated in experiments with matter and anti-matter collisions. In such cases the respective particles are annihilated - they cease to exist. Their masses are converted into energy which is theoretically conserved through conversion of that mass into "massless" photons. The bound energy contained within the mass of the particles is "released" leaving no mass left.

I'm not sure your grasping the implication of the question. Probably because its hard for me to grammatically represent what I mean.
Consider two interacting particles. There is a force between them - say represented by their respective charges - which causes an attractive or repulsive change of state between them. The particles themselves have specific properties - volume and density used to define their mass(bound resting state energy). These properties of the particles have specific boundaries in space/time however the effective interaction between the two charges extends beyond this boundary into a "field". My question concerns this charge field between the two particles. I believe its been shown in quantum mechanics that fields are probability waves empty of any specific energy of their own. That is they don't actually do any work.

I don't think your getting the context of which I am referring.
Momentum is a relational property of mass. Energy is an intrinsic property of matter. Momentum describes the relational state of matter to other matter. Energy is the foundational property of matter.
I've already explained relational qualities above. If by combined you mean equated then your mistaken. Momentum is definitely not the same as energy. They aren't even in the same class of properties. Its like asking what water is versus what temperature that water is.
If by combined you mean in a relational sense then I can agree.
I have to wonder if you actually understand the parts of the Special and General relativity theories you've quoted and how they are relevant to this discussion. If you do...impressive.
What I know...is that momentum is a vector quantity but kinetic energy is a scalar and both vector's and scalar's are types of tensors. They are related to each other only in that they are both related to velocity. Never the less they are apples and oranges when trying to equate them in the same class of properties of matter. Incidentally potential energy has zero momentum and momentum does not cause a force but a force is needed to change momentum.

Sorry, you'll have to describe for me how Noether's theorem is relevant to this discussion. What does it clarify or add?


You'll have to explain what you mean by propitiates. Considering that mass is a measure of matter and water is considered to be matter I'd say you most certainly can have a jug of mass. That is something that has density and volume. What's more, considering Einstein's equivalency equation, whatever matter you fill that jug with you've filled it with a quantity of energy. I don't know why this is difficult to understand. A jug basically can be considered to enclose a certain volume. Both matter and energy - that is whatever has the ability to do work - can be enclosed in a finite volume.

Isn't that what I said? A mathematic probability construct.

Um...okay? It bonds things because its value causes a force. That clarifies everything.


Not according to Einstein.

Because...fields apparently exist only as a mathematical description of reality. They have no properties beyond their mathematical description if I'm understanding correctly. We have ideas about what a particle is for instance - the idea describes something else - but a field IS the idea. It is an expression of probability in reality.

Most of this is wrong. Mass, momentum and energy are all three inter-related properties of a physical system. Please refer to this very good explanation regarding what they are and how they relate.
Mass and Energy

 

[setarcos]

A lot of this is unscientific gobbledegook, I’m afraid. You won’t get far by trying to flatly contradict people like @ratiocinator who have clearly actually studied physical science. Your continued treatment of matter and energy as if they are somehow alternatives is completely misconceived. This has already been pointed out to you but you carry on regardless. Momentum and energy are indeed comparable, in being conserved quantities that are mere calculated properties. If you won’t listen, further discussion is fairly pointless.

Geeze, no need to get snarky.
I'm fully aware that experts are everywhere on here...until they proven not to be. I acknowledge that I may be misconceived here about the reality and nature of the energy/mass relationship. I've tried to conjecture about that relationship is such a way as to receive answers to what I've found to be questionable common assumptions.
I don't know @ratiocinator. So to tell me that I am wrong because I've contradicted him is pointless and irrational. Your appealing to his authority without verifying that authority when the arguments should suffice.
Be that as it may with your patience I've a few questions you may be able to answer so that I can better understand this relationship.

1) What matter does not contain some form of energy?
2) Does all matter have mass
3) Does all matter have momentum?

Thanks for your input.

 

[setarcos]

Most of this is wrong. Mass, momentum and energy are all three inter-related properties of a physical system. Please refer to this very good explanation regarding what they are and how they relate.
Mass and Energy

I'm not sure I claimed they weren't?

 

[exchemist]

Geeze, no need to get snarky.
I'm fully aware that experts are everywhere on here...until they proven not to be. I acknowledge that I may be misconceived here about the reality and nature of the energy/mass relationship. I've tried to conjecture about that relationship is such a way as to receive answers to what I've found to be questionable common assumptions.
I don't know @ratiocinator. So to tell me that I am wrong because I've contradicted him is pointless and irrational. Your appealing to his authority without verifying that authority when the arguments should suffice.
Be that as it may with your patience I've a few questions you may be able to answer so that I can better understand this relationship.

1) What matter does not contain some form of energy?
2) Does all matter have mass
3) Does all matter have momentum?

Thanks for your input.

1) None. Rest mass implies energy, according to E=mc².

2) Yes, according to most common usages of the term "matter". But there are nuances. I quote the Wiki article:
"Matter should not be confused with mass, as the two are not the same in modern physics.[9] Matter is a general term describing any 'physical substance'. By contrast, mass is not a substance but rather a quantitative property of matter and other substances or systems; various types of mass are defined within physics – including but not limited to rest mass, inertial mass, relativistic mass, mass–energy.

While there are different views on what should be considered matter, the mass of a substance has exact scientific definitions. Another difference is that matter has an "opposite" called antimatter, but mass has no opposite—there is no such thing as "anti-mass" or negative mass, so far as is known, although scientists do discuss the concept. Antimatter has the same (i.e. positive) mass property as its normal matter counterpart.

Different fields of science use the term matter in different, and sometimes incompatible, ways. Some of these ways are based on loose historical meanings, from a time when there was no reason to distinguish mass from simply a quantity of matter. As such, there is no single universally agreed scientific meaning of the word "matter". Scientifically, the term "mass" is well-defined, but "matter" can be defined in several ways. Sometimes in the field of physics "matter" is simply equated with particles that exhibit rest mass (i.e., that cannot travel at the speed of light), such as quarks and leptons. However, in both physics and chemistry, matter exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties, the so-called wave–particle duality.[10][11][12]"

3) That depends on the reference frame from which measurement is made.

 

[Nakosis]

What is a force? Most people are aware of the discovered forces in nature. Weak force, electric charge, magnetic fields, strong force, gravitational force....forces all the way up and down. But what actually IS a force? What is a field in science? For that matter what IS energy? Of course we can simply say "blank" is and then give its definition. But do our definitions tell us what these things actually are? Or do our definitions simply tell us what these things have been observed to do?

Force is an interaction between two physical objects.
There is contact force where energy is transferred directly from one object to another. Then there is force at a distance like magnetic or electrical. where the energy is transferred through space via electrons or photons emitted from one physical object and effecting a second physical object.