I just wanted to chime in and point out that gnostic is spot on here.
Energy isn't a thing that exists anywhere just floating around all willy-nilly. Energy is a property, and we call things which possess energy as a property matter.
You'll never find energy anywhere except as a property being exemplified by matter -- this includes in fields.
Energy is not a property of matter, because matter and energy are interchangeable, and they are 'interchangeable', because they are actually the same thing, just on different levels of vibration, as Einstein points out:
"What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.
Beyond that, we have Max Planck weighing in to point to a force that is behind both energy and matter:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
IOW, 'consciousness', but consciousness of a higher order than that which we associate with rational thought. It is that consciousness that is the spiritual. In effect, everything is consciousness: matter, energy, and the empty space in-between. It is all One Reality, but the problem is that the discriminating mind separates Reality into 'things', when, in reality, no such 'things' actually exist. IOW, what we call hard 'reality' is nothing more than an illusion, but an illusion on a higher order than those we ordinarily experience on this plane.
Energy is not a property of matter, because matter and energy are interchangeable, and they are 'interchangeable', because they are actually the same thing, just on different levels of vibration, as Einstein points out:
"What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.
This is a poor choice of terminology on Einstein's behalf. Matter and energy are not interchangeable -- mass and energy are. Matter is not the same thing as mass, and I'm not sure this is a genuine quote from Einstein or not as he would have known better. Either that or he's been mistranslated perhaps.
Both mass and energy are properties of matter -- also, mass and energy are conserved whereas matter is not (matter appears and disappears in the quantum vacuum all the time).
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
IOW, 'consciousness', but consciousness of a higher order than that which we associate with rational thought. It is that consciousness that is the spiritual. In effect, everything is consciousness: matter, energy, and the empty space in-between. It is all One Reality, but the problem is that the discriminating mind separates Reality into 'things', when, in reality, no such 'things' actually exist. IOW, what we call hard 'reality' is nothing more than an illusion, but an illusion on a higher order than those we ordinarily experience on this plane.
I'm not sure what Planck's views about an intelligence has to do with quantum physics any more than Newton's views about God have to do with gravity.
The phrase "everything is consciousness" is nonsensical. Matter isn't consciousness -- it is a physical thing -- and energy is a property of matter, so it wouldn't make sense for it to "be consciousness" either.
With respect to splitting reality into "things," it's well worth the time to question multitudinism if we're going to explore nonlocal interpretations of quantum physics, but I think you're trying to go somewhere more "mystical" than that.
Reality can't possibly be an illusion. Our interpretation of reality can be mistaken, but reality itself must be exactly what it is; otherwise you fall into a mire of logical absurdities.
Energy is not a property of matter, because matter and energy are interchangeable, and they are 'interchangeable', because they are actually the same thing, just on different levels of vibration, as Einstein points out:
I don't know where you have learn science, but it would seem that your teachers have done ************ job of teaching you. My suggestion is that you find yourself a good text book on physics, especially on matters and energy, and brush on it.
Energy is a property of matter. And like Meow Mix said, matter also have other properties, mass (already mentioned), volume, density, as well as chemical properties.
Every matters have energy that are inherent in MATTERS. What organic and inorganic matters have in common. They all have POTENTIAL ENERGY and the ability to do WORK, hence KINETIC ENERGY. And when any matter do work, they all have the ability to emit HEAT, which is essentially another form of energy, ie thermal energy.
Energy is definitely inherently related or part of matters, but I would not say they were "interchangeable".
All of these (energies) are quantifiable (measurable). And there other types of energy. For instances, electrical, magnetism, or the combination of electromagnetism, radiation, etc, and their related fields (again, some example, magnetic field, electrical field, gravitational fields, etc).
Energy is not something mythical or magical like spirits.
Matter and energy are made up of sub-atomic particles, and it's possible that sub-atomic particles may be made up of "strings". These particles have variant natures. Photons, for example, sometimes act as particles, sometimes waves, and sometimes both at the same time.
Therefore, what most would call "matter" really are these particles located in a condensed form. What you and I may feel as "solid" simply is caused by the polarization of these particles, much like magnets repelling.
Matter and energy are made up of sub-atomic particles, and it's possible that sub-atomic particles may be made up of "strings". These particles have variant natures. Photons, for example, sometimes act as particles, sometimes waves, and sometimes both at the same time.
Therefore, what most would call "matter" really are these particles located in a condensed form. What you and I may feel as "solid" simply is caused by the polarization of these particles, much like magnets repelling.
Sub-atomic particles are still matter, so it wouldn't make sense to say "matter is made up of sub-atomic particles." Macroscopic matter is though, so that's okay.
However, energy is not composed of anything, because energy isn't anything. Energy is a property of matter, that's all.
Solidity of surfaces isn't due to polarization, it's more about the structure of atoms themselves (polarization would be more about the arrangement of molecules and the shape of their bonds). Polarization explains things like why water comes out of faucets funny.
Excuse me, but isn't one of the Conservation Laws such that matter = energy, as in E=mc2, and vice-versa? If that is the case, then energy is not a property of matter, such as mass or weight, which are only apparent as long as matter is in the state of being matter. Energy, on the other hand, can exist independent of matter, such as light energy.
I don't know where you have learn science, but it would seem that your teachers have done ************ job of teaching you. My suggestion is that you find yourself a good text book on physics, especially on matters and energy, and brush on it.
Energy is a property of matter. And like Meow Mix said, matter also have other properties, mass (already mentioned), volume, density, as well as chemical properties.
Every matters have energy that are inherent in MATTERS. What organic and inorganic matters have in common. They all have POTENTIAL ENERGY and the ability to do WORK, hence KINETIC ENERGY. And when any matter do work, they all have the ability to emit HEAT, which is essentially another form of energy, ie thermal energy.
Energy is definitely inherently related or part of matters, but I would not say they were "interchangeable".
Then what about E=mc2? That says that they are interchangeable. That means that, in terms of your definition, matter would also be a 'property' of energy. I'm saying both are wrong.
All of these (energies) are quantifiable (measurable). And there other types of energy. For instances, electrical, magnetism, or the combination of electromagnetism, radiation, etc, and their related fields (again, some example, magnetic field, electrical field, gravitational fields, etc).
Energy is not something mythical or magical like spirits.
You don't know that. You're just looking at outward appearances detectable by sensory apparatus, or extensions of same, and thinking that is all there is to it.
If energy is strictly a property of matter, then how do you explain the matter created by the energy of the BB? And if you say that some matter pre-existed, out of which the BB came, then both science and theology ar back to square one in trying to explain the original source of all 'matter'.
The basic problem here is that you and MeowMix are seeing double, when there is only one Reality, and energy and matter are merely two expressions of that single Realtiy. If that is wrong, then Reality is not singular, and if that is so, then there is no such thing as 'the uni-verse', 'uni' meaning 'one'. Therefore, the universe is 'matterenergy'; one is not the 'property' of the other. They are the same thing, just as Einstein said.
Sub-atomic particles are still matter, so it wouldn't make sense to say "matter is made up of sub-atomic particles." Macroscopic matter is though, so that's okay.
However, energy is not composed of anything, because energy isn't anything. Energy is a property of matter, that's all.
Solidity of surfaces isn't due to polarization, it's more about the structure of atoms themselves (polarization would be more about the arrangement of molecules and the shape of their bonds). Polarization explains things like why water comes out of faucets funny.
Except that 'matter' on the sub-atomic level is not solid or matter at all, but mostly empty space; over 99.xx% empty space. So it is more accurate to say that 'matter' is mostly nothing.
Energy is not 'composed' of anything? What about light energy and photons?
Excuse me, but isn't one of the Conservation Laws such that matter = energy, as in E=mc2, and vice-versa? If that is the case, then energy is not a property of matter, such as mass or weight, which are only apparent as long as matter is in the state of being matter. Energy, on the other hand, can exist independent of matter, such as light energy.
Like, I have said, pick up a good science textbook, read and understand.
Clearly, you have no understanding of the difference between matter and mass (and you're confusing the two), or between matter and energy, or between mass and energy.
Energy is never independent to mass.
As to the E=mc2. The little letter "m" is mass, not matter. Learn to distinguish the two. Mass is a property of mass.
And you are confusing mass with weight too. Weight in physics, is force, is the relation between mass and acceleration, whereas the acceleration is gravity (unit m/s^2).
Mass = m = unit kilogram
Gravity (or acceleration) = g = unit metre per second squared (m/s^2)
Weight (or Force F) = W = unit newton = kg . m/s^2
The formula for Weight W is:
W = m x g
= kg . m/s^2
= newton (N)
For ordinary people, they see mass and weight to be the same things (because we use kilogram or pound as weight), but they are really not synonymous in physics. And in physics, WEIGHT is measured in newtons, not kilograms.
But getting back my point. Mass is a property of matter; weight is not.
I am not trying to split hair, godnotgod.
You are in Science and Religion debate forum. So if you are going to contribute, then please use the proper scientific terms or conventions.
. Nor is it the first time somebody came up with equations that related energy and mass. Actually, classical physics had this pretty much from the start. Imagine a rock weighing 3 pounds.
(Newton was British, they came up with using pounds, so all you metric system fanatics out there can just go to...well, some place where people talk about fathoms, furlongs, leagues, etc., and where hands measure horses and the kings feet and other body measures determine standard units)
A .300 Winchester magnum cartridge is pretty darn light compared to a 3 pound rock (which, interestingly enough, weighs exactly as much as 3 pounds of feathers).
So, we have:
1 3lb rock
1 .300 win mag cartridge weighing about 1/32 of a pound (so the rock is almost 100 times as heavy). A forum member, picked at random, is likely desperate to stop me from posting the crap I do. Which is more likely to do this: the 3lb rock thrown at a speed your average person can manage, or the .300 fired from an extremely expensive WA 2000?
The latter. Why? Because kinetic energy is related through an equivalence like Einstein's equation to mass and velocity.
Einstein's equation does what every other equation for energy did before: tell you how to calculate stuff. The subscript in the version of the equation I used indicates a body/particle at rest. A central difference between relativistic kinetic energy and classical physics is the scalar used. If you look at the above equation, you'll notice that it looks a lot like Einstein's for a body at rest. The problem is that instead of the speed of light, we have merely speed (velocity, actually). But Einstein constrained possible speeds, and thus the above equation has solutions that are not possible. So we need to replace velocity with a scaling factor that takes this into account. That's what the speed of light does.
So what happens when things move? In classical physics, back when men were men (except the Brits), and women were seriously ****** off at them (actually, that hasn't changed much, but there was a much better general reason for them to be ****** off), we had work. Kinetic energy was pretty darn practical: if I need to pull up a tree stump or boulder, I can use levers and pulleys and wagons and so on, but although the job might be easier the work is the same.
If anybody has had to use a moving truck and helped a friend move, they know that these trucks have ramps that come out of the back. If I want to load the box containing my friend's collection of Absolute ads, I don't need the ramp. I can just lift it straight up. If I used the ramp, I'd have to move the box over a greater distance.
If, however, after it turns out that not only did my friend lie about the having started to load the van already, but also that everything was packed, by the end of the day I'll need to move my friend's body (rolled up into a carpet) into the van. This time, I'm exhausted and he's fairly heavy, so I use the ramp. This lowers the angle (relative to lifting straight up) making it easier for me to load my friend onto the truck. But I have increased the distance: instead of standing right near the back of the truck and lifting straight up, I have to start at the beginning of the ramp. It's the difference between a distance traversed by motion in this direction | to motion in this direction \
As these lines are equally long, and the angle increases the distance, one should look longer. So imagine that instead of lifting upwards I was carrying the box of Absolut ads and moved it vertically from my shoulder to the van, traversing a distance and angle like this - . Now, the difference between the two, - & \ is clearer. I might feel like I've done less work qualitatively, but in reality I've just traded the effort of lifting my friend's body wrapped in the carpet straight up for moving a greater distance at an angle.
In classical physics, things were pretty intuitive: work was called work because we were actually dealing with how much effort a job would take. In particular, the force needed to move something at a particular angle, direction, and speed:
We can use this for relativity too (for simplicity, assume there's no angle)
To integrate over the force vector and get the amount of work, I simply replace the vector with what it is: dp/dt. I set t = 0 and replace classical momentum p with the scalar γ, a factor for time dilation in relativistic physics. So dp/dt becomes
Solving this allows me to now integrate velocity from 0 to V getting me a way to relate the above equation back to work (after a lot of calculating or looking at a cheat sheet) W=(γ-1)mc^2
As work is a measure of the displacement/change in kinetic energy, delta K = W and I can plug that into the final equation above and get relativistic kinetic energy that is just as boring as in classical physics but does show more clearly that mass isn't energy.
This is a poor choice of terminology on Einstein's behalf. Matter and energy are not interchangeable -- mass and energy are. Matter is not the same thing as mass, and I'm not sure this is a genuine quote from Einstein or not as he would have known better. Either that or he's been mistranslated perhaps.
I think Einstein meant exactly what he said: that matter is simply energy at a very low vibratory level, creating the appearance of 'solidity' on a macro level.
Both mass and energy are properties of matter -- also, mass and energy are conserved whereas matter is not (matter appears and disappears in the quantum vacuum all the time).
But overall, it is not only still there, the balance between the two is always maintained, so that nothing is ever really created or destroyed.
I'm not sure what Planck's views about an intelligence has to do with quantum physics any more than Newton's views about God have to do with gravity.
The phrase "everything is consciousness" is nonsensical. Matter isn't consciousness -- it is a physical thing -- and energy is a property of matter, so it wouldn't make sense for it to "be consciousness" either.
It's only 'nonsensical' to your conditioned paradigm-mindset. What do you mean by 'physical' thing?
With respect to splitting reality into "things," it's well worth the time to question multitudinism if we're going to explore nonlocal interpretations of quantum physics, but I think you're trying to go somewhere more "mystical" than that.
Not going anywhere except right to the heart of the matter. 'Mystical' just means to realize that that nothing is separate from anything else. There is no such thing as 'observer' and 'observed'. Those are merely conceptualizations.
Reality can't possibly be an illusion. Our interpretation of reality can be mistaken, but reality itself must be exactly what it is; otherwise you fall into a mire of logical absurdities.
Our interpretation of reality, based on classical logic and physics, IS illusory, as QM has shown. Yes, Reality must be exactly what it is, but you can only know that when your vision is perfect. To correct one's vision, all ideas, opinions, concepts, beliefs, etc. must be set aside so that Reality can then be apprehended exactly as it is. That is about seeing things as they are, rather than thinking about how they are, which leads to logical absurdities.
Like, I have said, pick up a good science textbook, read and understand.
Clearly, you have no understanding of the difference between matter and mass (and you're confusing the two), or between matter and energy, or between mass and energy.
Energy is never independent to mass.
As to the E=mc2. The little letter "m" is mass, not matter. Learn to distinguish the two. Mass is a property of mass.
And you are confusing mass with weight too. Weight in physics, is force, is the relation between mass and acceleration, whereas the acceleration is gravity (unit m/s^2).
Mass = m = unit kilogram
Gravity (or acceleration) = g = unit metre per second squared (m/s^2)
Weight (or Force F) = W = unit newton = kg . m/s^2
The formula for Weight W is:
W = m x g
= kg . m/s^2
= newton (N)
For ordinary people, they see mass and weight to be the same things (because we use kilogram or pound as weight), but they are really not synonymous in physics. And in physics, WEIGHT is measured in newtons, not kilograms.
But getting back my point. Mass is a property of matter; weight is not.
I am not trying to split hair, godnotgod.
You are in Science and Religion debate forum. So if you are going to contribute, then please use the proper scientific terms or conventions.
Thank you, but I did not say that mass is not a property of matter; I understand that. You cannot have mass without matter. I said that energy is not a property of matter, which was my response to MeowMix, who said that it was.
When you measure mass, matter remains in the state of matter. But when you measure energy, matter is transformed, and is no longer in the state of matter. You can measure the potential energy of a system, but it isn't energy until the reaction actually occurs. So energy is not a property of matter; there is either the phenomena of matter OR energy.
Please confirm the following two statements, pulled from the internet, if you will:
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.
Thank you, but I did not say that mass is not a property of matter; I understand that. You cannot have mass without matter. I said that energy is not a property of matter, which was my response to MeowMix, who said that it was.
When you measure mass, matter remains in the state of matter. But when you measure energy, matter is transformed, and is no longer in the state of matter. You can measure the potential energy of a system, but it isn't energy until the reaction actually occurs. So energy is not a property of matter; there is either the phenomena of matter OR energy.
Please confirm the following two statements, pulled from the internet, if you will:
The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.
The energy in matter is potential energy. I already said that. However, the moment you create a reaction which releases that energy, matter becomes transformed, like when you burn wood or coal, releasing the potential energy locked up in the material. Until the reaction begins, the potential energy locked up in mass/matter is not actual energy; you can't use it in it's potential state. You can only use it when the reaction is occurring, but then mass/matter changes. The fact that it changes from potential to actual indicates that mass/matter is just energy in another form/state.
So can you verify the two statements I presented as valid, or not?
When a piece of copper metal is heated in air, it comes together with oxygen in the air. Then if it is weighed, it is found to have a greater mass that the original piece of metal. If however the mass of the oxygen of the air that combines with the metal is taken into consideration, it can be shown that the mass of the product is within the limits of accuracy of any weighing instrument, equal to the sum of the masses of the copper and oxygen that combine. This behavior of matter is in accord with what is called the Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter.
Conversion of one type of matter into another are always accompanied by the conversion of one form of energy into another. Usually heat is leveled or absorbed, but sometimes the conversion involves light or electrical energy instead of, or in addition to heat. Many transformations of energy, of course, do not involve chemical changes. Electrical energy can be changed into either mechanical, light, heat or potential energy without chemical changes. Mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy in a generator. Potential and kinetic energy can be converted into one another. Many other conversions are possible, but all of the energy involved in any change always appears in some form after the change is completed.
1. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
2. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.
I'm not sure what Planck's views about an intelligence has to do with quantum physics any more than Newton's views about God have to do with gravity.
The phrase "everything is consciousness" is nonsensical. Matter isn't consciousness -- it is a physical thing -- and energy is a property of matter, so it wouldn't make sense for it to "be consciousness" either.
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)
Here is another way to look at it:
You see a hedge against the background of hills.
You see the hills against the background of sky.
But you see the sky against the background of consciousness.
So essentially, you're seeing everything against the background of consciousness.
It's just that consciousness is kind of a passive background, while what you are observing is in the foreground, and it is the foreground which you focus on, just as a fish does not know it is in the sea, and is focused on finding food. You don't notice consciousness as being the field within which everything is experienced. When one's attention is shifted from the foreground to the background, it becomes clear that the background is the default state, and that what is in the foreground, ie, 'the universe', comes out of it.
When you say that matter is a physical thing, you are just regurgitating concept. Reality is not the description of reality. In reality, you don't really know what it is.
With respect to splitting reality into "things," it's well worth the time to question multitudinism if we're going to explore nonlocal interpretations of quantum physics, but I think you're trying to go somewhere more "mystical" than that.
Reality can't possibly be an illusion. Our interpretation of reality can be mistaken, but reality itself must be exactly what it is; otherwise you fall into a mire of logical absurdities.
"When one speaks of awakening, it means de-hypnotization....coming to your senses. But, of course, to do that, you've got to go out of your mind, LOL"
Alan Watts
*****
"When I began my study of Zen, trees were just trees, and mountains just mountains.
During my study, trees were no longer trees, and mountains no longer mountains.
When I realized my Enlightenment, trees were once again trees, and mountains once again mountains."
Unknown Zen source
You. You are the universe consciously looking at itself through your/it's own eyes.
If you still think you are a separate observer of an object you call the universe, then show me where you leave off and the universe begins, or vice-versa.
