What is energy?

[HonestJoe]

We're discussing all contexts here.

Then your OP question was flawed. You're not asking what energy is, you're asking what are different kinds of things commonly described as energy.

For what it's worth, I don't see any reason to believe there is any actual spiritual energy, though the phrase can apply to things like religious fervour or a positive feeling following a religious experience. That's only in the same way we can talk about things like "my burning passion" without bursting in to flames.

 

[Gambit]

Then supply credible sources to substantiate your opinion.

I already have. It's called the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Everything is impermanent (to employ a Buddhist term).

 

[Bunyip]

In the context of physics, energy is the capacity to do work. In the context of

That's only one form of physical energy.

Surely 'spiritual energy' is a metaphor - not actually energy? If not what is it and what units is it measured in?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I already have. It's called the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Everything is impermanent (to employ a Buddhist term).

There are two theories of relativity, one of which is fundamentally at odds with quantum mechanics. Also, neither of these theories support your claims about the ephemeral nature of reality (you'd be better off with particle physics; wrong, but better off).

 

[Thief]

Does this mean that all forms of energy are ultimately spiritual?

I say....nay.

 

[Gambit]

"Before the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. the fundamental constituents of nature were considered to be permanent material particles."

They still are and its still nature and natural laws, that is where you keep missing the boat.

Wrong. Not only does the theory of relativity demonstrate that matter and energy are convertible, but quantum mechanics reduces all matter to excitations in a field of energy known as the quantum vacuum.

 

[Gambit]

The concept of spiritual energy seems largely unintelligible to me except perhaps in the way some friends of mine use the concept. For instance, they will say things like "Charlotte is full of negative energy today", when I would express the same notion by saying, "Charlotte is in a bad mood today".

Mental energy is not energy?

 

[Gambit]

Matter has become completely ephemeral, ethereal.

Then supply credible sources to substantiate your opinion.

The following is a credible source that supports my claim.

An extension of the quantum theory, known as quantum field theory, goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. In this theory little distinction remains between material substance and apparently empty space, which itself seethes with ephemeral quantum activity.

(source: p. 8 "The Matter Myth" by Paul Davies)

 

[Gambit]

There are two theories of relativity, one of which is fundamentally at odds with quantum mechanics.

Why are you always attempting to impress me with your knowledge that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Also, neither of these theories support your claims about the ephemeral nature of reality (you'd be better off with particle physics; wrong, but better off).

An extension of the quantum theory, known as quantum field theory, goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. In this theory little distinction remains between material substance and apparently empty space, which itself seethes with ephemeral quantum activity.

(source: p. 8, "The Matter Myth" by Paul Davies)

 

[Sunstone]

Mental energy is not energy?

Poetically or metaphorically speaking, sure. But I seriously doubt that any experiments, conducted according to one or another of the various scientific methods, could uncover a basic category of energy currently overlooked by physics.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What are you always attempting to impress me with your knowledge that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

I couldn't care less if you are or aren't impressed by me or anything else, but I care very much about the ways in which the sciences are represented, particularly the brain sciences and the "exotic" fields of physics (QM, particle physics/QFTs, SR, GR, string & M-theory, multiverse theories, etc.). FYI- that "quantum field theory" part is why I mentioned particle physics:
"Quantum field theory arose out of our need to describe the ephemeral nature of life.
No, seriously, quantum field theory is needed when we confront simultaneously the two great physics innovations of the last century of the previous millennium: special relativity and quantum mechanics...
It is in the peculiar confluence of special relativity and quantum mechanics that a new set of phenomena arises: Particles can be born and particles can die. It is this matter of birth, life, and death that requires the development of a new subject in physics, that of quantum field theory...
Write down the Schr¨odinger equation for an electron scattering off a proton. The equation describes the wave function of one electron, and no matter how you shake and bake the mathematics of the partial differential equation, the electron you follow will remain one electron. But special relativity tells us that energy can be converted to matter: If the electron is energetic enough, an electron and a positron (“the antielectron”) can be produced. The Schr¨odinger equation is simply incapable of describing such a phenomenon. Nonrelativistic quantum mechanics must break down."
Zee, A. (2010). Quantum field theory in a nutshell. Princeton university press.

With QM, you cannot get the "ephemeral" nature of particle physics (in which particles are fields, not waves, and which rests on and in many ways "is" QFT). With it, nobody knows what you get because the orthodox interpretation of QM is that it is irreducibly statistical and relativistic quantum theories were not created via empirical or experimental methods but mathematically, creating something of an even more serious problem than QM. Also, the "ephemeral" nature is due to the incorporation of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence principle from special relativity with the probabilistic structure of QM:
"the existence probability of a particular kind of particle is not conserved, and the one-particle treatment of the Schrödinger equation is not satisfactory for treating relativistic particles. Quantum field theory is needed to treat the production and annihilation of particles." In particular, relativistic QFTs allow for particles that "can be created if enough energy exists, or the energy can be converted back to mass energy subject to selection rules of one kind or another."
Nagashima, Y. (2010). Elementary Particle Physics: Volume 1: Quantum Field Theory and Particles. Wiley.

It is easy to understand Davies' (or anybody's) popular science account of quantum field theory or particle physics as suggesting this or that about the nature of reality, particularly when the author has an ax to grind or a tendency to sensationalize beyond what is needed. This "ephemeral" nature is really balancing equations: a process takes place in which the mathematics tells us that the state of a particle has changed into a form of energy or vice versa (or into multiple particles and created energy, or decreased energy and created particles). As the particles aren't really particles to begin with but fields, reading into the nature of reality by a popular science account of an extension of a physical theory without physical systems isn't going to help you, but more importantly such descriptions as you provide simply spread inaccurate notions about physics.

 

[Gambit]

Poetically or metaphorically speaking, sure. But I seriously doubt that any experiments, conducted according to one or another of the various scientific methods, could uncover a basic category of energy currently overlooked by physics.

We already have a good reason to believe that consciousness plays a critical role in quantum mechanics based on the double-slit experiment.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We already have a good reason to believe that consciousness plays a critical role in quantum mechanics based on the double-slit experiment.

We absolutely do not. Human observation/measurement isn't required to change the properties of quantum systems (simplistically, no observer is actually needed to "collapse" the wave-function, still less whether we observe "wave-like" or localized properties of a quantum system).

 

[Gambit]

We absolutely do not. Human observation/measurement isn't required to change the properties of quantum systems (simplistically, no observer is actually needed to "collapse" the wave-function, still less whether we observe "wave-like" or localized properties of a quantum system).

The standard (or "Copenhagen") interpretation "asserts that an observation produces the property observed." (source: pg. 100, "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The standard (or "Copenhagen") interpretation "asserts that an observation produces the property observed." (source: pg. 100, "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner)

"There is no 'official' Copenhagen interpretation. But every version grabs the bull by the horns and asserts that an observation produces the property observed. The tricky word here is 'observation.'
Copenhagen softens this assertion by defining an observation as taking place whenever a microscopic, atomic-scale, object interacts with a macroscopic, largescale object. When a piece of photographic film is hit by a photon and records where the photon landed, the film has 'observed' the photon." (emphasis added)
Same book, same page.

I wonder if there will come a day when I have sufficiently demonstrated that I take intellectual integrity seriously, if I don't know much about a top I don't make claims, and when I make claims it is because I do know about the topic. Yes I own that book, along with too many others like it because I keep track of popular science, partly (as you can see if you look at various threads I've created recommending popular sources) with an eye out to provide good sources but mainly because it seems that too many people don't distinguish between popular science and science (despite the fact that the book you cited starts with the sentence "This is a controversial book.").

 

[Gambit]

"There is no 'official' Copenhagen interpretation. But every version grabs the bull by the horns and asserts that an observation produces the property observed.

But every version (of the Copenhagen interpretation) asserts what?

The tricky word here is 'observation.'
Copenhagen softens this assertion by defining an observation as taking place whenever a microscopic, atomic-scale, object interacts with a macroscopic, largescale object. When a piece of photographic film is hit by a photon and records where the photon landed, the film has 'observed' the photon." (emphasis added)
Same book, same page.

Some will argue that an "observation" may apply to a measurement device. However, this is based on the wrong assumption that quantum mechanics applies only to the microscopic, not the macroscopic.

[John von Neumann] showed that if quantum mechanics applies universally - as claimed - an ultimate encounter with consciousness is inevitable, although, for all practical purposes, we can consider macroscopic apparatus as classical. According to this view, Bohr's separation of the microscopic and the macroscopic is only a very good approximation...but whenever we refer to "observation," the question of consciousness lurks.

(source: pp. 100-101, "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner)

 

[Gambit]

I couldn't care less if you are or aren't impressed by me or anything else.

Question:

Have you refuted any claim I made here?

Answer:

No.

 

[Gambit]

Then your OP question was flawed. You're not asking what energy is, you're asking what are different kinds of things commonly described as energy.

I'm asking what energy is. A materialist might argue that all energy is physical. An idealist might argue that all energy is spiritual. A dualist might argue that there are two kinds of energy - physical and spiritual.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm asking what energy is. A materialist might argue that all energy is physical. An idealist might argue that all energy is spiritual. A dualist might argue that there are two kinds of energy - physical and spiritual.

Mental energy is just a metaphor though isn't it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But every version (of the Copenhagen interpretation) asserts what?

Nothing, actually, as several argue that there is no such thing, but if I were to guess what the authors mean (judging both by context and by those aspects of QM that are uncontroversial) I would say they mean that no matter how one interprets the state of the system before it is observed/measured (e.g., following Bohr's probabilistic interpretation, some relative state interpretation, whatever), once a measurement/observation has occured then there is an output. More technically, from a "minimalist" perspective QM is a procedural tool that allows us to prepare systems in such a way as to allow us to transcribe the method of the preparation of the system in question into some particular formalism consist with the mathematical structure of QM which turns the "system" we seek to measure into an abstract mathematical entity. One of the postulates of QM is that this entity contains all the information necessary to determine via measurement what it is we wish to and can. Essentially, we create a sort of "ensemble" of systems or perform measurements which fundamentally disturb the system in such a way as to garner probabilistic/statistical information in order to represent the system as a probability function or probability distribution function. We then perform an experiment according to "rules" dictated by quantum theory such that when we choose to measure/observe the results we are able to obtain a value. This value is not a measurement, in the sense that whatever the result it is not any observable or measurable property of the system. Rather, measurable/observable properties of the system are mathematical functions that "act on" the mathematical "system". We use the experimental outcomes as "input" to the observables, which allows us to say things like "if the system were at state x, then the application of the operator would yield y, which it has (or hasn't), therefore the state was (or wasn't) y". This is, of course, generalized and extremely simplified. But the point is that what (virtually) everybody agrees on is that whatever the ontological status of a quantum system and whatever the relationship between the representation of the wave-function or state-vector and something in the "real" world, once we observe/measure a quantum system according to this quantum-theoretic procedure we can say something about properties we sought to garner information about (spin, momentum, etc.). None of the properties relates directly to any property of any actual system, but as identically prepared systems gave us the statistical structure in the first place, we can use these outcomes to make predictions.

Some will argue that an "observation" may apply to a measurement device. However, this is based on the wrong assumption that quantum mechanics applies only to the microscopic, not the macroscopic.

That was Bohr's view (except you have it backwareds; the assumption that QM applies only to the microscopic means that "observation" doesn't apply to the measurement device, although your wording makes the proposition somewhat difficult to interpret). It was challenged at the time by Schrödinger's classical thought-experiment, which demonstrated that quantum-mechanical rules (however interpreted) cannot be considered in the idealized and isolated manner Bohr sought, for the theory itself purports to be a complete physical description of the macroscopic realm and thus the devices used to measure are also governed by quantum mechanics. About 40 years ago, Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann said, Bohr brainwashed a generation of physicists into thinking that this wasn't a problem (it's called the "measurement problem"). That was then, An enormous amount of literature has since been devoted to the measurement problem. Moreover, we have since been able to produce quantum effects at the macroscopic level, the decoherence program yields a "fuzzy" demarcation with respect to the quantum-to-classical transition, and new technologies have enabled us to skirt around the uncertainty principle in ways that were only dreamt of (quite literally, in a sense, as we have implemented experimentally what had for decades existed only as thought experiments, from Wheeler's delayed-choice to Schrödinger's cat to EPR).