Go Back   Physics Help Forum > High School and Pre-University Physics Help > Energy and Work

Energy and Work Energy and Work Physics Help Forum

Like Tree2Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Oct 29th 2016, 10:34 AM   #11
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,466
Originally Posted by HamedBegloo View Post
WHAT FINALLY I WANT IS A QUANTITATIVE DEFINITION OF ENERGY. I MEAN SOMETHING LIKE: $\displaystyle E := something$
Please don't shout.

That's what we are trying to tell you. There isn't one. But this is not a problem as there are many other concepts that don't have a specific definition, force, work, action, etc. are a few others. The quantities that appear on the other side of "E = " vary depending on what the physical system is composed of. To make things even worse, if we are talking about potential energies we also cannot set a scale that doesn't include an arbitrarily chosen position to set as a zero point. So even if we had such an equation we still would have ambiguity.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29th 2016, 11:29 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Please don't shout.
Sorry I didn't knew total capital writing means shouting(and recently searched the web and understood it). I just wanted to distinct my main point. So big apologies.

Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
That's what we are trying to tell you. There isn't one. But this is not a problem as there are many other concepts that don't have a specific definition, force, work, action, etc. are a few others. The quantities that appear on the other side of "E = " vary depending on what the physical system is composed of. To make things even worse, if we are talking about potential energies we also cannot set a scale that doesn't include an arbitrarily chosen position to set as a zero point. So even if we had such an equation we still would have ambiguity.

-Dan
But doesn't theories supposed to be designed in an axiomatic way.

I know Physics is not math but I know a physical theory is a mathematical framework that fits best with our descriptions of nature. On the other hand mathematics is always constructed in an "Axiom-Theorem" way for the propositions claimed and in a "Primitive notion-Well defined notion" way for the concepts introduced. So it's a real pain when you talk about a so important concept in a theory and have no precise definition of it. Yes I can talk about Work, Heat, Kinetic Energy, Potential Energy, Thermal Energy and so on but I know "Energy" as a whole concept should be defined. For example when we say "The energy of a system is conserved" we are talking about energy itself not its various forms. Maybe physicists are smart enough to conceptualise "Energy" without a rigorous definition but for a noob like me it doesn't work.

Last edited by HamedBegloo; Oct 29th 2016 at 11:42 AM.
HamedBegloo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9th 2016, 12:51 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 404
Force, energy, and other "defined terms" are also "constructs."
A construct is a way or method of observation that is constructive to understanding. (convoluted eh?)

Of course "force" is a construct. The term was argued for years before adopted. Double-entry bookkeeping is a grand example of construct.
Count like "this" then like "that". Get the same?

Jim
topsquark likes this.
THERMO Spoken Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10th 2016, 11:44 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 642
In post #10 you put forward Space, Time, Mass and Charge as primitive notions,
why can't energy be a similar primitive?

In post #9 Topsquark quoted the 4 vector for momentum,
this places energy in the time-wise component of the momentum vector.

I might suggest that energy and mass are actually different views of the same underlying fundamental property of existence.
topsquark likes this.

Last edited by Woody; Nov 10th 2016 at 11:58 AM.
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13th 2016, 01:31 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Woody View Post
In post #10 you put forward Space, Time, Mass and Charge as primitive notions,
why can't energy be a similar primitive?
Because it is (at least for me) not intuitive enough. I mean what is energy of a system/particle/wave/field? Where it is stored in the system? Can we even consider a locality for "Energy"? Is it a property of a system as a whole or is it generated by the properties of the particles inside the system?
But something like mass or charge: Simple scalar numbers we assign to a particle(a localized entity).

Originally Posted by Woody View Post
In post #9 Topsquark quoted the 4 vector for momentum,
this places energy in the time-wise component of the momentum vector.

I might suggest that energy and mass are actually different views of the same underlying fundamental property of existence.
Again, I want the dialogue to be in the context of non-relativistic Newtonian mechanics.

Originally Posted by THERMO Spoken Here View Post
Force, energy, and other "defined terms" are also "constructs."
A construct is a way or method of observation that is constructive to understanding. (convoluted eh?)

Of course "force" is a construct. The term was argued for years before adopted. Double-entry bookkeeping is a grand example of construct.
Count like "this" then like "that". Get the same?

Jim
Sorry, but I didn't understand what you meant. Can you explain more?
HamedBegloo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13th 2016, 05:56 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 642
you are requesting that we don't include the current physics thinking in our replies.
The whole point of relativity was to explain concepts that could not be explained by Newtonian physics.
Perhaps the most famous feature of relativity is the fundamental link between mass and energy (E=mc^2).
I think I would be correct in saying that this link is not (and cannot be) shown by Newtonian physics.
It was exactly the difficulty of answering questions like the one you posted that required the introduction relativistic physics.
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > High School and Pre-University Physics Help > Energy and Work

Tags
classical mechanics, concept, definition, energy, quantitative, rigorous



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should the word "relative" be used when discussing kinetic energy of Systems? Rothoik Advanced Thermodynamics 1 Oct 5th 2016 05:32 AM
Thought experiment "small box and only one body inside the universe " tesla2 Theoretical Physics 2 Jun 11th 2013 07:52 AM
Can someone explain the concept of "change in electric or magnetic flux"? khamaar Electricity and Magnetism 1 Mar 4th 2011 04:14 PM
Definition of "Energy" Pmb Energy and Work 10 Jul 19th 2010 12:20 AM
Does "attitude" mean "orientation"? s3a Light and Optics 1 May 31st 2009 12:27 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed