1.0   Energy is the most convenient word ever invented to explain anything

    The reason relativists prefer that everyone talk in terms of energy when referring to ‘relativistic’ or velocity-
    dependent mass is that the word energy remains undefined to this very day.

    “ From the perspective of physics, every physical system contains (alternatively,
      stores) a certain amount of a continuous, scalar quantity called energy... There
      is no uniform way to visualize energy; it is best regarded as an abstract quantity
      useful in making predictions.” [1]

    “ It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what
      energy is.”(Ch. 4-1) [2]

    This makes energy a handy word to explain any theory when the press gets too nosy at the end of the
    lecture.

    “ Energy makes everything happen…With a pencil, try this example…Put the
      pencil at the edge of the desk and push it off to the floor. The moving pencil
      uses kinetic energy. Now, pick up the pencil and put it back on the desk. You
      used your own energy to lift and move the pencil. Moving it higher than the
      floor adds energy to it. As it rests on the desk, the pencil has potential energy.
      The higher it is, the further it could fall. That means the pencil has more
      potential energy.” [3]

    [I propose that all magicians replace the term abracadabra for the more magical
    ‘energy’.]

    “ It was generally construed that all changes can in fact be explained through
      some sort of energy. Soon the idea, that energy could be stored in objects
      took its roots in scientific thought and the concept of energy came to embrace
      the idea of the potential for change as well as change itself.” [4]

    Energy is everything and nothing, the most convenient word ever concocted by Man. If ever you are in a
    bind because a reporter asks a tough question at the end of your presentation, follow my advice. Just
    say the magical word energy and you will see how everyone goes ‘Aaaaahhhh! Now I understand!’ The
    word energy has been around for much longer than abracadabra and answers more questions than
    supercalifragilistic-expialidocious. Rather than saying that an atom vibrates, the mathematicians say that
    it has energy. And, instead of saying that the atoms of your hand acquired the frequency of the atoms
    comprising the hot poker – a phenomenon laymen describe as ‘You burned your hand’ – the
    mathematicians say ‘energy was transferred.’ A field is said to be energy and energy is said to be a field.
    Space is energy and energy is what the vacuum is made of. So you can see with these few examples the
    potential that this awesome word has to explain everything and anything. (If you need more, just visit the
    official U.S. Government energy site where everything from X-rays to gravity is explained with the word
    energy.) 98 Energy is an all-encompassing word, a Ptolemaic explanation for any phenomenon
    imaginable.

    So let’s see if we can cut through this Gordian Knot and zero in on the true meaning of the explain-it-all
    word energy. Perhaps we can figure out whether it really does give us deeper understanding of or has
    any relevance in the mass increase prediction of Special Relativity.


    2.0   Mathematical physicists treat energy like a physical object

    Mathematical Physics holds that light is comprised of discrete packets of energy:

    “ Einstein, by assuming that light actually consisted of discrete energy packets,
      wrote an equa-tion for the photoelectric effect that fit experiments” [5]

    “ quantized energy is a product of quantum mechanics.” [6]

    This notion clearly implies that the mathematicians imagine energy as having a perimeter or surface
    (i.e., shape). They treat energy as a stand alone object. If energy is equivalent to a photon and comes
    in packets, whenever relativists illustrate or make a movie of photons we are staring at ‘corpuscles’ of
    energy. In the religion of Mathematical Physics, energy is conceptually no different than a bag of marbles.

    The mathematicians reinforce this corpuscular vision when they use the word energy to interpret
    physical behavior:

    •        energy can be transferred like a baton in a relay race

    it is important to take note of the transfer of energy between the ‘system’ and
      adjacent regions… Here ΔE  is the amount of energy transferred… advection
      means, literally, carrying energy across the boundary of the system… kinetic
      energy” [7]

    •        energy can be carried on the back of a horse

    “ [Faraday] realized that electric and magnetic fields are not only fields of force
      which dictate the motion of particles, but also have an independent physical
      reality because they carry energy.” [8]

    •        energy can be increased or decreased in quantity like the number of coins in your pocket

    “ the volumetric density of energy in any given space…It increases the energy
      content of the flashlight-system…only changes in energy appear in the classical
      equations of motion.” [9]

    •        energy cannot be destroyed (perhaps in the same way that God can’t be destroyed)

    “ Energy… can neither be created nor destroyed…energy can only be exchanged
      between adjacent regions of space” [10]

    Therefore, it is clear that the mathematicians imagine and treat the word energy as a physical object.
    It could be argued that these statements should not be taken so literally. They are just euphemisms... or
    perhaps metaphors.

    No problem! What do the mathematicians really mean? Why do they use this unscientific language
    instead of just explaining the phenomenon as it really is? Why are these metaphors so popular today if
    they are just metaphors? If burning your hand means that the atoms of the poker vibrate and they made
    the atoms in your hand vibrate faster, why do they use the euphemism ‘energy transfer’? What is it that
    was transferred? Do we perchance explain that energy was transferred when I punch a relativist in the
    nose?

    Perhaps the answer comes from the same sources:

    “ Energy is so fundamental that it is not easily defined in terms of anything more
      fundamental… For a general audience, rather than worrying about the details of
      a formal definition, it is far easier and far more useful to understand what energy
      does in various situations. This is called the ‘energy is as energy does’ school
      of thought.” [11]

    [No. This is called the ‘not-knowing-what-a-definition-is’ school of thought.]

    In other words, the mathematicians rely on the ‘useful’ operational type of definition to define the crucial
    word energy. This explains why, after a while, the mathematicians lose track of what they are talking
    about. Meanwhile, they continue to use the word energy as a physical object.

    Therefore, I have no choice but to take the trouble and show relativists that energy is not a physical
    object and that it may not be used at all in Science. It is irrational to explain any phenomenon of nature
    with this all-encompassing word until and unless the presenter defines it unambiguously. Above all we
    need to establish without a shadow of a doubt in the minds of the jurors whether energy is an object
    (shape) or a just a concept. If a concept, the morons of Mathematics cannot claim that energy moves.
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Mathematical physicists have
no idea what energy is
Aaaaaah!
Don't you see
it, Bill?
And this stuff, folks,
which I have between
my fingers, is energy!
I don't see
nothin'!



    This module: Mathematical physicists have no idea what energy is

    Pages in this module:

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008