(July 21, 2019 at 10:03 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:(July 21, 2019 at 7:23 am)comet Wrote: They don't know what energy is. They know how to use the notion but not what it is. Just Like they don't know what gravity is but can use it. I I think its better stated thewho is “they” movement of particles is the indication of "heat energy". Its Like seeing if its windy outside by looking out the window. The movement isn't the wind.
Maybe change that to "everything we know is based on quantum particles."? If space/time itself is quantized then everything being based on quantized is correct.
Who is “they”? If “they” are theists who mutter doggerels like “god is pure energy”, then you are right. If “they” are physicists, then their not knowing what energy is would be an extraordinary claim.
Energy would seem to my limited education in basic physics to be a property of particles and fields. Just as a photon has energy, and can have different energy, and can have its energy changed, so a matter particle can have energy, and can have its energy changed. This is the explanation for the kinetic energy of particles question.
So universe at quantum level is all fields and particles. Each field and particle has its properties. These properties can change from time to time.
So it seems to me that saying the universe must be more than its particles and fieldsbecause some of it must also be properties of its particles would seem somewhat nonsensical in a dualistic way. It is like saying there must be more to you than the sum total of your matter and how they interact. There is also your soul.
this is ok on the surface. the fields actually can change from place to place too. You and I are are the same set of fields. The exact same set of fields. Thats pretty cool. well, if fields theory is right that is. but it did make cell phones so it can't be too far off.
physicist do not know what energy is. just like they do not know what gravity is. they can work with it (bad pun intended) but they do not know what it is. Its not an extraordinary claim ... it just is.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity