# Does energy exist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 24, 2010, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826 "2010-07-24T10:11:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/41 "2010-07-26T16:17:51Z")
> [@SyuRi](#): > > Now, can we say that “heat” - in this context - exists? There’s not really such thing as heat - with the meaning mentioned above - decreasing/increasing in the real, material world, except in our brains, since we created that concept. Why can’t it be the same with energy? You’re not addressing the point I made. If we treat energy as real, we can build up the entire artifact of physics and say many things about the universe that we cannot express in any other way. (As Half Man Half Wit said, it doesn’t matter what you call the concept if the effects are similar.) If you say energy is not real and we can’t say anything about it, then where does physics go? How do we explain the universe? What are all the equations based on? You can’t dismiss energy as a mere concept or word without also dismissing the consequences. But you aren’t even acknowledging that the consequences exist. What happens when you apply your opinion to the world? What is the next step? Where do you go from your starting point? If the answer is nowhere, that should tell you that your starting point is wrong. If you think you have a somewhere to go we can examine the logic of it. ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/42 "2010-07-26T17:29:59Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > I don’t think the distinction between “real” and not “real”, in the manner of this thread, is well defined. But even more to the point, I don’t think it has any use. I think it’s a chimera. What would dissuade me from this point of view? Quoted for emphasis. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that it is useful to make a distinction between “real” and “not real”, this thread has skipped over the vital **Step 1** of the process: define “real”. There are two extremal (and perhaps most natural) definitions of “real”: _everything is “real”_ or _nothing is “real”_. Then there is the infinite spread in between. If the OP wants an answer to “Is energy real?”, he or she must first tell us which of the infinite (and arbitrary, subjective) definitions of “real” we are to work with. I don’t think one can even resort to saying, “You _know_ what I mean by _real_, come on!” because, truly, I don’t. It’s just too arbitrary, so things near one person’s (arbitrary) “reality boundary” may cross over the line for another person. Food for thought: - Is _density_ real? (Every way we have to measure it involves measuring how much stuff there is and, separately, how much space it takes up. We never measure density directly.) - Is \*surface area \*real? (After all, its a 2D thing.) - Is _the alphabet_ real? - Is _lugubriousness_ real? There can be no answer to any of these questions without a working definition of “real”. (And, returning to the quote above, this definition will be arbitrary at best, and thus the classification game may not prove to be particularly useful.) ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/43 "2010-07-26T17:39:17Z")
> [@SyuRi](#): > > But let me bring the example i gave at the start. Calorific energy. We say there’s energy transference from a hoter system to a colder. We know, though, that what happens is particles shocking with each others. There’s no “fluid” or anything material really going from one place to the other, so there’s no transference of anything that is material - at least that we know of. Energy is what energy is. Your examples show that you have a reasonable grasp of what energy is. All that is lacking (would you say?) is whether energy deserves to be called “real”. Well, if in some particular context it is useful to define “real” and in that same context, the useful definition of “real” includes energy, then energy is real. Otherwise, either it is “not real” or the answer is undefined. Full stop. Perhaps a more targeted thread would be titled “What would be majority of \ consider a working definition of real to be, assuming they grant that a general working definition is possible?” This is a sociological and philosophical question, though, and not a physics one. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/44 "2010-07-27T02:22:41Z")
> [@SyuRi](#): > > But let me bring the example i gave at the start. Calorific energy. We say there’s energy transference from a hoter system to a colder. We know, though, that what happens is particles shocking with each others. There’s no “fluid” or anything material really going from one place to the other, so there’s no transference of anything that is material - at least that we know of. > > **So if it’s not material, what else can it be? An abstraction perhaps.** Well, one could argue an abstraction is real, just not material, but that won’t get us anywhere. The question is **not** “What is energy if it is not material?”. The question is “What is material if not energy?” Now, I have never understood a concept in physics until I got an equation for it (that’s when I realize mathematics is language), but I get this: **Energy** , not matter, is the basic reality. Matter is just very dense energy. Now, I do not get what velocity has to do with this - possibly because I do not know what time is - and the whole wave-particle dichotomy disturbs my belief in any prime reality, but matter as a function of energy, instead of the other way around, _ **that** _ I get. Does that get us any closer? ---
**Author:** ![MikeBanashak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@MikeBanashak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeBanashak)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2015, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/45 "2015-12-26T18:38:47Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > But ARE rocks and atoms “there”? Is there REALLY such a thing as “a rock”, or is “a rock” just a convenient way of referring to a collection of observations and predictions about how a localized chunk of the universe behaves? > > Energy is \*exactly \*as real as atoms and rocks. It’s a convenient way of referring to a collection of observations and predictions about the behavior of the universe. You are a misinformed Internet crank and so confused as to be laghable. Richard Feynman himself said there are NO BLOCKS.That there is NO,ESSENCE OF ENERGY. Matter is made of ATOMS-STUFF, MATERIAL THINGS. There is nothing made out of energy. Energy is a PROPERTY material things HAVE. ENERGY IS A CONCEPT, A NUMBER. ---
**Author:** ![MikeBanashak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@MikeBanashak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeBanashak)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/46 "2015-12-26T18:40:48Z")
> [@j666](#): > > Well, one could argue an abstraction is real, just not material, but that won’t get us anywhere. > > The question is **not** “What is energy if it is not material?”. > > The question is “What is material if not energy?” > > Now, I have never understood a concept in physics until I got an equation for it (that’s when I realize mathematics is language), but I get this: > > **Energy** , not matter, is the basic reality. Matter is just very dense energy. > > Now, I do not get what velocity has to do with this - possibly because I do not know what time is - and the whole wave-particle dichotomy disturbs my belief in any prime reality, but matter as a function of energy, instead of the other way around, _ **that** _ I get. > > Does that get us any closer? Wro g. PROFESSORS MATT STRASSLER AND HARVARD POST DOC STEPHEN BYRNES CORRECT YOU. MATTER AND ENERGY ARE ASMDIFFERENT AS TOASTERS AND WORMS. YOU ARE CONFUSING MASS WITH MATTER. E=MC2 IS A UNITMCONVERSION EQUATION LIKE CONVERTING 5 KILOMETERS INTO 3 MILES. IT IS NOT TRANSMUTATION! ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/47 "2015-12-26T20:57:35Z")
> [@MikeBanashak](#): > > You are a misinformed Internet crank and so confused as to be laghable. Richard Feynman himself said there are NO BLOCKS.That there is NO,ESSENCE OF ENERGY. Matter is made of ATOMS-STUFF, MATERIAL THINGS. There is nothing made out of energy. Energy is a PROPERTY material things HAVE. > > ENERGY IS A CONCEPT, A NUMBER. This thread is five years old, however I don’t understand why you are being so dogmatic about it. The questions of whether things have an existence independent of their properties and whether concepts like energy are abstract or have a real existence are purely ontological and aren’t anything to do with cold, hard physics. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/48 "2015-12-26T21:11:24Z")
Actually, matter is a mirage; all mass turns out to be interaction. And as counterintuitive as it seems to us, it may be interaction that is primary, not particles. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2015, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/49 "2015-12-26T21:40:15Z")
ENERGY is a property that CAPITAL LETTERS have. lower case letters have mass but no ENERGY because PEOPLE ONLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY READ IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Remember, Richard Feynman himself said that PLAYING THE BONGOS TOOK A LOT OF ENERGY. what is mind? NO MATTER. WHAT IS MATTER? never mind. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2015, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/50 "2015-12-26T21:55:35Z")
> [@MikeBanashak](#): > > Wro g. PROFESSORS MATT STRASSLER AND HARVARD POST DOC STEPHEN BYRNES CORRECT YOU. MATTER AND ENERGY ARE ASMDIFFERENT AS TOASTERS AND WORMS. YOU ARE CONFUSING MASS WITH MATTER. E=MC2 IS A UNITMCONVERSION EQUATION LIKE CONVERTING 5 KILOMETERS INTO 3 MILES. IT IS NOT TRANSMUTATION! Well, I just got off a conference call with Stephen Hawking, Thomas Nagel and the Pope. They didn’t have a strong opinion about this, I just wanted to let you know I was on that conference call. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826/51 "2015-12-26T22:46:05Z")
> [@MikeBanashak](#): > > You are a misinformed Internet crank and so confused as to be laghable. **Moderator Note** **MikeBanashak** , insults are not permitted in General Questions. No warning issued, but don’t do this again. Also, we ask that old threads only be resurrected in General Questions to add significant new factual information. Since I don’t see that your posts do this, I’m closing this. Colibri General Questions Moderator [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-energy-exist/547826.md?page=2)