When I was at school I was told that all matter has energy in it, and that energy is released and not created.
What I'm wondering is, is that true? Do all objects have energy in them, even when stationary and not plugged into something?
Also - in 200 years time, would such a notion as matter having energy in it be regarded as something silly that we thought of in the past before we knew different?
2006-07-11
00:56:57
·
12 answers
·
asked by
cragoogle
1
in
Science & Mathematics
➔ Physics
I have read the answers and some of them refer to potential energy - which is exactly what I wanted to talk about.
This idea of potential energy, I have been told here, is around 100 years old.
Have we learned nothing since then that would expand upon or dispel this notion?
Surely if you burn something you release energy...but what if you are not?
If you burn something, then atoms move further apart and whizz around a bit - is this not kinetic energy? Also, they bump into each other - friction, and thus; heat energy.
So we have kinetic energy and heat energy.
Where is potential energy during this process?
I am still not convinced that potential energy exists except as an outdated and unsubstantiated notion based on very very old physics.
Also - it ocours to me that the laws of physics should not be laws but theories, and that the existance and now industrial use of quantum physics goes some way towards proving this.
It also ocours to me that the laws of physics are outdated.
2006-07-11
20:22:39 ·
update #1
When an object is 'stationary' it's molecules are still moving - vibrating within their lattice structure. Also chemical bonds are full of potential energy, so all objects have energy within them.
2006-07-11 03:33:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by oapboba 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, in the 300 years since Newton came up with the idea of potential energy, it is still considered a very solid notion and I see no reason that should ever change.
All matter can have all sorts of different types of energy at the same time. Consider a toaster that just dropped from the counter while plugged in. It has potential energy, since it can drop further. It has kinetic energy since it's moving. It has electrical energy from being plugged in. It is radiating heat energy. Not to mention all the energy that goes into holding the atoms together (strong force).
And while it's true that energy can not be "created", it is stored as matter (ref. E=mc^2) and can be transfered to other forms of energy during a nuclear explosion for example (to heat, light, etc.)
2006-07-11 02:03:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by David J 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, that is pretty hard to say. From observations and lots of experimentation, however, matter does have a lot of energy. Witness nuclear power and Einstein's equations. That has held for a few years already. Closing in on 100.
Potential energy is generally the amount of energy something has due to gravity. The potential energy of water behind a dam, for example, carries energy. Something dropped from a height will accelerate and therefore have more kinetic and less potential energy. Newton's equations have been around for roughly 300 years.
Energy does appear to be in everything. Take a tree. There is chemical energy in that that can be released by burning it. Gasoline in a car, same thing. Lots of energy in that. There are many examples of how to release the energy in things...
2006-07-11 01:06:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by TRE 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
At a quantum level, there is no distinction between matter and energy, wether its the forces keeping molecules togethor, to the forces keeping the components of the atom togethor, to the actual make up of the components themselves.
thats how nuclear energy works, the uranium atoms are smashed apart, releasing the energy contained within them. with enough energy you can smash any atom apart and release the energy it contains.
this isnt potential energy though. there are two kinds of potential energy. gravitational, where and object has more energy contained within in due to it being under the effect of gravity, and therefore the potential to do more work as it succumbs to that force (kind of like the weights on an old clock) and kinetic potential energy, which is the energy stored in a system that will directly cause the subject object to move when released (like that stored in a spring when its compressed).
2006-07-11 07:26:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by top_cat_1972 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Potential energy is very real, and the concept of potential energy is essential to physics. Potential energy is energy associated with the position of particles, while kinetic energy is the energy associated with the motion of particles. Newton's laws of motion deal with forces, but by manipulating these equations mathematically, you can derive equivalent equations of motion that are expressed in terms of kinetic and potential energies of the system under study. The mathematics is complicated but solid so that the concept of potential energy lies on as solid a foundation as Newton's laws of motion.
2006-07-11 03:34:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by modi_ponens 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Although I cannot answer a question 200 years into the future, I can offer but one statement, which in turn can lead to other such ideas..... The world was once widely thought of as flat until exploration took place and the old way of thinking was replaced with the new facts...
2006-07-11 01:04:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yup - an object doesn't have to be "plugged in" to have potential energy. Maybe you need to read up on what potential energy (PE) actually is...
A ball placed on top of a shelf has PE by virtue of its position. So in this case, as long as there's gravity the ball possesses P.E. I don't think P.E. is a silly notion AT ALL... Think about it and you'll know what I mean.
2006-07-11 01:30:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by Eigengirl 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Matter is the exact same thing as energy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All matter is made from lots and lots and lots of energy congeled into matter. A very very small amount of matter still contains vast amounts of energy (Einstein descibed the relationship in his famous equation E=Mc^2) . To give you a frame of referance, a coffe cup contains enough potential energy to wipe out have of the continental U.S. And as for your proposal that in the futrue this relationship will be seen as trivial is completly obsured. In the future we will take use of this relationship to power the whole earth, due to the miracle of Fusion. I hope that i could be of some assistance in your endevor.
2006-07-11 01:32:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Grant H 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i trust we are getting right into a clean era in which corporations are the empire { or new usa of america } . corporations which do not inevitably have any nationwide identity or nationwide loyalties. imagine about it, they have potential over governments, they purchase, promote, and bypass extra funds and products than maximum international locations in the international. They employ, feed, dress, and frequently help extra human beings than maximum, if no longer all governments. i do not inevitably imagine that is a foul element on the grounds that company and capitalism has the potential to strengthen situations for all of us, yet we also want to have strong governments to be able to face up to them and by no potential bow to them. this does no longer propose regulation or something, yet having governments serve their total inhabitants and by no potential purely the interest of the tremendous businesses depending there. corporations have distinct and many times conflicting interests than international places or electorate, so governments' function remains significant. It in order that takes position that many important corporations around the international are American, yet they're starting up to lose their nationwide identity.
2016-11-06 05:02:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
no.
the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed is fundamental to physics.
if energy can be created or destroyed we would have to abandon every theroy of physics we have put foward this includes everything desighned directly or indirectly trough physics,
2006-07-11 10:07:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by kevin h 3
·
0⤊
0⤋