E=MC2 says matter and energy are the same thing E=M ,
the C2 just tells how much matter and energy are involved.
Its the E=M that's really important then the C2,
What is matter and energy?

E=MC2 says matter and energy are the same thing E=M ,
the C2 just tells how much matter and energy are involved.
Its the E=M that's really important then the C2,
What is matter and energy?
nobody knowsOriginally Posted by spaceends
Generally, energy is defined as the ability to do work. Matter is similarily defined as anything that has mass and takes up space.
That is true, but not particularly enlightening when one considers that the important message of E =mc^2 is that mass and energy are, at a fundamental level, the same thing.Originally Posted by Ellatha
In short, E=mc^2 pretty much says that everything is energy. That is why in particle physics the mass of particles is commonly measured in electronvolts, a unit of energy. All particles are energy, and all matter is composed of particles.
Thus, the real answer the deep question as to what "is matter/energy" is that there is no more fundamental answer that is understood, i.e. nobody knows.
How about this as a definition of energy. If we accept that the laws of physics are symmetric with respect to translations in time, then energy is the conserved charge corresponding to timetranslational symmetries.
Wouldn't care to argue with you about this definition.Originally Posted by salsaonline
Whatever happened to river_rat? He would probably have understood "timetranslational symmetries".
I believe that you are applying Noether's theorem here. In that case it seems to me that you need some notion of energy in order to make sense of the Lagrangian in the first place.Originally Posted by salsaonline
While I think this perspective is useful and insightful, I don't think it really provides a definition of energy that is any more fundamental than others. We are stil left with E=mc^2 and the conclusion that just about everything is energy in one form or another.
I am not at all confident that there exists any definition of energy that is not somewhat circular. After all, one has to start somewhere, and perhaps "energy", "space" and 'tiime" are that somewhere. I have no idea how to define them in fundamental terms.
I have to say that nobody knows how to define length or time fundamentally and that all we have are operational definitions that "time is what clocks measure" and "length is what rulers measure".
This is getting into philosophy and it is the case that philosophy has been able to contribute essentially nothing to modern physics. See for instance the chapter in Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory entitled "Against Philosophy".
So I am still stuck with "nobody knows". I think it unlikely that anybody will know any time soon, if ever.
Sounds like CPT and Noethertype stuff...Originally Posted by salsaonline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
I say everything is matter and matter is in 4 states solid liquid gas and energy.
I know what matter and energy are
for one thing matter and energy are both in a three dimensional form and so is space, but space is not matter or energy
there is more to matter and energy yea and what is that!
I sort of agree with you here, but I think that Lagrangians are more basic concepts than energy. A Lagrangian is essentially anything that you can integrate over spacetime. So you can say that L is a Lagrangian without having any concept of energy, but you can't say that H is the energy if you don't have a concept of the Lagrangian.Originally Posted by DrRocket
OK.Originally Posted by salsaonline
So the route to Zen understanding is 1) You start with a Lagrangian that appears more or less by magic or intuition as a functional to be minimized over spacetime 2) You apply timeinvariance symmetry and Noether's theorem to find a current that is presereved by the symmetry 3) Then you observe that the quantity defined by this Noether current is that which comprises all elementary particles and which also allows one to do work, and that it is related to the Hamiltonian so we call it "energy".
That pretty much clears things up  at least for an algebraic geometer.
This ought to make for an interesting freshman lecture.
« Gravititional force  friction and vocal chords » 