What is Energy?

[@sehatmandp]

I have watched more than 10 videos on what is energy and at the end of each video my mind asks what is energy. But you explain it very well my mind satisfied. Thanks for the video

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Minhaj, thank you for your kind words... But do not stop there... Keep reflecting about it... That question has huge implications on our sense of reality!

[@adelzaki8177]

I am 80 years old and my professionality is engineering but I could not be ever explain the Energy to my grand children as you did . Sir I love your way ; It is a talent !!!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Sir, you made my day! Thank you very much for your comment. Energy is a concept which is quite difficult to explain. I remember thinking: I should give it a try in a video as a challenge to myself. I am very glad you enjoyed it. Have you tried to explain it again to your grand kids?

[@dominicestebanrice7460]

Excellent! I was astonished to read in the first chapter of "Understanding Thermodynamics" by H. C. Van Ness (slim volume, classic text) that 'energy' is a useful, albeit entirely abstract & created construct! Page 14 is stunning; Ness writes "Every form of energy we have discussed is known only as a function of other variables......and that's why I can't show you a chunk of energy or why I can't define it or tell you what it is.....it is just mathematical or abstract......thus why we have no energy meters, no device we can stick in a system which will record its energy....the whole thing is man-made....what we have is a scheme with a set of rules......the remarkable thing about this scheme is enormous generality". You're the first teacher who has pulled the cover off the whole "energy is capacity to do work" & "work is transfer of energy" circularity. Thank you, this is really helpful.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Yes, this circularity had been troubling me when I started to teach physics so I reflected on this idea. I haven't read this book, but the extract you kindly quoted is quite inspiring. Thanks!

[@Littleprinceleon]

Is the concept of force so much better 🤠?

[@Littleprinceleon]

Or the whole number system? Each of our concepts is "created": they just more or less perfectly represent something we can sense. Whether it's more or less concrete (or measurable) depends on what that term is used for... Isn't energy a universal measure of all kinds of change? Regards the video: How can we say a system has temperature but it doesn't have energy? What keeps the thermometer in a certain state?

[@Albertmars32]

You are very good at explaining complex stuff. I hate how most teachers will just give you the text book definition of something complex and expects you to make 100 percent sense of it. Will be buying your udemy course real soon. Cheers

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Albert. Yes, to the point! I strongly believe that one should first explain how to use a hammer, before asking someone to build a house! Many teachers forget that... This is why I built this channel.

[@amitbhaskar1765]

For the first time, physics for me is not an abstract bundle of symbols and concepts that i can't intuitively grasp. You have made it possible.. Kudos to you! Thank you so much.. This is essentially a great service to science and the world!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Wow! Thank you Amit, that is a great encouragement!

[@kyliejeppy9309]

Im a 12th grader who barely passed chemistry but is doing fairly in physics. Thank you very much for this wonderful explanation, it honestly helped a lot. I'm somewhat curious with your idea of this "universe going to equilibrium" (paraphrased) kind of idea; mainly on how it relates to the big bang and the big bang's before and afters, something like "how did the universe conjure up energy for the big bang if it started from nothing?". Could I also inquire on the topics I need to cover to be able to answer these types of questions more. A more philosophical question would be: "Is there something we can leave behind that would last forever?". Also after reading some comments I would just like to express my gratitude to you for the responses you give to comments even over 2 years of upload date.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Kylie, First , congratulations for asking yourself these questions. Pretty cool for a high school student! Of course, I do not have the answers, but can share with you a few starting suggestions for your reflection. "how did the universe conjure up energy for the big bang if it started from nothing?" Quantum fluctuation… and an infinite amount of time. An amount of time so large that such a very improbable quantum fluctuation can occur. Actually, you can see the energy as being “borrowed”, the same way a the highly massive boson (like the W or the Z) borrows the energy from vacuum, does its thing (transmits the weak force), then decays (gives back the energy to vacuum). (If for you, I'm talking Chinese there, check my videos about particle physics ;-) ) For such a huge amount of energy to be borrowed is extremely improbable, but not impossible given enough time. Another hypothesis is to see that the energy of the universe (matter, thus gravity) is compensated by a negative energy that would related to its expansion... the grand total would be: zero… You see, the question remains open. "Is there something we can leave behind that would last forever?" All depends by how you define “forever”. Time and space are intimately connected. "Forever" could be an infinitely small instant for you if you travel at the speed of light. More pragmatically: any action you carry out, even just breathing, has a significant impact on the stuff around you. With time, the consequence of this action gets diluted with all the other actions. And in the end, building a huge monument that will last millennia, or just watering a flower that will last a few weeks, which action has the most impact? After a billion years, both actions will have so little impact, that you can ask yourself does it really matter? Of course this is just under a universal perspective. Socially, and in the ‘short’ term, building a monument will obviously have more impact. Yet, thinking Universally, allows one to reallocate priorities about what is really important. And that’s where you can discover that the flower can be as important as the monument.

[@mr.nicktuts653]

That concept of equilibrium energy, brought the concept home for me... This is by far, one of the easiest videos trying to define energy 👍

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Nick, I tried to explain energy using the most basic concepts. Understanding entropy helps in formalizing the discussion I present at the end of the video. It's on my wish-list for future video (What is Entropy), but another concept comes in the way often of my wishes: time ;-)!

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Great video especially entropy part. What I understood is force and motion are necessary for work or energy transfer. A mass held at a height has 0 net force and 0 motion. The gravitational potential energy it has can neither do any work nor transfer any energy unless restraining force is removed and it is allowed to move. Can we say Energy is 'Force in Motion' and mass, charge are only carriers of force and motion.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you for your kind words Zakir. Before I answer, 2 comments. “can neither do any work nor transfer any energy “: be careful, this is the same thing 😉. No need to repeat things twice, it could deter you in a test (if the examiner is in a bad mnood) I just want to check that you truly understand the relation between force and motion. An object does not have to be subjected to a force to be in motion: A force is the cause of a change of motion (an acceleration, F = ma)… Now my answer. I wouldn’t associate force and energy the way you try to do. Force is the mean to transfer energy: A spoon is a mean to bring food to your mouth, it is not the food...

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding. You are my most favourite channel. My questions are usually absurd but you still answer them. Thanks again.

[@joalexsg9741]

Crystal clear explanations, as one who graduated in another area and who was never good at either physics or maths when I was young, I find the formulas a bit confusing, but I guess I've gotten the gist of the topic:-) Thank you so much for your lesson!

[@zhishengying3718]

I wish my high school had taught me this definition of energy. Subscribed.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, it should have! A good textbook I could recommend to you if you feel your school is not doing its job: Physics for the IB Diploma Cambridge 7th Edition (Author: Tsokos).

[@kimmanning2913]

We have been beautifully provided for.

[@GoogleMonster]

I just discovered your channel. I love it! Thanks for explaining things so clearly!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You are welcome. I am glad you enjoyed your visit to my channel. Feel free to visit anytime!

[@syedzaidi6528]

Excellent. no 1 in youtube.

[@mehim2893]

So , I'm sitting here thinking about special relativity and how insane it is that someone moving at 99% the speed of light would only perceive that an hour had passed but the people on earth would have lived for 100 years and how mind-blowingly strange that is. That got me thinking about Einstein in general and I realized I have no idea what energy actual is. And now I know. You did so well in explaining it.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you so much Me Him for these kind words. Your words reflect the ultimate goal of this channel: explaining the basics in Physics in a clear way. When someone understands the true meaning of these basics, it can really expand his or her horizon, maybe even induce vocations!

[@kotkonceptualny3113]

This is what I looked for. Best explanation what is energy!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you for your feedback!

[@gno7553]

Très instructif. L'énergie est la capacité à opérer des changements et le travail est de l'énergie transférée.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Tout a fait ;l-)

[@wisnuape]

Thank you for the great explanation ! Been looking for this kind of explanation about energy on a more intuitive level.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Visnu, I am glad you enjoyed it!

[@charleswasicek346]

thank you for making this video

[@rodrigosantillan7130]

Very clear explanation. Thank you.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Rodrigo, I'm glad it was of help to you.

[@rd-tk6js]

Well explained, thanks !

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You are welcome Rajesh!

[@garv.singhal]

Suppose we add air to the universe. Then, can we not say that the particles with kinetic energy, i.e, 35° on a much wider scale, of the two boxes would collide with each other and all the energy would be transferred to the air as 'heat' and the boxes would reach 0° or 0 K.E Avg.? Very good explanation sir, thank you!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, Well, you could see air as a third box! The system universe would be composed of three subsystems, i.e. three boxes. After some time, the three subsystems would arrive to a new thermal equilibrium. To reach 0 Kelvin, the air introduced would need to be at 0 Kelvin, and in infinite quantity, while the two initial boxes would be finite. In other words, impossible physically.

[@rituvardani333]

Sir,Why is potential energy of system negative of work done by internal conservative force

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Check my video 'why is gravitational potential energy negative?': kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJKYoHxthrRlmacsi=r-iV2Sj9fL3W0_NY You will find the answer to your question there..

[@jakianupu300]

I am a students of class 8 from Bangladesh. Your explanation is so good.Now it is clear to me.Thank you very much!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Jakia. Good luck with your studies!

[@faizazhar8463]

Hello sir, great video! I'm just asking, is there any energy definition that didn't express work? Your definition of energy I think is as just same as the textbook definition that you mentioned earlier. What I see in your definition is the term that is being defined (which is energy) is included in the definition. So it doesn't defining anything😅

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Typical chicken and the egg isn't it? haha. You can look at it that way: when there is transfer of energy (work done) it changes the state of the object that is worked upon, right? So energy of a system can be seen as the capacity to change the state of an external system (i.e. to carry out an action). Also, I discuss a deeper interpretation of the text book definition at the end of the video... maybe you didn't go far enough in the video... ;-)

[@syedzaidi6528]

super , love this info. excellent explanation. lov u man.

[@irfankhan-hr1eb]

At which base the difference between state of objects could be taken? in given example there is change in temperature so its easy to understand But generally ?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Irfan, The state of an object is the set of values of all the variables that characterizes an object. For example, the state of an ideal gas depends on Pressure, Volume, Amount and Temperature, which are called state variables. These variables are linked by an equation of states (PV=nRT) that represents all the states possible for that gas, i.e., it represents the set of the possible combination of values of P, V, n and T.

[@mpopa5673]

Great video. Thank you !

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi m popa, I am glad you enjoyed it!

[@busterwong2573]

We talk about "using energy". Or "consuming energy". I use energy to power my car or my laptop. But how can we use something that is not a thing, but a property of things? What would be the scientifically correct way to describe "using energy" or "consuming energy"?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Good question. Energy can be divided in useable and non-usueable energy. Useable energy is energy you can transform to something useful (like the energy stored in a battery that you transform into light). However, if you wish to use (or transform) the heat due to friction coming out of a motor, that is much more tricky to collect...! I would use the expression to "use energy" because you are just using it, it doesn't dissapear, just transforms. 'Consuming energy' is imho incorrect because it suggests that once you consumed it, it has dissapeared, which obiously is incorrect. In that situation, it just become non-useable energy...

[@roy8226]

Nice explanation

[@PR.Gokulnath]

Thanks😊

[@AriaHarmony]

This is a very good explanation, thank you! The circular definition of work and energy had me very puzzled. Also this nicely explains veritasium's latest video about entropy, the universe is basically working (heh get it?) its way into a state of equilibrium, and life is a quicker way to reach that equilibrium even faster because life does lots of energy transfer all over, losing a lot of it in form of heat, thus speeding up the universe's heat death. So based on this, from a physics perspective, life arising in the universe is favorable and maybe even inevitable... what do you think?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Aria Harmony, I have seen Veritasium’s video about Entropy show up on my feed, but haven’t had time yet to check it out. It’s a good channel, I will certainly. When you say « the universe is basically working, its way into a state of equilibrium », be careful. Energy in the universe remains constant (saying 'Universe' implies an isolated system). So the Universe is not 'working'. What changes is the entropy (How energy is distributed, when every infinitely small volume has the same energy density, then entropy is maximum = heat death). Interesting thought about why life has tendency to rise. I never saw it that way. One could see life as an analogue to an activation energy… A Universe needs a set of physical rules and constants to be able to pass such barrier, and when it does, life begins. Indeed life will then increase the rate at which entropy rises. However, if you think at the contribution of life to that effect for the whole universe… well unless we (or aliens) become a type 3 civilisation on Kardashev’s scale , it is a drop in the ocean !

[@AriaHarmony]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy oh yes I didn't mean the universe itself is working, I suppose I see the universe like a big complex machine, if the many pieces inside of it are doing work, I'd say the machine is "working". But I see now that's not the correct physics way of describing it, thanks for correcting me, the details are very valuable to me because I'm still trying to understand this. It might be a drop in the ocean, but if life increases entropy even very very little, then life becomes just another expected thing to arise in the universe, just like atoms and molecules and stars and galaxies, our existence is yet another way for the physics of the universe to play out, and that's a fascinating thought to me.

[@V7B817]

Hello Sir First of all many thanks to you for uploading these videos. I have a doubt as you gave the example of two boxes with different temperature that no work can be done when the two boxes are at the same temperature. Is this definite or just statistically most probable? Your explanation of energy is what i perceive is something like concept of entropy. Plz help me out in this Greetings from India

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, What I meant is no net work can be done… Each individual particle can still transfer energy to another, but overall, statistically, no net energy is transfered between the two blocks. Entropy has many definitions (measure of the disorder of a system, measure of the lack of information…). The way I like to see it is as a measure of how well the energy is spread out within a closed system. If the energy is fully spread out, no net event can occur within that system, entropy is maximal (example : discussion about the heat death of the universe). This is why I consider that even if the level of internal energy of a closed system is not zero (it has temperature), the energy that can do stuff is actually zero… I wanted to remain ‘high school’ level, but this idea of energy that can do stuff (= available for work) is well defined: it is called free energy, and is noted G. I hope this answers your question

[@V7B817]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Thank you sir

[@goremall]

It seems like most peole define what energy does and not what energy is. Thanks for the informative video!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

I am glad it was useful to you, thank you.

[@En_theo]

@9:00 It's not sure that once the heat has reached equilibrium, it is impossible to recover energy again. Penrose showed that after a veeerryy long time, the remaining heat (mostly infrared) has a chance of being unbalanced again. The more time is passing, the more that possibility gets stronger and then we will get usable energy again.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Again Theo, Interesting comment. Please note that I keep a non-quantum mechanical approach to the concept of energy here. I am not considering Heisenberg’s uncertainty (delta E x delta t>h/4pi). If you have an infinite amount of time in front of you, anything with an extremely minute probability of happening will happen an infinite amount of times. So in the example of the two blocks that reach the same temperature, there will be fluctuations in that equilibrium. if you wait long enough, these fluctuations may one day become such as the initial conditions appear again… This idea gives a solution to the heat death of the universe by the way… If the universe is infinite in time, and reaches a point where entropy is truly maximum (no more differences of energy anywhere), then all kind of fluctuations can occur in that infinite number of time, including a huge concentration of energy at one point, leading to a new big bang… to witness that though, you’ll need to be quite patient haha!

[@En_theo]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Indeed, but then again, time does not pass for photons so to them, that new universe will be born again in the blink of an eye ;) But yeah, you're right, in the usual definition of energy, we don't usually consider this aspect of things but I thought it was nice mentioning it.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

@@En_theo "time does not pass for photons so to them, that new universe will be born again in the blink of an eye ;)" That's correct, lol! It's amazing don't you think?

[@En_theo]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Indeed but it brings the question... if time didn't pass for the photons, who/what was calculating all these interactions during trillions of years ? It involves that there is "another" time out there, out of the system.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

I like your way of thinking. In our universe, time is relative to the magnitude of the velocity (Speed). So no, you cannot say that because of the photon does not experience time that there is another time out there… If the photon interacts with something (apart from space-time) that means that it will lose speed somehow (with space time, its wavelength changes). So if there is an interaction, time exists for the photon (for example, speed of light decreases when passing in a medium). However, I do believe that there is an universal and non-relative time outside of the system as you say. But not for the same reason. I can’t accept that the big bang is the beginning of time, of our time as part of space time, yes, but there must be a “time” outside too. I’d call it a perpendicular (or orthogonal) time, which is not related to anything that occurs in our universe. But all that is just a hunch. There is no way I know which would help me prove that idea, lol!

[@diegomccastrillon]

1I loved your explanation, really useful! thanks a lot

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you Diego. I am glad my work helped you!

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Are Mass, Energy & Motion equipment & inter-convertable?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Do you mean: "are Mass, Potential Energy, and Kinetic energy convertible into one another?" Short answer: yes :-)

[@alvideor]

Thank you for the video, but I am confused by your explanation near the end. I understand that when the temperatures of the two bodies equalize to 35° C no work can be done in the two body system. But on the other hand the particles of the bodies are still moving and so must have kinetic energy by the formula KE = 1/2 m * v^2. So the bodies still can do work but don't have opportunity to do so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the tendency to reach equilibrium is not energy itself but rather one of the properties or laws that energy obeys.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Alex, Quoting you: “So the bodies still can do work but don't have opportunity to do so”. IF they do not have that opportunity (and never will because they are isolated from the outside), that means that they cannot do work on each other, ever… 😉 Let’s dig in but first please note that the explanation at the end of the video is not a formal definition, it is more of a big-picture conceptual discussion, a philosophical one, and it is personal (not a consensual truth) imho, is all a question a perspective: When you take the universe formed by the two objects at 35C, at the microscopic level, particles do have energy individually. So hit each other and can transfer energy to each other. But at the macroscopic level, the work going one way is compensated by the work going the other. On a global scale, the heat is zero, and the state of either objects cannot change…There is no capacity to do work of one object on the other, even if there is still this possibility to do work between the particles constituting the objects themselves. So in the end, at the macroscopic level, no possibility for the macroscopic objects to carry out an action that would lead to an evolution of these individual objects, thus no energy...

[@zahidiqbal-gv1bh]

Amazing

[@juker92]

Great video!

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you :-)

[@SubhanMalik-qd2bw]

Thanks sir god bless you ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@poolofanxiety885]

can u explain me why a person carrying a load is not doing any work? i mean books teachers say that force(weight) and displacement are orthogonal but person does apply force to move the load in the direction it is movine. If the person didnt apply any force how would it move

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Actually no. Suppose you move a bag from point A to B. At A, you work on it to lift it up and accelerate it (you give it PE and KE respectively, the bag gains energy).Then between A and B the bag stays at constant speed and constant height (it does not gain any energy). When you come to B, you slow it down, and put it back on the floor. The bag loses the energy, that it gives back to you (that you actually lose via the friction between your feet and the ground.) So you see, between A and B, the total energy gained (or lost) by the bag is zero: No work was done on it...

[@ravuruvasudevareddy3347]

Work done by gravity on load is zero...Work done by person on load is not zero...Becuase , object displaced from point A to B..

[@mohitahuja1111]

Sir please explain the concept of Strain energy & virtual work

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Mohi. I understand strain energy as being elastic potential energy. Virtual work dW is the work that a force would provide though a displacement dx (this displacement is virtual because it does not really occur). If you determine that the sum of the virtual works of all forces on a system is zero , you can conclude that the system is in static equilibrium. Basically it has no physical reality. This concept is just an analytical tool or trick used in engineering.

[@mohitahuja1111]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Thanks a lot for the clear explanation sir . Physics is best understood , with great teacher like you Sir .Once again thanks a ton for sharing your precious knowledge with us Sir . Regards

[@sks-kt4iy]

Sir one doubt. Can I define as something that has ability to create a disturbance

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Yes, absolutely. To create a disturbance within a calm system, you do need to give it a little push, i.e. work on it... So something that can create a disturbance, is something that can do work, i.e. that has energy.

[@islamabed9097]

Thank you for video. What is the relationship or the difference between the charge and the energy of electron ? the charge is property the energy is the state of disturbances Is that true??

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, Charge is a property of the electron yes. It quantifies how much force an electron experiences when placed in an electric field. Energy remains the capacity to do work (carry out an action, and transfer itself in the process). An electron has KE and PE like any other system. You mention the word 'state' of disturbance, maybe you are referring the energy state of an electron in an atom, and maybe you mean 'excited' for the word 'disturbed'. Here too, the electron has a mechanical energy (KE + PE), which defines its ability to do work. The difference here is that this value is quantised (quantum mechanics is involved ), so it can only take certain values, that is why we talk about defined energetical states (ground state, excited states). Does this answer your question?

[@islamabed9097]

yes The energy of electron is negative .Why?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

@@islamabed9097 The energy of an electron is not necessarily negative... It is the charge carried by the electron that is negative (Q(electron) = -e = - 1.6x10^-19C). To calculate the electrical potential energy of an electron you need to multiply its charge by the electric potential at the position you place the electron: E =qV = -eV. If the electric potential V is negative, the energy of the electron will be positive. If V is positive, the energy of the electron will be negative.

[@islamabed9097]

​@@PhysicsMadeEasy good explanation . Thank you

[@INESHINGID]

A force is defined as a push or pull on an object. So isn't applying force the same as applying energy on the system, yet both of them have way different formulas. This is my doubt from past 3 months😅. So is force and energy the same thing or are they related?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, If you want to transfer energy to a system, you need to work on it. How can you do that ? Well, by applying a force (Work = Force * displacement and work = change of energy of the system). So no, Energy and force are not the same thing. They are fundamentally different quantities. But they are related: A force is the mean by which energy can be provided to a system, as long as that force also results in the displacement of that system.

[@INESHINGID]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy Thank you so much sir, may God bless you 😄

[@sonalthakkar5555]

But when the 2 liquids are at the temperature of 35 degrees each, they have some kinetic energy. Hence this temperature.... how do we explain that?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Yes, but to what can the two bodies transfer this internal KE? There is nothing else in that hypothetical closed universe to transfer energy to... the KEs of the particles follow a distribution, so nearly all particles will find a particle of lower energy to work on, agreed. But on a macroscopic scale, the work of A on B or of B on A will still remain zero on average. Therefore can we really say that there is energy in that universe, if nothing can ever happen...

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Where is kinetic energy of a moving object stored. An object in motion has mass and velocity. As an object starts moving its mass does not change, only its velocity changes. Could the energy be stored in velocity? But at relativistic velocity, velocity does not account for the entire KE as gamma factor comes into play. This leaves the applied force which causes the motion of the object. Is moving object a force carrier and KE stored as Force since KE increases as force increases.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hey Zakir, An object has Energy when it has capacity to do work, i.e. carry an action (that results in transferring some of that energy to the object it is interacting with). So yes, the energy is 'stored' in the velocity of the object. When the speeds become relativistic, due to the limitation of the speed of light inherent to our universe, some of it starts to get 'stored' as mass (KE continues to increase, KE = 1/2mv2). Indeed between two objects travelling at the same speed, the one that has more mass, when it smashes into something, can create more damage (do work).

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Thank you for reply. Some experts say experiments don't support relativistic mass. One thing that intrigues me is huge increase in gamma factor close to light speed. How can this be explained? For the universe to ensure that no object exceeds speed of light, acceleration must become zero at light speed. Since F= ma , at zero acceleration large force due to large relativistic mass just before speed of light must also become zero. What caused this force catastrophe. Apparently at light speed an object does not offer any resistance and therefore can no longer be pushed to further accelerate.

[@Littleprinceleon]

@@zakirhussain-js9ku maybe you should stop making the same mistake as I used to: please abandon your custom of imagining abstract concepts (force, energy) as if they were inherent properties of objects. (Even the concept of object as a non-changing entity is a hindrance in the long run: if you wish to dive into the world of particles. For now it would be sufficient to take a glimpse at how the stability of atomic nucleus (the most object-like thingy a layperson can wish for) is achieved. There are explanations describing how all the subatomic stuff confined in some regular 3D space (electrons in atoms, quarks in protons and nucleons) need to take longer and longer paths to accomplish the same process (eg. "exchange" of quarks ensuring the strong interaction) with increasing speed of the system (eg. one atom): these longer paths as the cause of "slowing" time. Time regarded in this case as an emergent property describing the relative rate of changes in the system. Energy, force, time, etc. (maybe even space)... these are "just" mathematical tools which help us to describe complex events in a more simple but approximately precise way. Note the word EVENT (a process): these concepts characterize movement or interaction (either actual transfer of "influence" or the possibility of it). Of course, if a layperson starts to dig after how mass or acceleration is described in "higher" physics, it's easy to quickly loose ground. But at least we start to make more relevant questions...

[@GodbornNoven]

Mm, I'm an 8th grade student and i have a question, since friction is a force that opposes the movement of the object thus reducing its Velocity, and because it's Velocity is reduced its Kinetic energy is reduced which means it's total energy is also reduced, Am i catching on correctly

[@rahulkajala25]

Yes, kinetic energy reduce but due to friction there is also loss of energy in form of heat,this heat is that loss of kinetic energy , here we are talking about ideal situations like totally isolated things, hope you understand

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Rahul explained it perfectly. If it's still unclear let us know!

[@rahulkajala25]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy thanks for replying sir, I want to ask that einstein said that in this universe there is only two things that has existence matter and energy, my question is this does energy has real existence or this is just an arbitrary concept for understanding things in universe?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

@@rahulkajala25 Energy is a quantity that represents the possibility of action (ability to do work). In an universe without energy, nothing happens... Check my video " What is Energy", I reflect on that... Now, does it really exist or is it a concept invented by the human mind? This is in the same arena than: Do Mathematics exist? ;-) What do you think?

[@haiderabbaskazmi6660]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy love ur videos why u are not uploading

[@Rajbirsingh-ef5mb]

Can you plzz explain what is thermal energy 😊

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

The official definition is : Thermal energy refers to the energy contained within a system that is responsible for its temperature. In other words it is the kinetic component of internal energy. I am not a fan of this term because I noticed that many students confuse heat and thermal energy (heat being a transfer of internal energy, like work is a transfer of mechanical energy)). Personally, for thermal energy, I prefer to talk about internal kinetic energy.

[@everythingeverything7672]

what is the relationship or difference between force and energy

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Everything! Work is a transfer of energy, meaning that if A works on B, then A transfers some of its energy to B. If it does so mechanically, then it applies a force to do so. The longer (in distance) it applies such force, the more energy A will give to B (and lose for itself). Work = transfer of energy = force * distance (For this formula here, I assume force is constant). That is the relationship between energy and force: Force is the mean by which energy can be transferred. I hope this helps!

[@sweetscene2178]

Energy is specific and dynanic condition that affect the characteristics of an object and enable the object to affects another objects. Laoli, 2022

[@sweetscene2178]

Specific means countable and observable Dynamic means able to changed and able to transfered

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

In other words, it is the capacity to do work... But as discussed at the end of the video, this text book definition, although being very useful is imho incomplete. Such work needs to aid at bringing the system towards an equilibrium... If the equilibrium is already attained in a completely isolated system (i.e. a state of maximum entropy), even is a particle of that system moves around, and can work on its neighbour, that system remains energyless.

[@communistseal781]

This, good explanation

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Thank you

[@flexn01]

thank you

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

You are welcome Flexn

[@pug9431]

What is the relationship between mass and energy? I thought mass was a form of energy. If this is the case, in your hupothetical universe, how can there be objects with mass and yet no energy?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Yes mass is a form of energy. But here we are talking about extractable (Useable) energy. If the temperature (kinetic energy of particles) of an universe reaches such a value that things keep on crashing into each other at high speeds (like in the LHC), matter is not stable... At lower temperatures, where no nuclear reactions can occur, the energy capable of being transferred in that universe is only that of the motion (and position) of particles, not their not their binding energies. It's like if this energy was crystallized, thus not transferrable. so can be put aside. Are you considering the nuclear binding energies of the atoms in the gasoline that you put in your car to calculate how far you can drive with a full tank? You can see it that way: Imagine a container where there are two blocs of ice. One higher than the other. It is a hypothetical universe where the temperature never rises above -50 Celsius. Nothing can happen. The gravitational potential energy of the water in the highest block cannot be dissipated or used. Now suppose you can manage to change the laws of this universe so to rise its temperature up to +50 Celsius. the ice melts, and now the gravitational energy can be dissipated... it becomes useable

[@pug9431]

@PhysicsMadeEasy Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply! I am still struggling with the question of "what is energy?" I understand well the concept of energy as the potential to do work, however we are using the word energy as if it is a substance that mass is made of, not merely the "potential to do work." Like if we ask "what is this pot?" and the answer is clay, however clay is defined as "the potential to take the form of objects such as a pot." It is an unsatisfying answer to me!

[@vitrums]

@@pug9431 Let me try to address your concerns. I think E = mc^2 is a key to understand, that at the very core all stuff is made of "energy". Like molecules are made of atoms, and atoms are made of quantum particles and so on... stuff, which we call "matter" is essentially a compressed "energy". Yes, a material object is simply some amount of dense energy shaped in some way. Because when matter and anti-matter collide, they don't cancel out, but turn into 2 times mc^2 amount of raw "energy", which in turn (I assume) is simply a whole bunch of photons (strangely enough anti-photon is just a photon). However... Lucky us we don't have to be concerned every minute of devastating collisions with anti-matter. So in everyday life we understand and measure energy and work the way it's being explained in this video. Again, if it wasn't for E = mc^2, we'd be thinking of maybe just photons or some other form of radiation. But we do have a link between mass and energy. So it is the same energy as in pushing a heavy block or heating up cooler object scenarios. 🤔

[@yogeshasrao8159]

Then, how did equilibrium got disturbed or how did first energy born or can there be a permanent death......?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

In other words, You are asking me how the Universe came to be haha! If I really knew, life would be quite boring don't you think ! There are many hypothesis on how the Universe came to be and where this initial boost of energy came from. One of the ideas that speaks most to me, is the one hypothesizing a huge quantum fluctuation in an already 'dead' universe. That's where the initial energy (or unbalance) would come from.

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Universe is made of infinitely small quantum particles in perpetual motion. Motion of these particles represents total energy of the universe. All interactions are mere exchange of quantum particles.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Motion is not the only form of energy. You know that Zakir! If I understand your attempt to generalization to all energy is KE, you assimilate potential energy as the exchange of particles (photons, gluons...), but these particles are virtual, they do not need to move across space to be exchanged...

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

A stationary object in a force field has energy. Since it is not moving this energy cannot be KE. Thank you for clarifying. I had thought that PE of an object resulted from KE of quantum particles which moved objects just like virtual photon repel similar charges in QED. I thought PE results from restraining force preventing object's motion so it was equivalent to KE. All forms of energy involved some kind of motion or ability to move.I was trying to figure out energy source of different fields and how gravity, electric, magnetic forces act at a distance. Since everything in Universe is in perpetual motion I thought quantum particles must also have motion and therefore possessed KE. This to me resolved energy source of fields and action at a distance. I thought energy flows from higher density space to lower density space w/o need for any intervening physical medium since difference in density producd the force which is physical arm of energy causing motion. Greater the difference in space density higher is the energy flow or energy flow is directly proportional to difference in space density. Since free space has least density all energy is flowing into free space causing it to expand. Due to presence of moving quantum particles Space is probably largest matter & energy reservoir. Unfortunately this energy cannot be used as it has least density and energy cannot flow towards higher density. This is what I had imagined.

[@Littleprinceleon]

@@zakirhussain-js9ku isn't it so that the energy calculated for vacuum (based on QM) is so extremely high that it utterly contradicts the measured cosmological constant?

[@pillepolle3122]

My definition: energy is what i don't have so early on monday morning

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Or is it motivation that you don't have? You probably would unlock that Monday energy if what you had to do during these mornings would excite you! You only have one life, so reflect on what you want to do with it :-)

[@stkamman]

To me, you ,and others, are simply describing methods of measuring energy. You haven't told me what it is. This potential, where did it come from? How did it get there?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

In the Video, I do describe what energy is the state of an object that allows that object to do work (= carry out an action which will change the energy state of another object). If you wanted a definition that relates to a thing (like an apple or a car), you will be disappointed. Energy is a state (like for a human being, feeling happy or hungry). And your question appears to be in the end kind of like: What is the Universe?, and how did come to be? lol!

[@Lucky9Ge]

So energy is basically trying to reach an equilibrium by doing work? And energy is what does work to reach the equilibrium? So all all things with energy will eventually reach equilibrium?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Absolutely Rafida... If you extend this reasoning to a very far moment in the future, when all the content of the universe is in equilibrium, it will arrive to a state called the "Heat Death".

[@veeshan6164]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy would that mean that the universe will have no more mass ? Will every atom return to nothingness or whatever that mean to us ? This is giving me a headache.

[@ahmedeltorkey9413]

thank u so much. finally i found the answer.🌹🌹

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

I am glad I was of help Ahmed

[@physicslab5787]

Nice.

[@zouhaierfridhi6713]

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@AFLlight]

Is this true? Energy is exercising capability purposely expecting. Once performed the object rests and the target reacts till it rests.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, I am not sure I understand your question well. Could you kindly re-formulate it? (maybe a practical example could help) But one thing I can react on is “Energy is exercising capability”. You can’t say that. Energy is a state, it is not an action: Energy is a capacity to do something, not doing the thing (that would be work).

[@amarnathnvr6489]

So energy is not distinct entity .it is the trait of an object or media

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Fundamentally, energy is a state function, that is a quantity that can be derived from variables that describe the state of a body (state variables, like temperature, volume, amount etc.) So you can see energy as inherently linked to the state of a body. When vulgarizing, it is said that energy is carried by the body, as it can be given to or taken from the object by another. That is why you might consider it in that context that energy is a separate quantity. But when an object changes state, it also implies that it has interacts with another body, that also changes state as a consequence of that interaction. Thus both have changed state and thus energy (remember can be energy is calculated from a state), so it looks like energy was transferred from one to another, while it might be a purely humanly artificial concept to make sense of things (like forces)... This is just one interpretation that should be taken with a pinch of salt, yet is asks if energy is real thing. I find this interesting. Your question is quite deep :-)

[@utkarsh3373]

Energy is the ability to transfer energy

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

That's about it... Typical text-book cat-eating-its-tail definition. This is why I go a little further in the video. One thing you can cling too if you want, is that when work is done, it changes the states of the things that are worked upon and that are working... So you can see energy as the capacity to change the state of systems.

[@deezee3005]

Sir, I am confused with energy and momentum.. I think both are associated to motion. Like my doubt came when i was studying inelastic collisions. Even though there is loss of energy in the form of sound and heat, The momentum is conserved..I know like the external force is zero but again who is giving them motion when there is energy loss.. I know it sound wierd.. BUT please help me understand conservation of momentum and how it really works..

[@Littleprinceleon]

@@deezee3005 in a closed system that "lost" energy is again absorbed by other objects in the system. However if I'm reasoning correctly such a "lossless" exchange is possible only if objects are in reasonable DISTANCE to eachother. Distance(s) (not only spatial, so more precisely the metrics) is another hard concept. What important differences are between fundamental and emergent properties, how are they related. And considering the wide variety of wild theories interpreting QM phenomena gives me the impression that sciences are either nowhere near in regards to what constitutes spacetime or reality is more abstract than most of us are willing to even ponder upon. I will look up some videos about Heat death of the universe... Because it was told in a video made by Science Asylum that while spacetime is expanding some energy is CREATED! Nick Lucid makes errors, but not so big ones as to explicitly state nonsense. Of course the context of this "creation" is the key. Maybe he was just referring to vacuum energy? That's off topic however.... With all respect, I don't think that this video about a macroscopic, statistics based view on the definition of energy really approaches that fundamental level needed to explain motion. But a superb intro to develop a solid base for deeper understanding. So I thank you, PME

[@vidhyashanker9609]

if energy is perceived as the nature's urge or universe's urge to bring about equilibrium why a human has the ability to use energy upon his will? why is energy disposable at will? if all the bodies in the universe are at same state then nothing can happen but then how did something happen all of sudden?

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hello Vidhya, I’ll answer with an example: Chemical A reacts with chemical B to give chemical C naturally. « Naturally » means that during this reaction some energy is released for example as heat. But if A and B are not in contact, they cannot react. This is how humans can ‘use’ energy at will, by bringing A in contact with B. btw, I prefer the word ‘Transformed’ than "use" : In this example, the chemical potential energy A and B has been transformed into heat (and the rest remains as chemical potential energy in C) For your last question, the answer is not known, but many hypothesis exist. One of them (my favorite) is based on the uncertainty principle, a pillar of quantum mechanics (Delta E x Delta t > fixed value). Too long to explain in a comment. Another implies that there would have been a contracting universe before and it bounced back into ours. There are other ideas too. You should be able to find them by digging on The Internet. An interesting journey ahead for you 😉!

[@vidhyashanker9609]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy indeed an interesting journey it is, it will be untill death.🙂

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

@@vidhyashanker9609 Cosmology and quantum physics progress fast. Who knows, some unexpected and incredible breakthrough could show up before that :-)

[@vidhyashanker9609]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy 😍 hope

[@alchemy1]

May I present another angle? What was termed in the video as maximum entropy .. etc. maybe a temporary state.... How is this possible? It is because the system, any system as it sits and does not interact outside itself if you will, will collapse upon itself. Gravity is the other side of energy, negative energy if you will. While energy moves outward, gravity pulls inward. When gravity gets extreme, then it explodes as in Big Bang. However then the question becomes of another kind. Does information get destroyed. Myself I take the position of saying yes. Why? Because whatever that is put together goes towards being undone. So it is cyclic if you will. However it is not the kind of cycle that we think it is. It is an ultimate death and rejuvenation for lack of a better word. There can not be any continuation. Hawking radiation is kids play.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

HI Blue Ocean... A few thoughts: - - - May I present another angle? What was termed in the video as maximum entropy .. etc. maybe a temporary state.... How is this possible? It is because the system, any system as it sits and does not interact outside itself if you will, will collapse upon itself. - - - Maximum entropy in an isolated system cannot be considered as a temporary state. The only exception is if you let the system evolve by luck for an infinite amount of time…If so, spontaneous reordering can occur. That is what some cosmologist suggest coudl happen at the heat death era of our Universe (New big bangs emerging locally). - - - Gravity is the other side of energy, negative energy if you will. While energy moves outward, gravity pulls inward. When gravity gets extreme, then it explodes as in Big Bang. However then the question becomes of another kind. Does information get destroyed. - - - I do not see Gravity like an energy, but as the curvature of space time. This leads to positions of lower or higher potential that provide objects in that space-time, some energy (you need to work on them to get them at a position of high potential, and you get work from them when they full into a potential well.) What you are referring to is the cosmology model of the big bounce. In that model, gravity does not become infinite because the volume of space does not become infinitely small before bouncing back. So information can still be contained in that volume of space and transferred to the Universe after the bounce. This theory can bypass the popular idea of inflationary expansion, because the universe was homogenous before the big bang (bounce), and conserved this information, that is why the cosmological background radiation would be homogeneous. Although I understand the reasoning behind this argumentation, I am not a fan of the big bounce theory ;-) - - - Myself I take the position of saying yes. Why? Because whatever that is put together goes towards being undone. So it is cyclic if you will. However it is not the kind of cycle that we think it is. It is an ultimate death and rejuvenation for lack of a better word. There can not be any continuation. Hawking radiation is kids play. - - - You are blending standard Big Band theory and Big Bounce: “The big bounce theory as a complete rejuvenation of the universe”… In that idea, you would still need inflation… But the big bounce theory was developed to remove the need for inflation! And you want to re-introduce it! Talking about cyclicity haha! Small volumes of space need quantum mechanics, and gravity, requires theory of relativity… As you know both are incompatible fop now…but you are reflecting on situations where both need to apply… As a conclusion, to all these questions, only a solid theory of quantum gravity will allow us to get a better view of the situation.

[@alchemy1]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy I do not know if there is such a thing as an isolated system. Of course isolated means that the system can never ever interact with outside environment, totally sealed from the rest of the universe. Then one inevitably ask if the universe is an isolated system..... I rather leave that alone. That is an unswerable question if nothing else due to the nature of language. The minute one uses the term isolation, it implies something outside itself to be isolated from.... One can see that there is no such as an isolated system because there is no such thing as an impenetrable boundries.... The so called isolated system was formed by the greater outside system.... ? It can not be outside of the outside... Aside from that, what I find rather puzzling is how in science, energy is treated in a very confusing manner. First it is made clear that energy is not some sort of fundamental property that it is simply a numeric value assignement. Then on the other hand the word is used not in some sort of numeric assignment but something independent and of itself, as a standalone entity for lack of better word. Vaccume energy, etc.... There was energy in the big bang singularity before time, space and forces emerged.....also what is also thrown out every now and again that no one really knows what energy is.

[@yogeshasrao8159]

How can our universe be a closed system? If so, how energy got created? No. Our cosmos is an open system. It won't die. No death to cosmos. Equilibrium will never come. That is what quantum state of things mean. It is self reliable

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

A closed system is a system on which the external environment cannot have an effect on its state. A universe (or a fraction of) can be closed for example even without borders because of the limitation of the speed of light (Causality principle) . As for the energy at the beginning: common hypothesis: a microscopic quantum fluctuation higher than a certain threshold, causes the energy 'borrowed' to transit into our current universe. You mention quantum mechanics, and it is true that in this scope, a perfect equilibrium will never be attained locally, but it can on average, on a macroscopic scale. And thanks to that, with an infinite amount of time to play, once such state attained, nothing prevents another fluctuation large enough to occur, and generate another "boom!".

[@melakadissanayaka9523]

Isnt general relativity is all about making an energy equilibrium

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

General relativity is a model that tries to understand gravity. Instead of being driven by gravitational forces, objects a put in motion by sliding on the curvature of space time... GR described one of the physical processes that occur in the universe (gravity). All processes that occur in the universe tend to make the system they are actioning on, reach equilibrium. (or if you prefer, It is the desequilibirum in energy that trigger the physical processes...). These physical processes include GR, and the others too (Weak, Strong and EM ) .

[@MrAffeman]

Nothing in this video explained anything about WHAT energy IS, only what it does. I've got a theory and to understand it, come to terms with that science and spirituality are two different sides on the same coin. Scientists at the LHC are building bigger and bigger accelerator to find smaller and smaller parts of what everything is made of. Quantum mechanics tells us that matter in its basic part mostly consist of space, if not completely. Matter is according to science, energy lumped up as vortexes. My short theory about what energy really IS, is as follows... When consciousness became aware, it expanded its boundaries, went to the edge of its boundary and did the process again and so on. That eventually made the geometry we know as The Flower of Life. The geometry itself holds all information you could ever want to know, it can explain everything. If you understand the geometry somewhat, you'd know that mathematics is an integral part of the Flower of Life. Now, the strongest and most important force we have in the universe, is love. Doing what you want to do is an expression of love. When consciousness made its first boundary it did so because it wanted to see if it could. The act resulting from "wanting" is an act out of love. Since everything in the universe is made of energy in one form or another, the consciousness that started the process of expanding its boundaries, made that out of pure love. That is what energy is, pure love. Maybe I could develop this theory better but I tell this since I have not found anyone anywhere that has ever explained anything about WHAT energy IS, so I'll be the first. It's made of love.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi, thank you for watching the video. Yet, maybe either you didn’t watch it till the end (the 1st minutes are the text book definition), either you didn’t understand it fully. Energy is the capacity of a system to perform an action in order to reach a state of balance: In such a state of equilibrium, each of its parts has the same energy, thus no action is possible. Because energy is a relative quantity, one can say that in that situation, the system has no more energy. Now, weirdly, this does not conflict with some of our own views (I refer to “ When consciousness became aware, it expanded its boundaries, went to the edge of its boundary and did the process again and so on.” I believe here you mention a cycle of eternal re-beginning. At the end of the video, I mention about the heat death of our universe. Now, Bare with me: When the system that is our universe will have reached a state of balance, where no action is possible anymore (maximum entropy), quantum fluctuations around its energy level will be the only thing left. It is possible that very large fluctuations will occur and generate new big bangs, and give birth to new universes. The probability of that happening is incredibly small, but the universe will have all eternity, for such ‘motherly’ fluctuation to occur an infinity number of times. We can even speculate that the acceleration of the spatial expansion will have reached such a rate that our universe will have become like the initial eternal inflation field from where our universe has originated (theory of eternal inflation). Our Universe will have gone out of childhood, and become a parent! Now, that, I can see like a perpetual cycle of “life” or “existence”… I wouldn't go as far as consciousness though... As for the flower of life, yes It is has an aesthetic symmetry. However, it is a human perception of beauty. Isn’t it a little self-centric to consider it like a fundamental of nature? A perfect symmetry of maximum entropy is much more ‘boring’ to our eyes, but isn’t it a cleaner harmony? If you agree with this, then you could say that energy is the quantity that tends to reach this harmony. And finally, “Energy is made of Love”, I can’t agree with that. That also is a little too self-centric to me. We shoudl be a little more modest... On the other hand, I would be more inclined to reflect on “Love is made of energy”. You know, despite the popular belief, most scientists do have actually a spiritual life too ;-) Thank you for your interesting comment.

[@MrAffeman]

@@PhysicsMadeEasy The idea of energy is abstract and science cannot cope with abstract things, it has to be something physical, and that is why they cannot go there. Still, what you talk about is like a politician, give them a question and they dance around it never reaching the point. No offense. You mention the properties of energy and in that, try to explain what it is, which you don't, and you can't, not with the current mindset of science today. I don't see the flower of life as a viewable picture we can admire, I see it as a template that holds all information within it, mathematics being the main subject. Anyway, I felt the need to provoke this subject to see the response and I didn't expect it to be cleared up any time soon. Thanks for your reply, it is very much appreciated.

[@katokianimation]

@@MrAffeman the basis of sience is math wich is the most abstract system humans ever figured out. If you can show me a cube or a square root in nature than we can think about sience as only phisical.

[@MrAffeman]

@@katokianimation Sure, math is abstract, but that is but a tool which science use to figure things out, and those things must be measurable, in existence, somewhere or science cannot detect it. Anyway, energy is a subject that will not be answered for a long time, and we cannot possibly grasp it as humans.

[@jerry..c..mattathil5872]

.............I THOUGHT THAT I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO ASKING THE SAME QUESTION.......IN THIS ENTIRE UNIVERSE ......What is ENERGY......./ What ENERGY Is........ Yes -it's NOT the ability To do work -its NOT the applied force -its NOT the result of any action/vibration CZ -every action/vibration requires an applied force (Means Energy 😞)..............SORRY

[@nikis7742]

There would be no energy in universe when there is no space/time at all there would be no disturbance or gradient in space time what that means we are at stage of single point which is dimensionless that is probably 0,0,0,coordinate system means timeless state where we would experience another big bang boooooooommmm😂😂😂😂🙏🙏🙏simple definition of energy maybe disturabnce in space/time is energy🙏🙏🙏

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Hi Nikis, what you are referring too is the heat death of the universe, when entropy is maximum, and time ahead infinite… Then a quantum fluctuation with an energy large enough, and, as you say… Boom !

[@mizanurrahmankhanpathan2610]

Great Great

[@amuumopaese595]

.

[@kimmanning2913]

God is life. How you handle the glitches in the system revolves around energy. The word of God, is pure energy thus truth and love disintegrates lies and hate.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Yes, there is way too much hate and lies in the world, and that leads to conflicts all around the world that make no sense to me whatsoever . I am not a Christian, but if I were, I would believe that God would like us to solve our problems ourselves without is intervention or influence. 1st because he is busy with trillions of other civilization in the Universe to take care of, and 2nd, to really see if we are worth preserving. In other words, it's up to us.

[@jerry5149]

You're wrong. You're missing the bigger picture.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Saying bluntly that I am wrong (and that I am missing the bigger picture) while not saying why you think so is not very polite...

[@jerry5149]

I believe, in general, that there is currently no established comprehensive understanding of Energy. Am I wrong? I believe everyone is missing the bigger picture, not just you. I meant you no disrespect. I think you are a great teacher, I have the greatest respect for your teaching (professional) abilities. My bad. @@PhysicsMadeEasy

[@orlandoarellano7390]

Jerry is one of those guys who say you dont get it its more complicated than that- but then has nothing to explain what the complication is - its an easy thing to say

[@jerry5149]

Yes...@@orlandoarellano7390

[@patrisagar6548]

You talk like ricky Gervais

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

haha, I had to check who he was. It must be because British English is one of more mother tongues ;-)

[@zakirhussain-js9ku]

Answer to what is Energy is one word 'Motion'.

[@PhysicsMadeEasy]

Zakir: Energy is not motion. Energy is the capacity to do work on an object. It happens that if an object has speed (KE), it can do work on whatever it smashes into. But it could also be the position of the object that allows it to do work (object on a shelf can fall and ultimately after converting its PE to KE, do work)

[@stevenguyen731]

@zakirhussian-js9ku: Energy transfer to an object is work. Energy transfer to atom or molecule is heat. We see motion when the object or atom got energized. The relax spring has no energy. When it got stretched or energized, it has potential energy. So Energy hops from one place to another place. So have fun tracing it 😅.