Entities and attributes in science

No. It IS energy. You can say it is made of energy. That is less precide.

Correct! It is energy.

Light is, in fact, a form of energy. Specifically, light is electromagnetic radiation.

For the fourth time now, light is energy. You can say light carries energy. That is less precise.

Not at all.

Light is energy.

No. There are things that exist that are non-material - like energy.

Of course. You could do so as well.

There is no such thing as gravitational energy. There is gravitational POTENTIAL energy. And yes, you can detect it - but since gravitational potential energy is measured by both mass and distance (over short distances) then measuring that potential energy has two parts. First you measure the mass, then you measure the distance. You need both.

I have answered this five times now. I have to conclude either you are trolling or are simply incapable of understanding this discussion.

Have a good day!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is not correct, light is composed of photons and photons are not energy. Photons carry energy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe whoever wrote the following has misinterpreted Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect.
Perhaps you can point out the errors for us all

--https://www.privatdozent.co/p/einsteins-1905-paper-on-the-photoelectric-8e3

What you propose is that, after a photon loses energy it's still a particle. That isn't what we observe, though.
Not when photons interact with charged particles, at least.
Photons get redshifted and appear to lose energy, but there's a different kind of explanation for that phenomenon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you asked me that question I would say it bothers me about the same as the non-material nature of time.
I would add that I understand time fairly well, but I can't tell you what it is.

Why are you trying to define energy beyond a conserved physical quantity? There are plenty of material and non-material things in physics, we don't know what a lot of them are but we understand what they do, or, what relevance they have if they don't do anything. Time doesn't do anything, it doesn't interact with particles.

 

Light is a form of energy. Again, you can say that light carries energy. That is not quite correct, though, although it's a common (minor) error. Everyone knows what you mean when you say it.

If something carries something else then the two are separable. If, for example, a train carries coal, you can remove the coal and you still have the train. If you remove the energy from a photon, you have nothing. You have removed the energy (which is what photons are) and there is nothing left.

 

No, I didn't imply that or say that.

I guess the same could be said of an electron. You can't remove the charge from an electron but it is still a particle. An electron is not pure charge.
If photons are just pure energy, that would mean that energy has a spin of 1 and energy has momentum. That would not make sense.

 

Yep. And uncharged electrons are electron neutrinos - another form of lepton.

 

You're overthinking it.

The energy of a photon is frequency-dependent, Take away the frequency and there is no photon. The frequency is of an oscillating field.

So one takeaway is that oscillating fields are a form of energy. Pure energy doesn't make sense. Energy in a field does.
Physics is about meaningful descriptions; it's also about what kind of questions are meaningful. These tend to be about what can be measured or more generally, observed.

 

I just agree with the physics community that clearly states that photons are not pure energy, which makes perfect sense to me.
You are not disagreeing with just me, you are disagreeing with the consensus of physicist, which is fine, but I am on the side the physicists with this one.

 

Can you post a quote from that community to back up your argument?
I don't know what "pure energy" might be.

 

I've never heard them described as pure energy either, just as I have never heard matter described as pure matter. Photons are, however, a form of energy.

 

Simply type into Google "is light energy?"

Sorry for any confusion I caused by saying the word pure. What I was trying to say was that photons are not energy. A photon is a subatomic particle that has several properties and one of those properties is that it carries energy, it is not itself energy.

There is not much more I can add. Google the question "are photons energy" and check the results, I agree with the results from Google.

 

Well I actually did try what you suggest. The results, or some of them, say that light is a form of energy.
You can check this yourself.
One of them says the energy of a photon depends on its frequency; that's what I said.
Do you still agree with the results from Google?

 

Ok. I agree that a photon has several properties.
It propagates or moves at the speed of light--no surprise there. It has spin or polarization, it has momentum.

What happens if a photon is absorbed? What properties remain that tell you a photon is not the momentum, not the polarization, not the energy from the oscillations of the field? What should I be able to observe after a photon is absorbed?

 

I am not a fan of using popular media to define science. Nevertheless I tried your experiment:

Top results:
"In fact visible 'light' is a form of radiation, which can be defined as an energy that travels in the form of electromagnetic waves." (ESA)
"Light energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation." (scholarschools.com)
"Light energy is a kind of kinetic energy with the ability to make types of light visible to human eyes. Light is defined as a form of electromagnetic radiation ..." (byjus.com)

So all those hits agree that light is a form of energy. Two out of three say it explicitly.

OK I tried that too. Results:

"A photon (from Ancient Greek φῶς, φωτός (phôs, phōtós) 'light') is an elementary particle that is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves" (Wikipedia)
"As quanta of light, photons are the smallest possible packets of electromagnetic energy." (Symmetry magazine)
"A photon is a particle of light which essentially is a packet of electromagnetic radiation. The energy of the photon depends on its frequency" (energyeducation.ca)
"Photons are simply discrete packets of light energy." (study.com)

I agree with all the above. Light is made up of photons, and photons are quanta of EM energy.

 

Where does the equation say energy is a number?

The thing about qualitative statements, about saying you know what something is, is that it has to line up with what other people in the scientific community say. Suppose instead of energy and light, the subject is time. Is time a number, why does it move in the same direction, at an apparently (up to quantum measurements) linear pace? How do numbers flow?

Can you tell us, since you know energy is a number? I maintain this is not what physics says about energy.
It could be that it's an entirely human invention, but maybe time is too. Can you say?