In classical physics, energy is often treated as a conserved substance — something that can be stored, transferred, or converted from one form to another. Kinetic, potential, thermal, electromagnetic: energy appears as a universal currency of change.
Quantum mechanics adds further nuance: energy becomes quantised, associated with frequency, and entwined with uncertainty. Yet even in these frameworks, energy is usually treated as something a system has — a kind of stuff.
From a relational ontological perspective, however, energy is not a substance. It is not something “contained” or “possessed” by objects. Instead, energy is a measure of relational tension — an index of how strongly a configuration of potential is constrained, and how rapidly actualisation is occurring.
1. Classical and Quantum Views of Energy
Traditionally:
-
Energy is conserved (First Law of Thermodynamics),
-
Kinetic energy is associated with motion; potential energy with position in a force field,
-
In quantum theory, energy levels are discrete (e.g. in atoms),
-
Energy is linked to frequency: E = ℏω.
But none of these require that energy be a thing. They are structural regularities within systems.
2. Relational Reframing: Energy as Systemic Tension
In relational ontology:
-
There is no “thing” carrying energy; there is only a pattern of constraint within a field of potential,
-
Energy expresses how tightly a system's coherence is being modulated — how much relational adjustment is required to maintain or shift its state,
-
High energy corresponds to high tension in the field — rapid shifts, sharper differentials, more constrained actualisation pathways.
Thus, energy is not a resource but a gradient of becoming.
3. Quantisation Without Substance
Quantum systems exhibit discrete energy levels, but this does not imply “packets” of stuff.
Instead:
-
Quantisation arises from the boundary conditions on possible configurations within a system,
-
A quantum harmonic oscillator doesn’t “have” energy levels — its relational field permits only certain stable transitions,
-
Energy gaps are not distances in a substance, but modulations in allowable transformation.
Energy quantisation is a constraint on actualisation, not a stair-step in a fuel tank.
4. Conservation as Coherence
Why is energy conserved?
From a relational standpoint:
-
Conservation laws express invariance under transformation — i.e. relational coherence across time or under symmetry operations,
-
The “amount” of energy is not being stored; rather, the system remains in coherent balance as it reorganises.
This explains why closed systems conserve energy: not because energy is trapped inside them, but because their relational structure constrains how transitions unfold.
5. Implications for Physical Interpretation
Understanding energy relationally shifts focus from:
-
Storage to structure,
-
Transfer to transformation,
-
Possession to potential.
It also dissolves certain metaphysical puzzles:
-
What is “negative energy”? A reversal of relational tension,
-
Where is energy “stored” in a field? It’s not located — it is expressed in how the field behaves under constraint,
-
Does the vacuum “contain” energy? No — it exhibits potential tension even in the absence of stabilised actualisation.
Closing
Energy, in a relational world, is not a thing but a dynamism — a measure of how much coherence is under strain, and how rapidly the field is shifting. It is a rate of transformation, not a quantum of substance.
In the next post, we will turn to force — and reimagine it not as a push or pull between things, but as a pattern of constraint within the field of relation itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment