Energy is often treated as one of the most fundamental concepts in physics. It is conserved, quantifiable, and transferable. It powers systems, drives change, and is assumed to be as real as anything gets. In classical and quantum contexts alike, energy is typically defined in terms of motion (kinetic), configuration (potential), or field intensity (as in QFT).
But what is energy, ontologically? Is it a kind of metaphysical stuff? A property of things? A tally of motion? A calculational convenience?
From a relational perspective, energy is not a substance or a quantity carried by particles. It is an index of relational constraint — a measure of how resistant or susceptible a system is to transformation under particular conditions. It tracks how tightly potential is structured within a system of possible actualisations.
1. Energy Is Not a Thing
-
We often speak as if energy flows, accumulates, is stored, or is released — all metaphors that treat it like a substance,
-
But energy is not in anything. It is a relational metric: a way of expressing the internal tensions and affordances of a system,
-
A photon does not carry energy like a parcel. Rather, the system involving the photon — its production, propagation, and interaction — supports a particular rate of transformation within a structure of constraints.
2. Kinetic and Potential Energy as Perspectives
-
Kinetic energy reflects how a system is actualising motion relative to a chosen frame,
-
Potential energy expresses relational tension: the extent to which current configuration resists transformation under a given constraint (e.g. gravitational, electrostatic),
-
These are not substances stored in locations; they are perspectival accounts of how systems are configured to change — or not — under certain conditions.
3. Quantisation of Energy as Discretised Constraint
-
In quantum theory, energy levels are quantised — systems can only occupy discrete configurations,
-
But what is quantised is not “energy” as such, but the possible states the system may actualise within its constraint structure,
-
Energy levels are indices of allowable transitions, not packets of substance being consumed.
4. Energy Conservation as Coherence
-
Conservation of energy is not about the persistence of a substance across transformations,
-
It reflects the coherence of the system’s constraint topology: a kind of relational accounting that ensures transformations remain intelligible within the theory,
-
Violations of energy conservation (as in certain interpretations of quantum cosmology) indicate a shift in the system’s boundary conditions, not the appearance or disappearance of “stuff.”
5. Energy as Value, not Meaning
-
In this framework, energy is aligned with value-like dynamics: systemic tensions and tendencies toward or against change,
-
But crucially, energy is not meaningful — it does not signify, represent, or interpret. It does not belong to the semiotic order,
-
Instead, energy is a non-symbolic measure of transformation: a coordination of potentials without interpretation.
Closing
Energy is not a mysterious substance. It is a relational index — a way of describing the coherence, resistance, or availability of change within a structured potential. What is conserved is not a thing, but the systemic intelligibility of transformation.
Recasting energy in this way helps us dissolve the last remnants of substance-based metaphysics still lurking in physical theory — and makes space for a deeper integration of relational ontology at the foundations of physics.
In the next post, we will tackle the notion of mass — not as an inherent property of matter, but as a manifestation of relational inertia within constrained potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment