In both classical and modern physics, energy is defined as the capacity to do work — the ability of a system to effect change. It appears in many forms: kinetic, potential, thermal, chemical, quantum. It is conserved across all known interactions, making it one of the most fundamental quantities in physics.
But energy is also deeply mysterious. It is not a substance, not an observable, not a directly measurable thing. It’s a calculated quantity — an abstract measure derived from models. This makes it particularly ripe for reinterpretation within a relational ontology, which replaces entities and substances with fields of potential and systemic constraints.
1. Energy as the Capacity for Transformation
-
Classically, energy measures how much change a system can cause — motion, deformation, radiation, etc.,
-
But this presumes a world made of objects that store and transfer energy like a currency,
-
In relational terms, this collapses: there are no objects, no storehouses. Only systems undergoing reconfiguration.
So we might begin again:
Energy is the capacity of a relational system to reorganise itself under constraint.
It’s not what a particle has, but how a field of relation is poised to shift.
2. From Substance to Structure
-
The substance metaphor — energy as a thing that flows, accumulates, or depletes — breaks down under scrutiny,
-
A better metaphor is tension in a web: energy is the structured potential for change encoded in the current configuration of the system,
-
The more unstable the configuration, the more reconfigurable it is — the more “energy” the system contains.
This reframes energy as a measure of potential differential — not a fluid, but a topology.
3. Kinetic and Potential Energy Revisited
-
Kinetic energy is usually defined as the energy of motion,
-
But motion presupposes a body in space — a view rejected by relational ontology,
-
Instead, what we call “kinetic energy” reflects the rate of actualisation — the intensity with which a configuration transforms.
Likewise, “potential energy” reflects the internal tensions and constraints that shape the next transition — the readiness for reconfiguration, not some latent store.
4. Quantum Energy as Transition Readiness
-
In quantum systems, energy is quantised — transitions between states occur in discrete steps,
-
These transitions are not the motion of particles but shifts in the coherence pattern of the system,
-
Thus, quantum energy levels are stable attractors in a field of constrained possibility — they index how the system can reconfigure while remaining coherent.
Energy in this sense is the codification of allowable transitions, not a quantity held or spent.
5. Conservation as Constraint Coherence
-
The conservation of energy — its constancy in isolated systems — now takes on new meaning,
-
It reflects the global coherence of the field: the system can transform endlessly, but only within patterns that maintain structural integrity,
-
Energy conservation is thus a rule of internal consistency, not a law about stuff being shuffled around.
Relational Definition
We might say:
Energy is the structured capacity for reconfiguration in a constrained relational system — a measure of tension, readiness, and coherence under transformation.
It is not a thing, but a mode of organisation — the systemic possibility of transition encoded in the current configuration.
Closing
Energy, like mass and force, resists literal interpretation. It is a placeholder for deeper relational tensions — a scalar trace of systemic potential.
In the next post, we will turn to mass, another supposedly intrinsic property, and examine how even this most “solid” of quantities dissolves into relational inertia when approached without entities.
No comments:
Post a Comment