Matter or Energy

8/9/2019 Matter or Energy

1/7

MATTER ORENERGY

By Ranu

Vikram


2/7

Matter and energy are regarded as thetwo pillars on which our universe or atleastPhysics is based. However, you foundyourself going dumb, if somebody asks youwhich one of the two pillars is longer. Does

other pillar exist apart from these two?Obviously, not as your physics instructornever told you about them. Just suffer thisshort article, in which I intend to discuss thebasic question.

Concept of energy is meaningless

without the existence of matter. However,the converse may not be true, as evidentfrom the following argument.

According to Physics, energy is of twotypes namely Kinetic and Potential energies.Kinetic energy is the energy possessed by a

particle due to the virtue of its motion.Suppose particles dont exist, then how canwe think of kinetic energy?


3/7

Now, considering potential energy, wecan say that potential energy is the energypossessed by a system of particles due totheir configuration. Again, in this case themeaning of energy becomes vague, if we willremove particle from this picture.

If you will ponder over the argument,then you will soon come up with a counter

example, i.e., a system made up of photons.This system consists only of photons, i.e.,bundles of energy. Arent you happy that youhave proved my argument wrong?

If youre happy, then be ready to catchup with my new stand. The fallacy with the

system of photons is that, the photons areparticles. Energy exists, because particlesexists are present in this case. Removingphotons from the system will also remove theenergy from the system. So, we can say thatmatter has an edge over energy.

Now, let us consider another situation inwhich matter does exists but energy doesnt.How can this be possible as if matter existsthen configuration of particle either charged


4/7

or uncharged will exist, which in turn will giverise to either electrostatic potential energy orgravitational energy respectively, dependingupon the nature of particles. Now, we will addanother simplification to the systems rulebook to get away with the problem. Thechange is that No two particles exert anykind of force on each other. This change willremove all types of potential energy from thesystem, but still the system can possesskinetic energy. This can also be removed byassuming that all particles in the system areat rest with respect to any other particle inthe system. Now, we have our ideal world inwhich no two particles attract or repulse eachother and every particle is at rest withrespect to each other. Doesnt this appearlike a gloomy corner of a sculpturesworkshop with statues staring each other withno motion and feeling?

You should never think that my lovelyideal world will fall off together because nobinding force exists in this system. In fact,nothing will happen as no force exists andaccording to Newtons first law of motion,


5/7

things will remain as they are unless and untila force is applied to the things and if youdont like Newton then follow Aristotle as hehad same kind of views regarding objects atrest.

So, summing up all we can say thatmatter can exist without energy, but energycant exist without matter. Hence, matter has

an upper hand over energy. Now, what bringsenergy into the game, as world can existwithout energy? I think that the term Forcewill strike your mind like GermanysBlitzkrieg, but dont be impatient as we haveanother player waiting for its turn, i.e.,

Motion. You know that, force and motion areinterconnected by Newtons second law ofmotion, but can you point anyone as causeand the other as effect. Probably, no.

Now, after this curious argument (isntit?), we can say that force originates potential

energy, while motion is the cause ofexistence of kinetic energy. Then, how canwe treat potential energy and kinetic energyas one entity, i.e., energy. We should not


6/7

treat them like that simply because they areinterconvertible (arent they?). Also accordingto work energy theorem only magnitudes ofchange in potential and kinetic energy areequal to each other, not the exact values ofpotential and kinetic energy are equal to eachother.

Now, due to mounting confusion, I am

obliged to end this argument suddenly, as ifbeing checked by Newtons spirit from talkingnonsense. However, before I am leaving, Iwant to mention few questions on which youshould ponder.

1)-Is this argument nonsense or

convincing?2)-Are potential energy and kinetic energy

the same

thing or they are simply interconvertibleand nothing more?


7/7

Documents

Matter or Energy