Talk:Energy/Archive 6

Although
Although I don't see you bringing any arguments or explanations into this discussion, I agree that energy is an abstract, mathematically defined concept. Energy is not a material phenomenon, that you can see or touch, it is an invented and abstract concept. The scientific history behind the concept of Energy is quite long and very interesting, and I urge every physicist to study it. It is very enlightening. The concept of energy allows us to describe, understand, explain, predict and calculate actions in the real world. What energy is exactly still awaits a proper interpretation. For now it is nothing else than a mathematically defined concept.

I am a physicist myself and would prefer responses from people who have also invested a lot of time in studying physics, thank you. RhinoMind (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * All physics quantities are "invented" and are not "...material phenomen[a] that you can see or touch...". The reason energy is so "abstract" and hard to define is that it takes so many different forms.  However, schools and textbooks do manage to define it --- a lot better than this article.   Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia, and many (probably most) of the readers are going to be nontechnical people who want the simplest possible definition.   Think of the poor middle-school or primary-school student who comes to this page for his homework and tries to extract some meaning from the pretentious pile of unsourced confused gobbledygook that is our introduction. -- Chetvorno TALK 10:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about it being too complex. I've removed fundamental interaction from the definition to help simplify things. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. It reads a bit more simply now: "In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed." Forbes72 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a little better, but not much. This article illustrates a common problem on Wikipedia; the introduction has become so abstract that ordinary readers cannot get much from it.  I don't mean to denigrate the introduction; the elusive nature of energy requires a long introductory explanation.   But the introduction is supposed to be comprehensible to elementary readers.  The main problem is it doesn't include the most common and easily understood definition of energy:
 * Energy can be most simply defined as the ability to perform work.
 * This is the most common definition used in textbooks, , , , , , , , , , , . It explains the reason energy and work have the same units.  Previous discussions on this page have pointed out the problems with this definition; due to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics not all thermal energy can be converted to work, and at equilibrium none of it can be.  I'm not suggesting this be the only definition of energy, just one definition. -- Chetvorno TALK 00:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct; the work definition is common in introductory textbooks. But as you said, it's a bit of a simplification. Sounds like we agree on the problem: the general definition is a bit complicated, but the accessible definition is a bit inaccurate. What do you think of adding the work definition alongside the current one? Your wording is good, as long as it's prefaced with "In an ideal system", "For practical purposes", or something similar. Forbes72 (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. The existing lead is okay, I am just concerned with accessibility for general readers.  What about something like this:
 * In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed. It is difficult to give a comprehensive definition of energy because of its many forms, but one common definition is that it is the ability of a system to perform work.
 * By the way, I want to apologize for my remarks above. I didn't notice all the improvements that you've made to the intro recently.  It is a lot clearer and more concise than it was before. Congratulations.-- Chetvorno TALK 11:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Last time I had a go at this, I concluded I had better leave it to another editor. Perhaps that is still so. I would say, however, that I am not happy with the view that energy is merely a property of objects. It might equally and perhaps preferably be said that objects are are property of energy. In a sense, and only in a sense, energy is the universal substrate of physics, manifest as matter and fields in space-time. It can be measured as work, or as mass. Saying how it is measured is not necessarily the same as defining it. I am not saying I think it would be easy to put such a point of view in this article, but perhaps some thought could be given to the idea.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view; in a sense "everything" in physics is composed of energy. However the introduction is supposed to be comprehensible by general readers. I feel strongly that starting with the amorphous definition you suggest is not the way to do it.  Nor do professional encyclopedias and textbooks introduce energy that way.  You'll notice that the existing intro is organized on a principle of increasing abstraction; it starts with a simple definition of energy, which is expanded to include the other forms, so by the end the reader has an understanding of how broad the concept is.  Readers ultimately reach the same POV you suggest above, in easy stages. -- Chetvorno TALK 18:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Better leave it to you.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

not a re-statement of the laws of thermodynamics
I don't intend to try to edit here, but perhaps I can make a constructive comment, that a local editor might like to follow up. The lead starts


 * "In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed. "


 * Note

I think that initial part of that note is not good, for the following reasons.

The consensus is that the law of conservation of energy is best considered in its own right as a fundamental law standing on its own feet, not dependent on thermodynamics. The law of conservation of energy refers to all physical systems. Thermodynamics is a special subject, less general and less fundamental than the the law of conservation of energy.

Thermodynamics is about thermodynamic systems, not about physical systems in general. Most physical systems have features that are not covered by thermodynamics. Classical thermodynamics is about a very narrow class of systems, those that can be adequately described by the assumption that internal thermodynamic equilibrium pertains at the start and finish of every process. Non-classical (for example non-equilibrium) "thermodynamics" is more of a research program than an established science.

Thermodynamics is about special scenarios, in which a system can be studied as a whole, though consisting of countless microscopic elements. For thermodynamics, the microscopic elements are entirely ignorable; that is fundamental to thermodynamics. Moreover the energy of a physical system that includes a thermodynamic system shows three components that relate specifically to the thermodynamic system: the kinetic energy of the thermodynamic system as a whole not counting the internal energy of the thermodynamic system, the potential energy of the thermodynamic system as a whole not counting the internal energy of the thermodynamic system, and the internal energy of the thermodynamic system. The first law of thermodynamics is usually stated in the best authorities as concerned with components of change of internal energy. The internal energy is one of the two cardinal functions of state of a thermodynamic system. The thermodynamic potentials are centred around the internal energy, not around the total energy of the system.

What about heat? Isn't that essentially a thermodynamic concept? No, it isn't, at least according to the present-day established logic of thermodynamics, now established for a century. Thermodynamics today assumes the law of conservation of energy as given a priori. Heat is energy in transfer between thermodynamic systems otherwise than as work or with matter transfer. The amount of heat is calculated by use of the law of conservation of energy. One can say that thermodynamics postulates that energy can be transferred between thermodynamic systems otherwise than as work or with matter transfer. If one wants to insist that such transfer 'otherwise' is beyond the ken of the law of conservation of energy, one is out on a limb, not the place for Wikipedia to go.

Summarizing, the law of conservation of energy is perhaps the most general law of physics; it covers all physical systems, and is not fundamentally beholden to thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is about a narrow class of systems. The note that suggests that the law of conservation of energy is a re-statement of the laws of thermodynamics should be removed or very much modified.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion: it is not good to suggest that the law of conservation of energy is dependent on thermodynamics.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015
"that" is repeated in this parragraph 'For closed systems, the first law of thermodynamics states that a system's energy is constant unless energy is transferred in or out"

Jcreboulen (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  23:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple punctuation error
In the second and third paragraphs, there is a COMMA where there shouldn´t be one, and a missing SPACEBAR:

"...field,(gravitational, electric or magnetic) elastic..."

"...when stationary,(called rest mass) also has...."

They should be changed to:

"...field (gravitational, electric or magnetic), elastic..."

"...when stationary (called rest mass), also has...."

Anonymous (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting Energy's definition.
Hi, I have been invited by Forbes72 to help improving Wikipedia's definition of energy. You can read my own definition of energy here. Since I work in Fundamental Interactions, I KNOW that the definition of energy has nothing to do with fundamental interactions, and I was very surprised to read Wikipedia's definition mentioning things as the Standard Model. The Standard Model of fundamental interactions didn't exist 50 years ago and will be dead from here 50 years; energy is a much more universal and lasting concept. In a nutshell, energy has to do with motion, movement. I think Energy's definition should be rewritten from scratch: it is a very important issue in this world of green economy, petrol crisis, greenhouse effect and so on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitepanther65 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition you give is very poetic, but surely you are not seriously suggesting that
 * A bird that flies, a molecule in a gas possess energy since they move: this is kinetic energy. A stone you hold still in your hand could move and therefore acquire kinetic energy if you let it fall: this is potential energy.
 * be used as the definition of energy in this article. I also don't see any reference to the Standard Model in the current article. -- Chetvorno TALK 15:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chetvorno, thanks for your comment. Sorry, the reference to the Standard Model was in a previous version of Energy's definition. And no, the definition I give in Science 2.0 is adequate for a blog, not for Wikipedia. I will think about a definition suitable for this purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitepanther65 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that the definition sux. "Energy is defined as capacity to do work." Work is defined as disordering of energy. So energy is capacity to do disordering of energy, a circular definition.

When I studied physics I was taught that energy is not a physical unit. It is a philosophical concept and an accounting technique used to analyze mechanical and chemical exchanges. In nuclear physics it is defined as a color of light, in biology it is a synonym for metabolism, and in public utilities they say energy when they mean connectivity. Overall, the word is a slang term used when everybody knows what you are talking about. Jewels Vern (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could talk to my electric power company. They are convinced that their wires are sending me "energy" in units of "kilowatt-hours" and are charging me for it.     I told them there was no such unit and showed them your remark above, and they flatly refused to believe you!  I told them that since you said their energy was disordering the neighborhood, instead of charging me they needed to send a crew around to clean up, but they wouldn't.  Those  scientifically ignorant utility bureaucrats just don't have the "philosophical" view of enlightened Wikipedia editors like you. -- Chetvorno TALK 14:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Energy Universe /Energetic Physics/
Energy is every DIFFERENCE in time - space according to time - space itself.

More - read - here : http://research.zonebg.com/en/books.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.63.60 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

gamma-ray bursts
change ((gamma ray burst))s to ((gamma-ray burst))s
 * ✅, thanks.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Why this edit?
An edit has changed the heading of a section from Transfer between systems to Energy transfer. It might be said that the word 'energy' was implicit in the former heading Transfer between systems, because it is to some extent a Wikipedia convention that the title of the article is not repeated in section headings, but, rather, is often considered implicit. The new edit does not follow that convention.

The change is from a more or less accurate indication of the content of the section, to a looser and vague phrase, omitting the word 'system'. I counted 16 occurrences of the word 'system' in the section. (No occurrences of the word 'object'.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC))

This article tackles a subject which I find difficult to conceptualize in general terms. That is one of the reasons why I rarely try to edit the article. The lead definition says energy is a property of "objects". The lead contains 16 of the 23 occurrences, in the article, of the word "object". By my count, 7 of the 79 occurrences, in the article, of the word "system", are in the lead. On the face of it, this looks like an incongruity. Perhaps there is a reason for it?

One may ask why the edit was made. No reason is offered in the edit summary.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I changed the section from


 * to


 * because the Energy transfer article is going away (I changed my vote) and it seemed to be a section about energy transfer in parallel with the section above reading:


 * I can change it back and use an anchor instead as a target for a redirect to Energy. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this very quick response. Please excuse my not having noticed in time your recent edit to the other discussion.


 * Curiously, the Energy article, as I sketchily recall, does not make much of the fact that gravitational potential energy has more or less been written out of the general theory of relativity. Conservation of energy is in a sense a property of the special theory.


 * Energy is not too far from a quantitative physical version of Aristotle's 'prime matter', a high abstraction that persists unchanged through changes in the forms of substantial entities in his four-cause theory. And perhaps not too far from Whitehead's 'creativity', though I don't know if that is to be found in the literature?


 * No urgent call right here and now for general criticism of the present article on Energy.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing source for Feynman quote
No source is given for a quote from Richard Feynman on this page.

The quote starts with: "These notions of potential and kinetic energy depend on..."

I have searched in Feynman's works, without being able to find this quote (or anything close to it).

I hope it will be possible to get a reference to the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.181.85.20 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

undid self-promotion
I undid a self-promotion that did not improve the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editor Dhrm77, I still think it is self-promotion. Your indignant protest, and your reasons, are not persuasive.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

And now I see you by-passed the talk-page and confined yourself to an edit summary. Not impressive.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about by-passing the talk page. I only started to watch the Energy page after I did my changes. I hadn't seen your note here. You said it doesn't improve the article. I see that it does explain why converting O2 to CO2 releases energy which is fundamental in biology.
 * Also, when you reverted his changes, you removed other changes along with what you call self-promotion. I don't believe there is something wrong with pointing to a peer-reviewed article, that he wrote. Can you find an equivalent article? Would you prevent Richard Feynman (if he was alive) or Stephen Hawkins from contributing their articles to wikipedia? It might look like a little bit of self-promotion, but I think it's perfectly acceptable in this case. What do other editors think? Dhrm77 (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, I also missed that I had posted on the talk page, I suppose because my edit summary didn't add "see talk page", which it ought to have done, and which I usually do. I only noticed that I had already posted on the talk page when my 'save' for my second post showed up.


 * It's hard to be sure. I have undone 73 self-promotions by Richard Feynman and 143 by Stephen Hawking. They never seem to get the message. They just keep on trying. One can often guess. I won't elaborate. The article is about energy, not primarily about the details of metabolism. I think it's a poor article. It would be quite hard to write a good Wikipedia article on energy; too hard for me. In general, as a basic rule, secondary sourcing is desirable, one might even say required. A normal editor would back up the point with a standard text, or several, if there is contention. An important aspect of Wikipedia sourcing is that the reader can verify the material for himself. A research paper is quite likely to be difficult to read for a freshman. An article in a journal, no matter how prestigious, and how much peer-reviewed, from an expert, no matter how clued up, is not in principle automatically a reliable source. It is exceptional and a bit improper to take an article such as that one, in isolation, as a reliable source. I haven't studied the case closely, but I find it hard to believe that a secondary source doesn't say much the same thing. It's not exactly revelatory that oxygen is an ingredient in a metabolic oxidation.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016
Simple word deletion in the last sentence of the section

Energy transfer Closed systems

Energy transfer can be considered for the special case of systems which are closed to transfers of matter. The portion of the energy which is transferred by conservative forces over a distance is measured as the work the source system does on the receiving system. The portion of the energy which does not do work doing during the transfer is called heat.[note 4]

The word DOING should be deleted from the last sentence in his section.

124.148.135.42 (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Requested change made. Dhrm77 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

undoing of valid corrections
This edit unjustifiably undoes a series of edits that were mostly valid. There are many grammatical errors in the article that need corrections such as many of the undone edits.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Page number and missing word for the other Feynman quote
1. The quote on conservation of energy from Feynman is found on page 4-1 Energy is human values of food calories — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.16.84.62 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

2. The quote is missing the word "the"

"does not change in manifold changes" -->  "does not change in THE manifold changes"

Methanation
I have just modified 1 one external link on Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514080739/http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html to http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

(pls. ignore) please explain protected Energy [move=sysop]
Edit: Apologies, my earlier post was from a misunderstanding that occurred when I was suddenly unable to save my edits.DavRosen (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . The protection was put in place January 2011, not this month. At the time there was disruption as shown by the link here in the protection message. It is not about your editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying DavRosen (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Conservation of energy and mass in transformation (nuclear)
In the section of "Conservation of energy and mass in transformation" the author confuses the amount of energy that is released from a nuclear explosion and the amount needed to break the atomic bonds of an atom and the E=mc squared equation. c squared is not the amount of energy you get when splitting an atom. It is the amount of energy that is holding the atom together. Therefore the amount of energy from a hydrogen or an atomic bomb explosion is different depending on how you explode it. They both use plutonium or radioactive uranium as a source of energy even though it is possible to use non radioactive isotopes as a source of energy. Note that a hydrogen bomb has much more energy than an atomic bomb. Hydrogen bombs use an atomic pre explosion to set off the hydrogen bomb explosion. There is no theoretical limit as to the power of a hydrogen bomb explosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.80.4 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017
Civilisation to Civilization 198.217.30.212 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article has a British English tag. Also, see MOS:RETAIN. Simplexity22 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"derives its energy mainly from nuclear fusion" (in Sun picture caption)
In the caption of the picture in the intro, it is unclear precisely how the term "derives" (in 2nd of 2 sentences) is related to the specific concepts and aspects of energy discussed in this article. Can this sentence be changed to use more rigorous terminology such as energy transformation/conversion, energy transfer, and maybe nuclear binding energy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.253.142 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * How about something like:
 * The Sun is the source of energy for most of life on Earth. As a star, the Sun is heated to high temperatures by the conversion of nuclear binding energy due to the fusion of hydrogen in its core. This energy is ultimately transferred (released) out into space mainly in the form of radiant (light) energy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.253.142 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017
2601:140:C000:85A0:3595:4000:4E28:B2CC (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  22:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Fundamental definition
Non random probabilistic flow of information in the Planckian order of magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8805:BE00:7835:D0E0:4068:2D65 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Electromagnetic force
 * In atoms the electrons are bounded by the electromagnetic force acting on them due to the protons.
 * The atoms combine to form molecules due to the electromagnetic forces.
 * A lot of atomic and molecular phenomena results to form electromagnetic forces.
 * Some of the important electromagnetic forces are:
 * A)CONTACT FORCE
 * B)TENSION
 * C)BUOYANT FORCE
 * D)VISCOUS DRAG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.244.92 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Biosphere is not an organism
In what way is "In biology, energy is an attribute of all biological systems from the biosphere to the smallest living organism." claiming that the biosphere is an organism? SpinningSpark 11:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * it's calling it a "biological system" which to me sounds very much like an organism...ｰ ｰ; (assuming that the "from" means what is appears to mean at first glance, meaning: "(ranging) from the biosphere to the smallest living organism" (here it is clearly equating biosphere to "the smallest living organism")) Emdosis (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous! This statement indicates that the biosphere and the smallest living organism are both biological systems: one very large and complex; the other very small. There is no equating of the biosphere to the smallest living organism. The statement is fine the way it is.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Anita. Plus "to" requires a "from" for grammatical completeness. Changing "from" to "of" makes the sentence unreadable, even if your rationale was correct, which it isn't. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. You can delete this now. Emdosis (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018
At present, there are no accepted theories as to the origin of energy we can only describe its effects Jerry Freitas (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".

Add explosive pressure or force reaction to energy in chemistry
In section Scientific use >> Chemistry, it states heat and light as the only forms of energy "transferred between the surroundings and the reactants of the reaction". Shouldn't pressure or force be added? (As in an explosive reaction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.141.98 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019
SO how is energy so much use. 161.97.25.28 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Energy-Matter
Mass (matter) and energy are closely related. 2601:580:D:EAE4:90A8:A082:FA0B:FC66 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What do you want to say with this statement? There is no energy without matter.--185.53.199.97 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Also please avoid the confusion mass - matter.--185.53.199.97 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

total energy
Can the term total energy be bolded as appropraite, since it is a technical term and redirects point here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020
In the section "Units of measure", link the text "Joule apparatus" to the article "Mechanical equivalent of heat" which describes the Joule apparatus.

So, change "Joule apparatus" to "Joule apparatus". 76.125.192.226 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: That article needs more work before we can link to it. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"Defining"
This section makes no sense - from the title to its run-on sentence. Please rewrite. Geroniminor (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. This unsourced confusing section, as far as I can understand it, is wrong; energy is perfectly well defined in physics regardless of the form it comes in.  The section should be deleted.  The only valid point made is the same point as the following section makes; that energy comes in different forms.   -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 05:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Besides the properties mentioned in this article for 'energy', it should be stated that energy is also the building block for fundamental particles. Somehow, a quanta of energy can be "arranged" in way to form a Up quark, and arranged another way to form a Down quark, for example.  97.95.243.233 (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "a quanta"? Quantum is the singular, quanta the plural, please clarify... 2.28.151.208 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Energy as natural resource
This page is linked from natural resource, and I'm not sure it should be, as this sense is quickly hand-waved in the lead, and doesn't seem to be treated as a first-class citizen thereafter.

Do we need to fork energy (natural resource) or perhaps energy (resource)?

On quick assessment, I'm inclined to vote yes. &mdash; MaxEnt 06:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A pedantic lesson in semantics re. "a" source versus "the" source of energy
Contextually speaking, the word "the" is a definite determiner that implies only one of particular item. The word "a" is an indefinite determiner that implies an item is one within a particular set of items. "The source of life..." implies only one source of life. False. As mentioned, there are many sources of life: food, water, air, etc. Contextually speaking, as I pointed out in a previous edit summary, "the" must be qualified in some way to indicate the Sun isn't the only source of life on Earth. The cited sources realize as much: Absent qualification of "the," the word "a" is semantically correct. Otherwise, "The Sun is the [one and only] source of energy for most of life" is semantically inaccurate since it interpolates a factually incorrect assertion. Again, alternatives to just plain "a" include: --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sahu, Kali Charan (2007). Textbook of Remote Sensing and Geographical Information Systems. Atlantic Publishers. p. 17. ISBN 9788126909094: "The Sun is the principal source of energy..."
 * Shuster, Michele; Vigna, Janet; Sinha, Gunjan (2011). Scientific American Biology for a Changing World. MacMillan. p. 90. ISBN 9780716773245: "For almost all living things on earth, the ultimate source of energy is the Sun."
 * Kuriyan, John; Konforti, Boyana; Wemmer, David (2012). The Molecules of Life: Physical and Chemical Principles. Garland Science. p. 467. ISBN 9781135088927: Says nothing about the Sun being "the source of energy for most of life..."
 * "The Sun is the principal source of energy for most of life..." (per Sahu, Kali Charan)
 * "The Sun is the ultimate source of energy for most of life..." (per Shuster, Michele; Vigna, Janet; Sinha, Gunjan)
 * "The Sun is the main source of energy for most of life..."
 * "The Sun is the primary source of energy for most of life..."
 * "The Sun is the chief source of energy for most of life..."


 * If anyone wants to know what the above infodump is all about, Kent Dominic changed the sentence
 * "The Sun is the source of energy for most of life on Earth."
 * in the infobox to
 * "The Sun is a source of energy for most of life on Earth."
 * and I reverted him. I think the original is accurate while the changed version is misleading. It became an edit conflict. --Chetvorno<i style="color: Purple;">TALK</i> 12:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My reasons: I feel this is a pretty important piece of information. The energy sustaining virtually all life on Earth (except some ecosystems around hydrothermal vents on the sea floor which get their energy from bacteria metabolizing hydrogen sulfide) comes from the Sun. Animal food chains get their energy from plants, and the plant kingdom gets its energy from sunlight via photosynthesis.  I added 3 citations supporting this.
 * The indefinite pronoun "a" in Kent's version: "The Sun is a source of energy for most of life..." implies the erroneous possibility that it may not be the sole source or even the largest source of energy.
 * The definite pronoun "the" in the original version: "The Sun is the source of energy for most of life..." implies it is the sole source for most of life, as stated in the cited literature.
 * --Chetvorno<i style="color: Purple;">TALK</i> 12:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an indefinite determiner, not an "indefinite pronoun." If there's a cite anywhere that says the Sun is the sole source of energy, please share, and spread the news: There's no need to eat or drink anything for energy. Plants don't need nutrient energy from soil. The Sun is all you need. Oh, and another newsflash: "The Earth is the planet that orbits the Sun." Never mind the erroneous possibility that it may not be the sole planet or even the largest planet in the solar system. Yes, semantics matters. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Chetvorno provided three cites in the article that said exactly that. All three cites directly verify the claim, both factually and semantically.  You reverted that edit, apparently without reading the cites, or if you did, you have simply ignored them.  You have a bad case of WP:IDHT mate. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that "the" seems more correct because the sentence refers to "most" not "all" of life on Earth.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, it should definitely be "the" in this context. Changing to "a source" does nothing but increase confusion and decrease legibility. BirdValiant (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2021
The link of Newton's Principia Mathematica in 'History' section is directing to Whitehead/B. Rusell's work of similar name. Please change it to Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Cesarhernandez1967 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021
Change the dimension from " M L2 T−2 " to " " Denoyelle Fabien (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no such template. Are you suggesting creation of such a template to format dimensional analysis expressions?  I'm not sure such a thing is needed since plain markup will probably be more compact than populating the fields of a template. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)