I often read, hear and talk about pure energy. What is meant by this? Does pure energy consists of the forces between matter, or the force mediating particles, like the massless photons and gluon? I explicitly don´t mention the W- and Z- particles which are supposed to transmit the weak force, because they possess mass and as such they don´t are a form of pure energy, if what I said is actually pure energy. Maybe an indication that the W- and Z-particles don´t transmit a truly elementary force but a residue force of a force that´s being transmitted by massless particles, like the hyper colour force in Harari´s rishon model, wich accounts for all known subatomic reactions, the decay of the proton (without the ultra heavy X-boson), the presence of only normal matter, instead of equal amounts of matter and anti-matter (in fact there are in this theory equal amounts matter and anti-matter) and it gives a nice and very simple model for the quarks and leptons, wich consist out of only two particles. More economic you can´t make a theory of elementary particles.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You are listening to the wrong people. Energy is the ability to perform work. There is no such thing as "pure energy". What would the opposite be? "Tainted energy"? $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne May 24 '16 at 0:08
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ "Pure energy" doesn't mean anything; things have energy, they can't "be" energy. It's one of those phrases that pop science likes to use because it sounds cool. $\endgroup$ – knzhou May 24 '16 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ Does anybody have access to the Oxford English Dictionary? I would actually like to know who is responsible for the coining of this horrifically bad phrase. That person should be given a price for one of the most science-illiterate additions to the English language. Its almost as bad as "god particle", but at least we know who committed that crime. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne May 24 '16 at 0:22
  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/9731/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/15122/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic May 24 '16 at 2:58
  • $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne searched for "pure energy oxford dictionary" , nothing wrong oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/energy $\endgroup$ – anna v May 24 '16 at 6:19

This is an every day term, with no meaning for physics. In the Oxford dictionary for "energy" one gets:

  1. Physics The property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules)

In science fiction one might separate zero mass particles, like the photon and the graviton ( if it exists) from massive particles , and call the energy zero mass particles carry as "pure" energy, not connected with mass. In physics it is wrong, as an ensemble of zero mass particles does have mass due to special relativity, by the addition of the four vectors of the photons in the beam, for example. The term "pure" cannot qualify energy.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Of corse the ensemble has a mass, but the momentum part of the fourvector of energy and momentum is 0/0, wich is undetermined so we can say that if m=0, we have the relation: E=pc. Which implies photons, or a bunch og them don´t have mass, only energy wich correaponds to a certain mass. The only things that are capable in doing work are the particles that transmit a force. The matter that produced these particles doesn´t perform the work. $\endgroup$ – descheleschilder May 24 '16 at 10:26

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.