Energy: Abstract Concept or Entity?

[physics pfan]

Again - do you have any professional scientific reference that defines the term “entity” that way? I'm a physicist and the only thing I can say about what you write is "nonsense". Sorry.

I believe "entity" is being used abstractly in that article for a class of objects. Substituting one gets: "a particle is something measurable and quantized that resides (extends) in a dimension." Do you object to that statement?

This becomes a test for reality modeled after the particle. Can a particle be physically real and lack one of these requirements: measurable, quantized and space-extending? I think not.

But a photon is as physically real as a rest mass particle; it's just that it is mysterious to us (e.g., photon dualism). The point of the article is to apply this test to inquire which dimension is required to make the following true. "The photon is something measurable and quantized that resides (extends) in a dimension."

I suggest reading the article fully and substitute “object” wherever it reads “entity.”

 

[Dale]

This becomes a test for reality modeled after the particle. Can a particle be physically real and lack one of these requirements: measurable, quantized and space-extending? I think not.

”Real” is a question of metaphysics, not physics. We do not discuss philosophy here. Your listed requirements are objectionable, but this forum is emphatically not the place for it.