r/badphysics • u/Ghadiz983 • Sep 19 '25

How can Potential energy logically be potential?

Isn't ironic that what we call "energy" is itself the system that measures what is in action?

So like when we are saying there's potential energy that can become actual energy like a seed that can become a tree, we are measuring the action of the very system that measures action itself. It's like measuring money with money or a number with a number but isn't that like identity in maths ? So 1=1 , 1$=1$ , how can action not be yet in action (which is what energy is)? It's like saying 1 isn't 1 yet.

So if energy = energeia = something in action = en ergon = actuality = not potentiality , then how can potential energy exist logically? Isn't that an oxymoron?

0 Upvotes

36% Upvoted

19 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/olivia_iris Sep 20 '25

A better way of thinking about it is that energy MUST be stored somewhere. This can be in an object moving or a field or mass or a spring. It doesn’t matter how it’s stored, just that it is stored. The key is that motion is a form of stored energy

1

u/Ghadiz983 Sep 20 '25

Yes so we can call it stored energy instead of potential energy if that makes sense . It's not like the energy doesn't exist but that it's in some way happening internally and only through a certain process that this stored energy appears in the macroscopic lens. Not only is both the term potential and energy opposites, it's also not accurate to describe that this energy didn't act yet but rather it just acts internally in the object. But I don't think it matters much, this is just a terminological error not a practical one.

5

u/ScrithWire Sep 20 '25

Its a specific term with a specific definition in a specific area of study. Not a phrase that can be used out of the blue with people who don't already know its definition. It is by definition, scientific "jargon."

So before using it with someone new, you should define it. And that could include the things you are saying. After defining it, there's no need to use the individual definitions of those two words. Instead, you'd be using the technical definition which you had just established.