1. Does this redefine conservation of energy?
If energy is the unfold potential of a process rather than a fixed substance, then conservation of energy isn't about a set quantity being shuffled around but about the preservation of potential for instantiation. What remains constant isn't an absolute "amount" of energy, but the capacity for processes to unfold in different ways.
This is already implicit in how physics treats energy—it isn’t a thing but a value assigned to a system’s potential for change. What our framework does is make explicit that energy isn't a substance but a relation between instances that structures how processes can unfold. Thus, conservation isn’t about keeping a static "thing" intact but ensuring that relational constraints maintain the capacity for transformation.
2. How does this affect quantum field theory (QFT)?
In QFT, energy is tied to excitations of quantum fields. If we apply our relational view, then quantum fields themselves are not fundamental "things" but structured affordances for instantiating instances. The so-called "vacuum" isn't empty—it is a latent space of potential, structured by field interactions.
Rather than picturing a vacuum as a region filled with fluctuating "pre-existing" energy, we could frame it as a landscape of potential unfolding pathways—a meaning potential in the quantum sense. Virtual particles, then, aren't temporary "things" popping in and out of existence but momentary instantiations of energy relations that temporarily stabilise before dissolving back into potential.
This shift in perspective removes some of the counterintuitive weirdness of QFT. Instead of particles "borrowing" energy from nothing, they are best understood as fleeting instances actualising from a structured potential, which itself is relational rather than absolute.
3. Is entropy better understood as a measure of potential’s exhaustion?
Yes, but we need to be careful. Entropy is often described as "disorder," but in our framework, it's better understood as the dissipation of structured potential. That is, as processes unfold, they consume and redistribute potential in ways that reduce the structuring of future possibilities.
Think of a heat engine: it transforms high-grade thermal energy (structured potential) into work, but in doing so, some of that potential becomes less available for structuring future processes (low-grade heat). The key here is that entropy measures not just how much energy is spread out, but how usable it remains for structured instantiation.
This makes the second law of thermodynamics less about an inevitable march toward disorder and more about a progressive actualisation of all possible instantiations of energy relations. Once a potential has been instantiated in too many unstructured ways, it loses its capacity to drive further structured unfoldings.
4. Does mass as ‘bound energy’ mean bound unfold-potential?
Yes, and this aligns with how mass and energy are already understood in physics. If mass is just energy in a constrained form (E = mc²), then mass isn't a "thing" in itself—it’s a state in which energy's unfolding is relationally restricted.
A bound system (like an atomic nucleus) has energy that could unfold but is constrained by relational structures. This is why splitting a nucleus releases energy—because the act of splitting frees up previously constrained potential for unfolding. The same applies to a compressed spring: its potential energy is stored not as a physical substance but as a relational configuration restricting its unfolding.
In this sense, mass is just energy locked into a state of constrained potential unfolding, and when that constraint is altered, the potential can be released. This provides a process-based understanding of why mass and energy are interchangeable: mass is just an expression of how much potential is being held in a particular relational configuration.
Final Thoughts
By reinterpreting energy, mass, entropy, and quantum fields in terms of relational potentials and instantiations, we move away from thinking about them as "things" and toward understanding them as structured affordances for unfolding processes. This reframing removes a lot of the artificial dualisms that arise when we treat these concepts as fixed substances rather than dynamic relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment