Verisimilitude.

Gravitational potential energy is not energy (As written by an ignorant arts student with very little grasping of physics and science)

Among laymen, potential energy is the energy derived from height or a position which objects are wont to be that gives them the potentiality to move from one place to another such as the potential energy derived from standing on a high mountain that would make it possible for a man to roll down said mountain slope. It is an accepted fact that potential energy is indeed a form of energy; hence the moniker ‘potential energy’ but this might not exactly be so, as will be demonstrated.

Potential energy exists, but it does so not as energy but as a potentiality, a state of existence or being. Energy is an entity that is derived from the existence of things occurring or is the occurrence itself. Kinetic energy is derived from the process of movement, not as merely an end product or even strictly sustenance for movement but is movement per se, of which magnitude is determined or rather described (symbiotically actually) by the amount of kinetic energy it has. Nuclear energy can be loosely described as the energy released in the splitting or fusing of atoms (fission and fusion). Chemical energy, like the reaction itself too is not simply the end product or the sustenance of a reaction but is the reaction itself. Many other forms of energy fall broadly into these 2 categories. However potential energy does not. Taking gravitation potential energy for example, the amount of potential energy is derived either by its mass, gravity and height, as described in its equation:

PE = mgh

where ‘m’ is mass, ‘g’ gravity and ‘h’ height. There is no occurrence happening. Energy must do something or be something being, being the capacity to do work. Potential energy is simply derived from being where and what it is without anything occurring or being, as though its ‘energy’ is conferred to it out of circumstantial reasons. The more formal definition is that potential energy is the energy of position, that is, the energy an object is considered to have due to its position in space. Potential energy is its potentiality to be converted into other forms of energy and primarily, for gravitational potential energy and perhaps, I may be wrong, solely only into kinetic energy. This appears to be the case so as applied to this world. And as such, being a potentiality is very different from being energy. Being a potentiality simply means existence in a state about to exist. The thing itself does not exist yet but will or might, and this ‘yet’ and ‘might’ is the potentiality mistaken as potential energy, in this essay’s context. To cite an analogy, to be about to be married does not make one married, the marital status is still single (barring ‘attached’, divorced’, ‘practically married’ or ‘it’s complicated’). An apple that can be eaten or is about to be eaten is still intact or a felon yet to received the death sentence is still very much alive. However all these ‘about to be’s’ is a state of being; a potentiality. Therefore potential energy is the potentiality of an object that is capable of being turned into other forms of energy but is not energy itself, because potentiality does not belie the probability or is the raison d’etre of work being done. Men on high mountains have high potential energy or persons with greater mass have higher potential energy than those on low lands or are of a lighter persuasion can potentially fall a longer distance, maybe faster, or bigger massed objects harder. So it is the potential for something to happen that’s being recognized here and is in no way, energy of the mundane sorts. Like a Schrödinger’s Cat scenario, potential energy appears to be the summation of the possible ‘paths’ that can be taken, or superposition of energies that it can be converted into, but with the given context not to cats and radioactive substances.

Next we look at the aspect that the equation of potential energy = mgh remains true. Since establishing that gravitational potential energy is potentiality for something to happen, such as conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, when you remove the potentiality in potential energy, potential energy should cease to exist. The thing about gravitational potential energy is that objects are always assumed to be able to be related to ground level or a common ground, which is implicating that objects can theoretically ‘move’ or be related to this common ground. Two identical balls on platforms, one higher than the other would result in the higher ball having greater potential energy than the lower simply because of the two balls’ relation to a common ground, where the value of ‘h’ can then be derived, in short ‘movement’ towards this ground. However, what if this common ground is removed, or alternatively, the ability (potential) to move towards the common ground is removed? Having lost its potentiality, potential energy then becomes 0. As mentioned before, since potentiality is required for potential energy to occur, an object on a higher ground but with no capability or potential to move or happen whatsoever has no potential potential energy, as compared to an object on a lower ground. The afore-sentence recognizes a common ground, but removed potentiality. The alternative should remain true, but is a concept harder to conceptualize. Therefore it is wrong to say that all objects on higher ground possess greater potential energy. It’s like Schrödinger’s Cat being dead before being put inside the box and wondering if it’ll live – there ceases to be potentiality for that scenario, probability and potentiality are 0 and therefore no ‘paths’ to be summated. And since potential energy is converted mainly and perhaps only, as disclaimed before, into kinetic energy, the existence of movement, the removal of the possibility of movement not just along physical planes but of theoretical and hypothetical would render the potential energy of any object to 0. How is it possible to remove the theoretical plane of an object from ‘common ground, then? While possible with actual physical movement along a plane, the theoretical removal of the possibility of relation to ‘common ground’ is impossible. However, the theoretical removal of relation to ‘common ground’ and hence potentiality is just as real as the relation of objects to a ‘common ground’ – objects on slopes or heights roll not simply because they are on heights but because they’re allowed to roll or fall. Therefore to believe in relative height from a ‘common ground’ must be to believe in the removal of it, because they’re all hypothetical. This leaves behind the only actual tangible possibility of potentiality, vital importance to the definition of potential energy, of the potential to move physically.

Dissidents who disapprove may state that gravity and height gives an object the potentiality to move, were they to abide, outrageously, by this house’s argument. Therefore an object at high heights but still perceptibly locked in position, rendering mobility impossible still has potential energy simply because being held static does not render the object unaffected by relativity to ground level. Once again, they argue so on the theoretical level that ‘given the possibility for the object to be moved downwards towards ground level’; already have they ignored the fact that it, the ‘given possibility’ has a probability of 0. It cannot happen physically and exists only because humans created a hypothetical scenario for height to happen. Height does not matter when down does not exist. Therefore the potential energy they speak of exists only in their head, hypothetical, but is in fact non-existent. It exists as much as the imaginary number ‘n’ people use for the sake of an expression and ease. Granted, height will be a factor should an object be allowed to move physically downwards, but the hypothetical relative height then collapses because it exists only because the object can physically move; exclusion of the former denies the latter. So this potential energy that people are clamoring about still recognizes the rule that the potentiality of movement must be present, be it physically or hypothetically for potential energy to exist. While the value of gravity is more or less an absolute, height is a relative factor – absolute height is still relative height. The existence of any relative value or factor does not happen when the relativity is removed; the brightness of a color does not exist when no other darker or brighter colors are juxtaposed in perspective; fast or slow; heavy or light – these become inconsequential isolated. Height exists because people like to draw links to the ground.

Therefore, potential energy as energy is a fallacy. Firstly it is not energy because it is only a potentiality, a superposition of states of energy that it can be converted to BUT does not indicate itself as energy. While this seem to question the established statement that energy cannot be created or destroyed, as then people would ask what then would the converted energy be derived and converted from, this does not in fact run contrary to the established statement – it does not claim that any energy is lost or created; taking an example of a rollercoaster, after moving downhill it goes uphill and the kinetic energy is suddenly converted into potential energy simply because it has lost kinetic energy and must be converted into something else before being converted back into kinetic energy and for the sakes of expression, people term it as being converted into potential energy. But at the peak of the hill it has the potentiality to be converted into kinetic energy again but the potentiality per se is not energy but a state of being. So what was the kinetic energy converted to prior to being converted back into kinetic energy? While this remains an unknown, this house shall informally coin it as ‘negative kinetic energy’. If negative velocity and negative acceleration can exist, negative kinetic energy can be a consideration. The more an object is being slowed, the more negative kinetic energy there is until the limit where the object stops completely and that is where negative kinetic energy peaks. This explains neatly what potential energy truly is; a potentiality, while explaining the missing link between conversions of energies. Next, potential energy exists where height and gravity do too is flawed. Removing the potentiality of movement simply mean that there is no way any energy can be converted into any other forms of energy. This is why non-reactive metals can be thought of as having negligible chemical potential energy, because of its very low potentiality for a change of state. So, a hypothetical substance with absolutely no possibility of reaction can be thought of as having 0 chemical potential energy; objects with absolutely no way of movement, physically or hypothetically, have no potential energy. Height is a value derived from relativity drawn from the ground, but without the potentiality to move physically, this hypothetical height becomes redundant. An analogy: a man living on a flat and level plateau very high up with no knowledge that he is on elevation will have no consciousness of the fact that he is high up and height becomes irrelevant to him. To remove the potentiality of movement in potential energy is to be ensconced in the plateau, like the analogous person. It is only until the man moves to the edge of the plateau and looks down that he suddenly realizes “Woah, I’m living pretty high up, huh?”


Disclaimer: This essay does not seek to disprove the existence of potential energy. This is merely an exercise in essay-writing and the exploration of critical thinking. This essay is lacks actual scientific research. This essay also seeks to practice the usage of words in which affects the opinions of people reading this essay. So do not believe wholesale this article. However, whether it is actually true or contains any verisimilitude is actually debatable. It does sound rather credible, or does it?