Ultimately, I am interested in knowing if understanding the Force as it relates to contemporary physics is important. If it is, then it follows that it would be important for us to understand contemporary physics where aspects of the Force are concerned.
It has been put forth that the Force is a descriptor for everything in the universe.
It has also been put forth that everything in the universe is made of energy.
Therefore, the Force is energy.
It is, however, my understanding that not everything in the universe is made of energy, because (according to my understanding, which may be incorrect) energy is not a physical thing which can "make up" anything else. I understand energy to be a property of matter, and not a "creating" substance out of which matter is formed.
An example to help illustrate my presumption: the color red is a property of reflecting light. The reflecting light is not dependent upon it being seen as the color red. -- Likewise, having energy is a property of matter. Matter is not dependent upon it having energy.
This doesn't mean matter can exist without energy. It's just that if matter exists, then it will have energy, but this does not necessarily mean that the energy is what is responsible for the existence of the matter.
Mass is dependent upon matter. Matter is not dependent upon mass. You will never have mass without matter, because mass is a property of matter. This does not mean that its mass is what is responsible for the existence of the matter. (And of course matter can exist without mass.)
Even Wikipedia describes energy as a property of some form of mechanism (such as heat). The mechanism is not a property of the energy.
Is energy a "thing," or is energy a calculation/interpretation of something else? And if so, what does this mean when we liken the Force to energy?
In my research of this topic, I have found very few things which can easily sum up and explain this very argument, if anything at all, because I am still confused. It seems a lot of people are often working with misconceptions about what energy is and what matter is. Apparently, matter is an ambiguous term when it comes to physics. It is hard to pin point what matter is, and what matter is not. Energy, on the other hand, appears to be the concept that is very concrete in understanding (apparently to physicists, but not myself).
Here is a website that perpetuates the idea that energy is a "thing," or a "substance" which can be used. They even imply energy as being equivalent to gasoline, or coal:
eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=about_home-basics
Is energy really something we use, or something that occurs as a product of something else (some form of matter) being used?
Here is one source on the subject which addresses this issue:
profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/
On a personal note, when I was very young and took my very first physical science class, the teacher said. "Matter is made up of atoms, and other particles. And over here we have energy..."
At which point I asked, "What is the energy made up of?"
To which the teacher said, "Energy is just energy."
Me: "But what is it made of?"
Teacher: "Energy."
= confusion to this day. And I don't think I am the only one, because my teacher was likening energy to some kind of "thing," and so I took that idea and ran with it. If it's a thing, it must be made of something.
But if energy is not a thing... then the Force is not a thing, either. Kind of like the number 0. Yes, it is a thing as far as it is an idea... but it itself is not a thing. What this implies to me is that the Force is an idea, rather than being the equivalent of the entire universe.
Home 
