New Age Energy
An examination of energy, as new agers use the term.
Filed under Fads, General Science, Paranormal
| Skeptoid #01 October 03, 2006 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Also available in Japanese |
|
I'm feeling a little low today, so let's tap into a source of energy from a neighboring dimension as a quick upper.
Faith in pseudoscience is rampant. Everywhere you turn, intelligent people fully accept the existence of anything from psychic phenomena, to angels, to new age healing techniques, to ancient health schemes based on mysterious energy fields not understood by science. Most of these paranormal phenomena rely on "energy," and when the performers are asked to explain, they'll gladly lecture about the body's energy fields, the universe's energy fields, Chi, Prana, Orgone, negative energy, positive energy, and just about anything else that needs a familiar sounding word to explain and justify it. Clearly, there are too many loose interpretations of the word energy, to the point where most people probably have no idea exactly what energy really is.
I believe that if more people had a clear understanding of energy — and it's not complicated — there would be less susceptibility to pseudoscience, and more attention paid to actual technologies and methods that are truly constructive and useful.
A friend told me of her ability to perform minor healings, and her best explanation was that she drew energy from another dimension. She had recently rented What the Bleep Do We Know, so she was well prepared to explain that alternate dimensions and realities should be taken for granted, since science doesn't really know anything, and thus those things cannot be disproven. That's fine, I'll concede that she can make contact with another dimension: after all, the latest M theories posit that there are probably ten or eleven of them floating around, and I'll just hope that my friend's is not one of those that are collapsed into impossibly small spaces. What I was really interested in was the nature of this vaguely defined energy that she could contact.
I asked what type of energy is it, and how is it stored? Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel? Is it an explosive compound? Is it food? These are examples of actual ways that energy can be stored.
In popular New Age culture, "energy" has somehow become a noun unto itself. "Energy" is considered to be literally like a glowing, hovering, shimmering cloud, from which adepts can draw power, and feel rejuvenated. Imagine a vaporous creature from the original Star Trek series, and you'll have a good idea of what New Agers think energy is.
In fact, energy is not really a noun at all. Energy is a measurement of something's ability to perform work. Given this context, when spiritualists talk about your body's energy fields, they're really saying nothing that's even remotely meaningful. Yet this kind of talk has become so pervasive in our society that the vast majority of Americans accept that energy exists as a self-contained force, floating around in glowing clouds, and can be commanded by spiritualist adepts to do just about anything.
There is well known authority for the simple, concrete, scientific definition of energy. Take Einstein's equation, E=mc2, that every schoolchild knows but so few spend the 30 seconds it takes to understand. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Simplify it. Mass can be expressed in grams, and speed can be expressed in meters per second. Thus, an object's energy equals the amount of work it takes to move a few grams a few meters in a few seconds. Energy is a measurement of work. If I lift a rock, I'm inputting enough potential energy to dent the surface of the table one centimeter when I drop it. The calories of chemical potential energy that my bloodstream absorbs when I eat a Power Bar charge up my muscles enough to dig two hundred pounds of dirt in my garden. Nowhere did Einstein discuss hovering glowing clouds, or fields of mystical power generated by human spirits.
When spiritualists discuss energy, don't blindly accept what they're saying simply because energy is a word you're familiar with, and that sounds scientific. In many cases, their usage of the word is meaningless. When you hear the word "energy" casually used to explain a mystical force or capability, require clarification. Require that the energy be defined. Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel?
Here's a good test. When you hear the word "energy" used in a spiritual or paranormal sense, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability." Does the usage still make sense? Are you actually being given any information that supports the claim being made? Remember, energy itself is not the thing being measured: energy is the measurement of work performed or of potential.
Take the following claim of Kundalini Yoga as an example: "The release and ascent of the dormant spiritual energy enables the aspirant to transcend the effects of the elements and achieve consciousness." This would be a great thing if energy was indeed that shimmering cloud that can go wherever it's needed and perform miracles. But it's not, so in this case, we substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and find that the sentence is not attempting to measure or quantify anything other than the word "energy" itself. We have a "dormant spiritual measurable work capability," and no further information. That's pretty vague, isn't it? For this claim to have any merit, they must at least describe how this energy is being stored or manifested. Is it potential energy stored in the chemistry of fat cells? Is it heat that can spread through the body? Is it a measurable amount of electromagnetism, and if so, where's the magnet? In any event, it must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or it can't be called energy, by definition.
There's a good reason why you don't hear medical doctors or pharmacists talking about energy fields: it's meaningless. I think it's generally good policy to remain open minded and be ready to hear claims that involve energy, but approach them skeptically, and scientifically. The next time you hear such a claim, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and you'll be well equipped to separate the silly from the solid.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2006 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
California Energy Commission. "Energy Story. Chapter 1. What is Energy?" Energy Quest. California Energy Commission, 22 Apr. 2002. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. <http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter01.html>
Duff, M.J. The world in eleven dimensions: supergravity, supermembranes and M-theory. Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing, 1999. 1-4.
Hoffman, Frank W., Bailey, William G. Mind and Society Fads. Binghamton: The Haworth Press, 1992. 198-201.
Kurtz, Paul, editor, Stenger, Victor J., author. Skeptical Odysseys: Personal accounts by the world's leading paranormal inquirers. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2001. 363-374.
Sanatan Society. "Raising Kundalini energy with Kundalini Yoga through the chakras." Kundalini Yoga. Sanatan Society, 8 Apr. 2004. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. <http://www.sanatansociety.org/chakras/kundalini_yoga.htm>
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"New Age Energy." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
3 Oct 2006. Web.
4 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4002>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 61 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
Brian,
I think there is a small inconsistency in the discussion of the scientific definition of energy. You mention Einsteins famous equation which is the potential energy contained in matter and which could be released for example in a matter/antimatter annihilation.
Then you go on to describe rather standard kinetic energy for which the equation would be E=m*v*v/2, where m is the mass and v the velocity.
Very different equations describing different things really.
This also shows that Stephan from Italy in a previous post is a bit unclear in his criticism. While
it is true that you don't need to input more energy into an object moving at a constant speed just to keep it moving, it is equally true that the moving object has a kinetic energy: E=m*v*v/2!
J Hartmann, Granada, Spain
June 07, 2010 6:19am
Obviously the physical definition of energy is not the only allowed usage of the word -- as others have pointed out.
The first definition from the online Merriam-Webster:
energy
1 a : dynamic quality <narrative energy> b : the capacity of acting or being active <intellectual energy> c : a usually positive spiritual force <the energy flowing through all people>
Sure, New Age and spiritual people can be imprecise, confused, and confusing when they use the word energy. That doesn't make the word meaningless.
jack, San Francisco
June 07, 2010 12:12pm
you misstated the meaning of "E=MC^2" in this podcast. you should correct it.
Einstein did not did not invent the means to measure energy. Such progress was the work of James Prescott Joule. this is why we measure energy in Joules. One Joule is equal to one kilogram meter per second. But we call it a Joule because measuring something like heat in kilogram meters per second does not sound right.
You probably already knew a lot of that. But what you don’t seems to know is what Einstein meant by E=MC^2. Einstein theorised that matter could be trued into energy and vice versa. E=MC^2 explain how much energy one would get from a given amount of Matter.
Didn’t you ever wonder why it “energy equals matter times the speed OF LIGHT SQUARD” and not just “energy equals matter times the speed”?
Hopefully you would correct this in your next “things I’m wrong about episode”
Anton, Australia
July 19, 2010 12:56am
That's a very fair comment, Anton. My thought was to simplify it for the minor point I was trying to make, but you're right, I probably did oversimplify to the point of no longer being technically correct. Thanks.
Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel
July 19, 2010 1:25am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Brian, while I agree with your statements most of the time, you've put your foot rather squarely in your mouth this time.
"Take Einstein's equation, E=mc2, that every schoolchild knows but so few spend the 30 seconds it takes to understand. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. [...] Thus, an object's energy equals the amount of work it takes to move a few grams a few meters in a few seconds."
Actually, no. You left out the rather important exponent of 2: Energy equals mass times the speed of light SQUARED. Just moving a mass from A to B doesn't necessarily take any work. It's only when you apply a FORCE over a distance that you do work, and even then only when the force and the distance have at least some of their direction in common (i.e., when the dot product isn't zero)
Case in point: carrying your shopping bag from the counter to your car across a linear horizontal path doesn't take any work, since gravity and the distance are at right angles. True, you need to accelerate the bag at the beginning, and that takes work, but you get that work back when you decelerate it at the end.
(If it doesn't take any work, why does your arm hurt when you carry the bag for too long? Because it takes chemical energy to keep the muscles contracted.)
So, next time you chide people for not taking the 30 seconds it takes to understand the equation, make sure you've understood it correctly yourself first :-)
Otherwise, good job and keep up the good work!
Stephan, Trento, Italy
May 14, 2010 1:20am