Human beings have identified four fundamental forces of nature (the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity), and it appears that these four fundamental forces enable us to account for everything we observe in the universe (including all matter – i.e. all particles and subatomic particles are understood to be stable manifestations of these four fundamental forces). It appears that all other forces observed in nature can be derived from these four fundamental forces.
If it is correct that Energy is defined not by what it is but by what it can do, then is it correct to assume that energy must be some measure of the fundamental forces of nature acting upon one another?
The fact that mass (such as matter) can be converted into energy (such as in a nuclear explosion) in accordance with Einstein’s equation suggests that everything we observe in the universe is simply the various stable manifestations of the four fundamental forces acting upon one another. If this is correct, then what is a force, exactly (i.e. what is a force, not what does it do)?
According to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy of a closed system always tends towards equilibrium (because an equilibrium state has a higher probability than any other) and the overall entropy always increases. Can energy (all forms including heat, potential energy, kinetic energy, chemical energy etc.) be explained and defined by the fundamental forces of nature tending towards equilibrium?
