Energy as a Layer 4 Construct: Reframing the Role of Energy in Scientific Models

J. Rogers, SE Ohio, 10 Apr 2025, 1905

Abstract: This paper proposes a layered framework for scientific understanding in which the commonly used concept of energy is repositioned from a fundamental property of nature to a derived theoretical construct. By placing energy in Layer 4 (theory), rather than Layer 3 (measurement), we resolve longstanding conceptual ambiguities and highlight a critical category error in the interpretation of physical models. This approach demystifies the roles of fundamental constants like Planck's constant $h$, Boltzmann's constant $k$, and the speed of light $c$, revealing them as unit-scaling artifacts within human-defined measurement systems, not intrinsic properties of the universe.

---

1. Introduction

Modern physics commonly treats energy as a core concept—a property possessed by particles, fields, and systems. However, energy is not a base unit. It is a derived construct formed from mass, length, and time. This distinction, while known in metrology, is rarely emphasized in theoretical discourse. Here, we present a four-layer framework for scientific interpretation:

• Layer 1: Physical Reality – The actual phenomena of the universe, including wave-like particle behavior and invariant proportionalities. At this level the universe is unified already. It does not have different properties with itself just stuff that interacts.

• Layer 2: Human Perception – How our senses interact with the universe in fragmented ways to divide up reality in ways we can perceive. 

• Layer 3: Measurement Systems – Human-defined units (kg, m, s) to quantify our perceptions, and dimensional constants ($h, c, k$) used to express and quantify observations.

• Layer 4: Theories and Laws – Abstract mathematical models and concepts, including energy, entropy, and momentum, built from Layer 3 constructs to describe Layer 1/2 reality.

This paper reclassifies energy as a Layer 4 abstraction, not a Layer 3 measurable quantity, and certainly not a Layer 1 property.

---

2. The Nature of Energy

Energy is defined dimensionally in SI as: $\text{Energy} = \text{kg} \cdot \text{m}^2 / \text{s}^2$

This makes energy a derived concept: it describes a change, an interaction, or a transformation of a specific measure of stuff. It is not a fundamental particle property like mass or charge. Yet physics often treats energy as if it is something an object "has," leading to the false impression that the universe itself "runs on energy."

---

3. The Category Error

The central error occurs when a Layer 4 theoretical construct (energy) is mistaken for a Layer 3 measurement or, worse, a Layer 1 property of nature. This confusion leads to flawed assumptions:

• That particles inherently possess energy.

• That energy explains fundamental behavior.

• That constants like $h$ are mysterious portals to quantum reality rather than unit-scaling bridges between mismatched quantities.

When we express the Uncertainty Principle as $\Delta x \Delta p \geq \hbar/2$, we risk misinterpreting $\hbar$ as a deep property of nature, when in fact it reflects the mismatch between how we scale mass, length, and time in our units of measure. The true relation—$\Delta x \Delta \nu_{spatial} \geq C_{wave}$—is a pure statement of wave behavior, free of human scaling artifacts.

---

4. Reframing Constants and Units

Planck’s constant $h$, Boltzmann’s constant $k$, and the speed of light $c$ are not properties of the universe. They are conversion factors required by our Layer 3 unit definitions:

• $h = \text{kg}/\text{Hz} \cdot \text{m}^2/\text{s}^2$

• $k = \text{J}/\text{K}$

• $c = \text{m}/\text{s}$

These constants disappear (i.e., become 1) in properly scaled natural unit systems, confirming that their apparent "fundamentality" is an artifact of unit conventions.

---

5. Preventing Category Errors

To avoid mistaking theoretical constructs for measurement or reality, we propose a litmus test:

• Check dimensionality: Is the concept derived from base units? If yes, it likely belongs to Layer 4.

• Ask about interaction: Does the term describe change or relation rather than substance? If so, it is likely theoretical.

• Trace constants: Are constants used in the expression of the concept tied to human unit definitions? Then the concept is not fundamental.

---

6. Conclusion

Energy is not a unit. It is not a particle property. It is a useful abstraction built from Layer 3 quantities to describe change and interaction. By placing energy in Layer 4 where it belongs, and recognizing constants like $h$ as Layer 3 scaling factors, we eliminate unnecessary mystery and clarify the foundations of physics. The universe does not operate "in energy"—it operates in motion, change, and geometry. Energy is how we model that, not what it is.

---

Appendix: Suggested Notation for Clarity

• $E_{model} = m \cdot v^2$: Model-dependent interpretation.

• $h = (kg_{n}/Hz) \cdot m_{n}^2/s^2 = 1$: Natural unit scaling.

• $\Delta x \Delta p / h = \Delta x \Delta \nu_{spatial} \geq C_{wave}$: Corrected wave interpretation.

---

Keywords: scientific realism, energy, category error, Planck constant, unit systems, theory of measurement, dimensional analysis, wave mechanics, philosophical physics.