The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: If Energy is neither created nor used up, where did energy come from?  (Read 13352 times)

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
Where did energy come from=no one knows?
When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
What is Energy = no one knows?
Was there always energy=Yes?
Will there always be energy=Yes?
Will there be an end to energy=no?
Was energy created=No?
Can you touch energy=No
How much energy exists =Infinity?
How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
How long has there been energy = Eternity
Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
Does Energy contain all information=Yes?
Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.


Hi Alan,

I provided explanations for you regarding these questions. You appear to be saying that all of them are wrong. I'd like to request your reasons for your answers given my explanations. Thanks.


Hi Pete I looked it up that was IAMREALITY answering my questions and not me responding to you?

Quote
Where did energy come from="no one knows?" (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
When did Energy come from = "Energy is eternal?" (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
What is Energy = "no one knows?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Was there always energy="Yes?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Will there always be energy="Yes?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Will there be an end to energy="no?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Was energy created="No?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
Can you touch energy="No"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)
How much energy exists ="Infinity?"  (IAMREALITY SAID THAT)

Alan

This is the history of the post at hand:



Where did energy come from=no one knows?
When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
What is Energy = no one knows?
Was there always energy=Yes?
Will there always be energy=Yes?
Will there be an end to energy=no?
Was energy created=No?
Can you touch energy=No
How much energy exists =Infinity?
How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
How long has there been energy = Eternity
Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
Does Energy contain all information=Yes?
Where did energy come from=no one knows?
Obviously

When did Energy come from = Energy is eternal?
Our energy came from the big bang

What is Energy = no one knows?
No one knows for certain, but there's a big thread on here detailing what many bright minds believe it to be. 

Was there always energy=Yes?
Ours came from the big bang.  Was there energy to be found external of our Universe, or in multiverses, or whatever, prior to our big bang? Obviously no one knows that either. 

Will there always be energy=Yes?
Probably

Will there be an end to energy=no?
Probably not

Was energy created=No?
Our energy came from the big bang. You're getting repetitive.

Can you touch energy=No
Not a specific enough question, and you'll get a multitude of answers, since there is no definitive definition on what energy is to begin with. 

How much energy exists =Infinity?
No.

How do we find the source of energy=Infinite regression?
No idea what you're even talking about here.  Source of energy? There's not like some energy creating pump out there. 

How long has there been energy = Eternity
In our Universe, since the big bang. 

Are Energy and God the same thing=Yes?
God lmao.  No, there's no magic man in the sky, that's just silliness.  But even if, I fail to see how the two are even remotely related enough in concept to be equated within a logical argument. 

Does Energy contain all information=Yes?
Ummm... No.

You are making the assumption that the Big Bang was both the beginning and source of everything, however, logic tells me that there must have been a form of existence before the event of the big bang and this is what I meant by stating "Infinite Regression", remember the Big Bang event is just a theory, albeit the best one, of what happened at the very start of our universe. If there were a something before that it must be just be an assumption and that what is what I was doing in my last post on this subject, namely guessing or speculating as to what, where and how, etc, about the primordial source of energy, indeed if such a thing exists as a reality within existence before and beyond the confines of our universe?


I was making no assumption, but rather answering what was asked. Now if your question is what existed prior to the big bang, well that's a different question altogether, and more a philosophical one and exercise in futility more than anything else since no one knows.  But there are a million hypothetical discussions about what may or may not have caused the big bang or what may have existed before it, online for your perusal. You're free to explore. Www.google.com

As for my thoughts? I have several, depending on my mindset.  But generally, believe that either it all started with the big bang for reasons unknown, that this source of indescribable energy become unstable and burst into existence, and that the energy itself could be literally the energy of nothingness, but the concept still boggles my mind.  Or I may believe in the brane theory, that two colliding branes caused the rupture that on our end became the big bang, or I may believe it could be the product of some other universes black hole, or also what simply happens in the multiverse, that there's this soup of extro-universal state energy that our physics simply can't describe, and that its becoming unstable and bursting universes into existence is simply what it does.

Course, at times I might find myself tripping my friggin face off, I might instead believe that a separate universe had too much dark energy in a runaway expansion, which in time would cause that universe to tear, so an advanced race within it came up with a device that could suck in all the energy and direct it into a tight beam, and focused on a single sub atomic point of spacetime, and that once enough energy was siphoned and beamed into this point, it would cause a new external universe to be created, our big bang, thereby relieving that universe of the extra energy and giving it to ours, causing their universe to achieve a balance to where the risk of a spacetime tear was abated, and that all the energy within our Universe is from their excess that was given to us. And they repeat as necessary. Cause they figured out that any time a certain threshold of energy is crossed within a singularity type point in spacetime, that spacetime will rupture and the product will be the creation of a new spacetime containing the energy that caused the rupture, and that any time a new space time is created inflation will occur. This, like I said, is a theory reserved for when I'm tripping my face off, however.

But the awesome part about "what happened before or may have existed prior to the big bang?" discussions, is that even the wildest of wild theories can have credibility, because no one has a clue what the real answer to the question is. 

What I do know within me with as much certainty as an opinion can muster, is that no higher level consciousness, no theoretical "god", was necessary, nor will ever be found to have played a role. In the end, it is my strong belief, that when the answers are in fact found, that God will be relegated to nothing more than a field, a force that can create from nothingness.  Not because it bears any consciousness or can hear any prayers or any other gobblygook, but instead merely because it's what it does, and can do.

Yo dude, you asked the questions.  I gave my answers to them randomly.  But nowhere did I say the things you're attributing to me. Above is the short history around the post.  I would ask that you not call me out by name but if you must, please don't attribute quotes to me that are false.  Thank you.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: timey
Pete - I do not understand the physicality of 1/square root 1 etc, and what this term relates to within the physical process.  m is mass, v is velocity, e is energy of various types, squaring is a mathematical process, where does the 1 originate from?  What is 1?
I don't think that it's possible to look at all equations in physics and be able to ask "What is the physical meaning of this exponent." or somethin

However in this case the presence of gamma factor in that expression can be traced to the derivation of the expression for time dilation. See: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/time_dilation.htm

In that derivation you'll noticed that the Pythagorean Theorem was used. As far as for the physical meaning of each of the terms in that theorem please follow the derivation. All you need to know is basic algebra and the Pythagorean Theorem. The resulting equation is:

(ct/2)2 = (vt/2)2  + (cT/2)2

When you solve for t you get

t = T/sqrt{1 - (v/c)2}

Kinetic energy is then found to be K = (gamma - 1)mc2[/sub].

Quote from: timey
Are you saying that the mathematical process of calculating KE changes above a certain velocity?
You cn
Not precisely. The definition of kinetic energy is defined independent of any theory. You can look it up under the Wok-Kinetic Energy Theorem. If you obtain the expression for kinetic energy in relativity then it becomes the value for classical mechanics as v/c << 1. You don't appear how this can happen. The rule that allows this to happen for such expressions is called the Correspondence Principle.

Consider how this works with time dilation. Recall the expression for it: t = T/sqrt{1 - (v/c)2}

In non-relativistic physics we have v << c (this is to be read "V is much less than the speed of light, c). When this is true the value v/c is negligible compared to one. When this is true the square of v/c is even smaller!!! So as a very good approximation we can set gamma  ~ 1 and therefore t = T and thus there is no time dilation. A similar thing happens with the expression for kinetic energy. Would you like me to work that out for you as well or would                         
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
...Well It seems that String Theory(ST) can provide an answer. ST predicts that the smallest composition of matter are tiny vibrating strands of energy called strings. The way these string wiggle and depending upon whether they are closed or open ended they make up the fundamental particle that we see.

The messenger particle responsible for the transmission of gravity is the gravition. Its is presumed that all the open ended strings are tied to a 3-D surfaces called Branes that floats in a higher dimensional space. There can be many branes that carry parallel universes.

It is believed that two Branes, floating parallely may collide. The energy produced in that collision must have to go somewhere. Where does it go? It goes into the Big Bang. It creates the rapid expansion that we see. ST also provides an answer to why gravity is much weaker than all other fundamental forces of the universe.
I'm afraid this is all speculation Alan. String theory predicts nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever for branes or higher dimensional space.   
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
...Well It seems that String Theory(ST) can provide an answer. ST predicts that the smallest composition of matter are tiny vibrating strands of energy called strings. The way these string wiggle and depending upon whether they are closed or open ended they make up the fundamental particle that we see.

The messenger particle responsible for the transmission of gravity is the gravition. Its is presumed that all the open ended strings are tied to a 3-D surfaces called Branes that floats in a higher dimensional space. There can be many branes that carry parallel universes.

It is believed that two Branes, floating parallely may collide. The energy produced in that collision must have to go somewhere. Where does it go? It goes into the Big Bang. It creates the rapid expansion that we see. ST also provides an answer to why gravity is much weaker than all other fundamental forces of the universe.
I'm afraid this is all speculation Alan. String theory predicts nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever for branes or higher dimensional space.   

I have to agree with John on this one. Don't pass out John. String theory operates at a scale where tests of its hypothesis are not possible. If it were to start giving results applicable to larger measurable scales that would be different.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
...Well It seems that String Theory(ST) can provide an answer. ST predicts that the smallest composition of matter are tiny vibrating strands of energy called strings. The way these string wiggle and depending upon whether they are closed or open ended they make up the fundamental particle that we see.

The messenger particle responsible for the transmission of gravity is the gravition. Its is presumed that all the open ended strings are tied to a 3-D surfaces called Branes that floats in a higher dimensional space. There can be many branes that carry parallel universes.

It is believed that two Branes, floating parallely may collide. The energy produced in that collision must have to go somewhere. Where does it go? It goes into the Big Bang. It creates the rapid expansion that we see. ST also provides an answer to why gravity is much weaker than all other fundamental forces of the universe.
I'm afraid this is all speculation Alan. String theory predicts nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever for branes or higher dimensional space.   

I have to agree with John on this one. Don't pass out John. String theory operates at a scale where tests of its hypothesis are not possible. If it were to start giving results applicable to larger measurable scales that would be different.

I'm not sure he was trying to say it as any sort of accepted science, but rather just informing what ST has to 'say' on the matter.  I'm confused how it can be said ST doesn't predict something because there's no evidence that branes exist or that there's higher dimensional space.  That's the whole point of something being a prediction; there's not yet any evidence of it.  I don't flip a coin, see it land on heads, and then say "I predict it will be heads".  And even if I didn't know coins exist at all, I could still say if there was a coin, and it had two sides, and I flipped it, I predict it will land on heads".  I don't see how someone could then say I predicted nothing.

Now granted, there has been a lot that has poked holes in ST in the last decade or whatnot, and most physicists no longer take it seriously at all (though most also never did).  But it's still a theory that exists that has details to it, and Alan was merely repeating those details.  I don't think he actually believes in ST, I think he was just trying to show us that he's heard of it and has knowledge of it, and posted it merely as a discussion point (I think it was more just a "hey look!  I know stuff!" kinda exercise than a "This is what I believe" one...).  I had alluded to it as well, as one of the many things out there that try and explain pre-Big Bang events.  But I don't believe in ST at all.  But there's nothing wrong with talking about what it has to say on the matter, even though I agree with both of your critiques that there's not a whole lot of meat on the bone insofar as evidence or legitimacy are concerned in respect towards it.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums