The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: If Energy is neither created nor used up, where did energy come from?  (Read 13111 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
...I'm a great fan of Matt Strassler, he doesn't use the pop science terminology that seems to dog physics reporting in the popular science press...
Unfortunately Matt Strassler's article is at odds with what Einstein said and what E=mc˛ is all about: radiation is a form of energy, and matter is made of energy. IMHO you can confirm the latter for yourself by considering Compton scattering:

Image courtesy of Rod Nave's hyperphysics

When you perform Compton scattering, some of the photon's E=hc/λ wave energy is converted into electron kinetic energy. If you repeat the process and perform another Compton scatter using the scattered photon, then another and another and another, in the limit you remove all of the photon wave energy, whereupon there's no wave left. The photon has then been entirely converted into electron kinetic energy. This is why light can be viewed as *just* kinetic energy, or why light is a "form of energy".  The important thing to note is that in pair production you can convert the photon into an electron and a positron, so you can say the electron is quite literally made from kinetic energy. You made matter out of energy. The electron is made out of the same thing that causes electrons to move. Then when you annihilate the electron it with a positron you get two photons, which are just kinetic energy, and you're back where you're started. 

NB: I would add that IMHO it's better to speak of energy-momentum rather than energy alone. You can think of energy as a distance-based measure of energy-momentum, and momentum as a time-based measure of energy-momentum. They're two sides of the same coin in that you can't reduce the kinetic energy of the cannonball in space without reducing its momentum.

So John can you enlighten us to the meaning of theta and phi in Compton scattering?
« Last Edit: 05/06/2016 21:33:31 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Matter and mass are not equivalent. Matter does not increase relativistically. Mass is not a given for any particle without interaction with other fields.The mechanism of relativistic mass increase is unknown. We can say it is velocity related but no more. It is not a subject that you can make glib statements about.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
The mechanism of relativistic mass increase is unknown. We can say it is velocity related but no more. It is not a subject that you can make glib statements about.
Why on Earth would you say that my friend? W sure do know the mechanism for relativistic mass increase. Just follow the derivation at: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/inertial_mass.htm

Once you go through it and fully understand what you're reading then you'll understand why mass increases with speed. It's because when the speed increases the time and distance measurements change and those changes manifest themselves by changes in momentum and the combination of momentum and speed define mass.

By the way. I've sent you a PM and an e-mail and you didn't respond to either of them. Is there a reason why?
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Now Alan and John have a list of physics journal articles to read on the subject of greatest importance in this thread. Do you think that either of them will take our advice and read one of them?
I've read them all, along with Einstein's E=mc˛ paper. That's where Einstein referred to radiation as a form of energy, and where we learned that matter is made of energy. 

You can't counter my Compton scattering explanation that supports this, can you?   
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Energy is the bridge between the speed of light ground state of the universe, and all the inertial states of the universe. Photons travel at the speed of light which is the same in all inertial references. This leg of the energy bridge is connected to the C ground state. Photons will also red and blue shift relative to inertial references. This leg of the bridge is connected to inertial reference.

If we traveled at the speed of light the inertial universe would appear as a point-instant. This means at the speed of light, one cannot see the variety of energy we see in inertial reference. At the speed of light ground state, one can only see one wavelength; infinite wavelength, where photons approach zero energy. The reason is at the speed of light, shorter wavelengths will contract to a fraction of a point-instant, which is not mathematically possible. The variety of wavelengths of energy we see connected to the inertial side of the bridge.

Current theory does not use a speed of light ground state, therefore energy remains more nebulous. But with a C ground state, since mass cannot move at the speed of light; special relativity, we need an intermediate state or a bridge, with one leg in both places.

 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Now Alan and John have a list of physics journal articles to read on the subject of greatest importance in this thread. Do you think that either of them will take our advice and read one of them?
I've read them all, along with Einstein's E=mc˛ paper. That's where Einstein referred to radiation as a form of energy, and where we learned that matter is made of energy. 

You can't counter my Compton scattering explanation that supports this, can you?

What is it about "you are on Pete's ignore list" that you don't understand?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
John you specifically use Compton scattering to support your view so why not answer the trivial question posed about theta and phi. Is it because it destroys your assertion or because you simply don't know the answer.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
What is it about "you are on Pete's ignore list" that you don't understand?
It's just his way of attempting to make me look ignorant.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
Energy is just vibrating particles left over fro the big bang!
Which clearly shows that you have no idea what translational kinetic energy or potential energy is (neither of which alone is associated with vibration). A particle moving at constant speed, like most of the particles making up the interstellar gas in the universe, has kinetic energy, none of which is vibrating.

After all this time posting in this forum I find it amazing how little you know about the basics of physics.

Nothing amazing, from your lofty tower it seems you have reached a point of omniscience, leaving the rest of us all gasping, at your level of understanding of how everything in existence really works.

The kinetic theory of matter (particle theory) says that all matter consists of many, very small particles which are constantly moving or in a continual state of motion. The degree to which the particles move is determined by the amount of energy they have and their relationship to other particles. The particles might be atoms, molecules or ions. Use of the general term 'particle' means the precise nature of the particles does not have to be specified

What is wrong with that my friend?

Alan
 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Feynman and myself share the same concept of energy. I quoted him in reply #12. Did you read it or my webpage above?
Excuse short reply, but low on time today, just back from trip.
I read Feynman lectures way back but the piece on energy didn't stand out because it confirmed the way I have always been taught to look at it - energy is not a 'thing' but a way of consistently counting a group of different but related properties.
The article on NEP I read last yr and is a useful reminder of the importance of considering the whole system. The example with ball and spring reminds me of the problem many people have in talking about energy. If we drop a steel ball we understand that it gains KE, and we are unlikely to confuse the ball as a thing and the energy as a property - no one would say the ball is energy. The same can be said for waves - they transfer energy but we would not call them pure energy. With less tangible things I have noticed people become confused and I have heard eg nuclear explosions and light described as pure energy - loose thinking.
The useful thing about the Strassler articles is that he covers quite succinctly the relationship between matter, mass, energy and momentum and use of momentum/energy in the calculations of interactions. He does take a hard line on relativistic mass (which I think is a useful concept) but I can see that in particle physics it's important to use a common methodology for interactions.
Unfortunately Matt Strassler's article is at odds with what Einstein said and what E=mc˛ is all about: radiation is a form of energy, and matter is made of energy. ......
When you perform Compton scattering, some of the photon's E=hc/λ wave energy is converted into electron kinetic energy. If you repeat the process and perform another Compton scatter using the scattered photon, then another and another and another, in the limit you remove all of the photon wave energy, whereupon there's no wave left. The photon has then been entirely converted into electron kinetic energy. This is why light can be viewed as *just* kinetic energy,.....
John
I'm surprised by your comments here. Current mainstream particle physicists refer to the energy of light as a property of light (the energy transferred by light) rather than describing light as energy eg http://sciencequestionswithsurprisinganswers.org/mobile/2015/01/12/why-is-light-pure-energy/.
Your 'proof' can also be applied to sound waves. A sound wave, which carries sound energy, will reflect in turn from multiple surfaces, transferring energy to the molecules in each reflector in the form of momentum which is dissipated as heat. Eventually the energy is used up and the wave disappears, however, we don't refer to sound, seismic, or other waves as "just energy".

I am also surprised by your comments regarding Strassler and Einstein and I don't see how they are at odds. In his article Strassler says:
"Einstein knew that energy and momentum were conserved according to previous experiments, so he sought (and found) equations that would preserve this feature of the world.  And he also discovered along the way that the mass of a system would have to satisfy equation E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2"           
Strassler then uses this equation as the starting point for going on to describe how conservation of energy and momentum are used in calculating interactions in particle physics.
If you feel there is a problem with his methodology it would help our understanding if you were to show us how you would perform the calculations in his examples and indicate where you feel he is in error.



 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
What is wrong with that my friend?
Alan, jeffferyH says PmbPhy won't read your posts, hence won't respond, because you and JD are on his ignore list
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Feynman and myself share the same concept of energy. I quoted him in reply #12. Did you read it or my webpage above?
Excuse short reply, but low on time today, just back from trip.
I read Feynman lectures way back but the piece on energy didn't stand out because it confirmed the way I have always been taught to look at it - energy is not a 'thing' but a way of consistently counting a group of different but related properties.
The article on NEP I read last yr and is a useful reminder of the importance of considering the whole system. The example with ball and spring reminds me of the problem many people have in talking about energy. If we drop a steel ball we understand that it gains KE, and we are unlikely to confuse the ball as a thing and the energy as a property - no one would say the ball is energy. The same can be said for waves - they transfer energy but we would not call them pure energy. With less tangible things I have noticed people become confused and I have heard eg nuclear explosions and light described as pure energy - loose thinking.
The useful thing about the Strassler articles is that he covers quite succinctly the relationship between matter, mass, energy and momentum and use of momentum/energy in the calculations of interactions. He does take a hard line on relativistic mass (which I think is a useful concept) but I can see that in particle physics it's important to use a common methodology for interactions.
Unfortunately Matt Strassler's article is at odds with what Einstein said and what E=mc˛ is all about: radiation is a form of energy, and matter is made of energy. ......
When you perform Compton scattering, some of the photon's E=hc/λ wave energy is converted into electron kinetic energy. If you repeat the process and perform another Compton scatter using the scattered photon, then another and another and another, in the limit you remove all of the photon wave energy, whereupon there's no wave left. The photon has then been entirely converted into electron kinetic energy. This is why light can be viewed as *just* kinetic energy,.....
John

If you feel there is a problem with his methodology it would help our understanding if you were to show us how you would perform the calculations in his examples and indicate where you feel he is in error.

You may be waiting a while for the equations.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
What is wrong with that my friend?
Alan, jeffferyH says PmbPhy won't read your posts, hence won't respond, because you and JD are on his ignore list

No problem he does not like to be challenged on anything, that is why he created his own-forum (Now Defunct) and invited me to join because up until on our Naked Science forum he thought I was one of his admirers which I was not and am still not! 
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
What is wrong with that my friend?
Alan, jeffferyH says PmbPhy won't read your posts, hence won't respond, because you and JD are on his ignore list
Jeff said that because in the thread Does the universe have an edge
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66960.msg488727#msg488727
I wrote in reply #39
Quote
Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The nature of the universe is based on general relativity and the Cosmological Principle (an axiom based on observations of the distribution of galaxies in the visible universe). That's why I keep saying that this is the way is based on theory and not mere speculation. From that and the measured density of matter in the universe the shape of the universe is determined. There's no speculation involved.

Since you keep making unfounded accusations and thus appear to have no real interest in learning what theory predicts and keep claiming that predictions are all speculation I can no longer justify either reading or responding to your comments. Welcome to my ignore list. You'll be in the company of the likes of John Duffield et al.
So why does Alan and JD keep asking me questions when they know they're on my ignore list? Perhaps Alan thinks I'm unable to respond to a challenge like JD claim where he wrote
Quote
You can't counter my Compton scattering explanation that supports this, can you?
That claim and any other like it is pure nonsense. There has never been an explanation that I assert is wrong that I can't prove and no serious challenge that I can't meet. But I will no longer attempt to explain things to people who can't understand it because they refuse to learn. E.g. I made an attempt to explain what energy is to Alan but all he could do is reply "Nonsense" showing me that he's not willing to learn. I gave up on those two for good.
 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
MODERATOR REQUEST

We appreciate that some of you have 'history' due to contact in other fora and that this will influence your conversations here. We allow a degree of lively discussion but this topic is becoming more personal than science. Please keep your replies on topic.
Thank you

PS - there are a number of members here who are valued for their knowledge of physics and the consistent, high quality of their replies. Some will be intolerant of incorrect or inaccurate science and may seem rather robust in their replies. We would ask both sides to cut the other a little slack, but any poster should not take a lack of response to indicate agreement with their post or that a response is not possible, everyone has the right to ignore.
 
The following users thanked this post: PmbPhy

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
MODERATOR REQUEST

We appreciate that some of you have 'history' due to contact in other fora and that this will influence your conversations here. We allow a degree of lively discussion but this topic is becoming more personal than science. Please keep your replies on topic.
Thank you

PS - there are a number of members here who are valued for their knowledge of physics and the consistent, high quality of their replies. Some will be intolerant of incorrect or inaccurate science and may seem rather robust in their replies. We would ask both sides to cut the other a little slack, but any poster should not take a lack of response to indicate agreement with their post or that a response is not possible, everyone has the right to ignore.

It costs nothing to be polite, which will open the mind of the most stubborn learner!
« Last Edit: 10/06/2016 19:25:31 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
All the matter in the universe could been created from a bit of "primordial energy" or the big bang singularity 

This scenario is a consequence of applying Einstein's theory of gravity to the inflationary universe model. (Alan Guth) 

Thus the known laws of nature can in principle explain where the matter and energy in the universe came from, provided there was at least a seed of energy to begin with.

Exactly, what that seed of energy was admittedly baffles me, but maybe, somewhere, some-when and somehow, at this null alpha point; a the drummer struck the drum of existence, or a " Loaded primordial Spring" was sprung dissipating its force in an infinite moment" setting off a cascade of potential energy to activate the universe by the processes of increasing entropy?

Alan
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
John
I'm surprised by your comments here.
Sorry Colin, I missed your post.

Current mainstream particle physicists refer to the energy of light as a property of light (the energy transferred by light) rather than describing light as energy eg http://sciencequestionswithsurprisinganswers.org/mobile/2015/01/12/why-is-light-pure-energy/.
Particle physicists describe light as having energy whilst Einstein described light as a form of energy. I'm with Einstein on this. As I said previously I take this view because of what we can work out from  Compton scattering:

Image courtesy of Rod Nave's hyperphysics

When you perform Compton scattering, some of the photon's E=hc/λ wave energy is converted into electron kinetic energy. If you repeat the process and perform another Compton scatter using the scattered photon, then another and another and another, in the limit you remove all of the photon wave energy, whereupon there's no wave left. The photon has then been entirely converted into electron kinetic energy. This is why light is "just" kinetic energy, or why light is a "form of energy".  The important thing to note is that in pair production you can convert the photon into an electron and a positron, so you can say the electron is quite literally made from kinetic energy. You made matter out of energy. The electron is made out of the very same thing that makes electrons to move.   
 
Your 'proof' can also be applied to sound waves. A sound wave, which carries sound energy, will reflect in turn from multiple surfaces, transferring energy to the molecules in each reflector in the form of momentum which is dissipated as heat. Eventually the energy is used up and the wave disappears, however, we don't refer to sound, seismic, or other waves as "just energy".
The difference is that sound waves involve the motion of molecules, and we describe this energy as an attribute or property of those molecules. For light waves, there are no such molecules. 

I am also surprised by your comments regarding Strassler and Einstein and I don't see how they are at odds. In his article Strassler says:
"Einstein knew that energy and momentum were conserved according to previous experiments, so he sought (and found) equations that would preserve this feature of the world.  And he also discovered along the way that the mass of a system would have to satisfy equation E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2".       
Strassler then uses this equation as the starting point for going on to describe how conservation of energy and momentum are used in calculating interactions in particle physics. If you feel there is a problem with his methodology it would help our understanding if you were to show us how you would perform the calculations in his examples and indicate where you feel he is in error.
There's nothing wrong with E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2. What's wrong with Matt Strassler's article is this: "But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has". That flatly contradicts Einstein. When he says "The stuff of the universe is all made from fields" he's giving a Standard Model viewpoint that's at odds with general relativity, which the Standard Model doesn't cover. In general relativity a gravitational field is space that's "neither homogeneous nor isotropic". See Einstein's 1929 article where he described a field as a state of space. General Relativity is mainstream, as is E=mc˛ along with the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. A body doesn't have energy like it has speed, it contains it. 
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I am no longer ignoring John. So here goes. John I would very much appreciate your take on the standard model and Gell-Mann's eightfold way. Also on the predictive power of this model. I am sure you are fully aware of its history since you use it to support your view that the standard model is at odds with relativity. Take your time. No rush.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Every object in the universe has potential energy! In my opinion the source of all the potential energy was the Big Bang, which was crudely put, was pure distilled,  inactive infinite energy, in a primordial container.

Somehow this non-created infinite pool of condensed, "as of yet inactive "stuff", was poured out into our universe from the singularity, to become active energy, in all its forms, that now sustains the processes of time and entropy enabling the universe to evolve and become the complex reality we all now exist in.

Reel back the above and all the energy reverts into the original infinite pool of condensed stuff that will morph into all forms of energy and start the while process again, without the loss of a single iota of potential energy. 
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I am no longer ignoring John. So here goes. John I would very much appreciate your take on the standard mode and Gell-Mann's eightfold way. Also on the predictive power of this model. I am sure you are fully aware of its history since you use it to support your view that the standard model is at odds with relativity. Take your time. No rush.

You are so kind I weep!

Well John, who has no qualifications in physics at all, is trying to say that a physicist with the relevant qualifications is wrong. So he had better be able to back up that claim by showing he has the knowledge and understanding to support his assertions. Not just being good at finding things to cut and paste from google searches. Otherwise he is attempting to slur someone with an established reputation. If you think that is fine then stand up and be counted.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
I am no longer ignoring John. So here goes. John I would very much appreciate your take on the standard mode and Gell-Mann's eightfold way. Also on the predictive power of this model. I am sure you are fully aware of its history since you use it to support your view that the standard model is at odds with relativity. Take your time. No rush.

You are so kind I weep!

Well John, who has no qualifications in physics at all, is trying to say that a physicist with the relevant qualifications is wrong. So he had better be able to back up that claim by showing he has the knowledge and understanding to support his assertions. Not just being good at finding things to cut and paste from google searches. Otherwise he is attempting to slur someone with an established reputation. If you think that is fine then stand up and be counted.

My apologies!
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I am no longer ignoring John. So here goes. John I would very much appreciate your take on the standard model and Gell-Mann's eightfold way. Also on the predictive power of this model. I am sure you are fully aware of its history since you use it to support your view that the standard model is at odds with relativity. Take your time. No rush.
Start a thread and I'll tell you what I can.

Well John, who has no qualifications in physics at all, is trying to say that a physicist with the relevant qualifications is wrong. So he had better be able to back up that claim by showing he has the knowledge and understanding to support his assertions. Not just being good at finding things to cut and paste from google searches. Otherwise he is attempting to slur someone with an established reputation. If you think that is fine then stand up and be counted.
I've already backed up what I said by referring to Einstein. If you're saying the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content is wrong, if you're saying radiation is a form of energy is wrong, if you're saying E=mc˛ is wrong, then it's you attempting to slur someone with an established reputation.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I am no longer ignoring John. So here goes. John I would very much appreciate your take on the standard model and Gell-Mann's eightfold way. Also on the predictive power of this model. I am sure you are fully aware of its history since you use it to support your view that the standard model is at odds with relativity. Take your time. No rush.
Start a thread and I'll tell you what I can.

Well John, who has no qualifications in physics at all, is trying to say that a physicist with the relevant qualifications is wrong. So he had better be able to back up that claim by showing he has the knowledge and understanding to support his assertions. Not just being good at finding things to cut and paste from google searches. Otherwise he is attempting to slur someone with an established reputation. If you think that is fine then stand up and be counted.
I've already backed up what I said by referring to Einstein. If you're saying the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content is wrong, if you're saying radiation is a form of energy is wrong, if you're saying E=mc˛ is wrong, then it's you attempting to slur someone with an established reputation.

You assume to know what Einstein meant. You think that your one opinion outweighs the multitude of professionals working directly with the particles whose energy to presume to know all about. The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Einstein’s theory of general relativity, proposed that there were regions of space where a form of positive energy (or maybe anti-gravity?) was actually pushing space outward. As space expands, it releases stored up gravitational potential energy, which converts into the intrinsic energy that fills the newly created void.

Thus does the expansion of the universe violate the law of energy conservation and could it be the source from which all energy emerged to fill it with potential energy?

Molecules in motion=??
« Last Edit: 13/06/2016 22:20:31 by Alan McDougall »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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