The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: If Energy is neither created nor used up, where did energy come from?  (Read 13364 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.

Always from moderators?

My thoughts

Cause effect means that there something asymmetric has happened in the remote past. This early state of asymmetry is closely associated with the idea of information/energy transfer,  with the resulting enigma of information/energy happening, when the net displacement of space and time became a reality.

This restriction on information transfer is the same as those on energy transfer, and that the movement caused by the interaction of matter and antimatter, suddenly resulted in the movement of fundamental particles, effected by the primordial conflict between the two forms of opposing matter.

The very early universe was asymmetrical with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and when they met they annihilated almost all of each other leaving mostly, say colossal gamma rays clouds, that over vast periods of time have dissipated and now all that remains in our universe might be a mere .0000000000001% of those original sources. Which had spewed out their contents, into our matter dominated universe.   

This primordial state of unbalance resulted in all atoms and molecules moving and by extrapolation became known to us as energy or its potential. All this energy that has been left over is now contained within the confines of our closed universe.

From just a very rough estimate, maybe only .000000000001% remain as usable energy from the original sources, that had previous held/contained within them all of two primordial forms of matter. (from this primordial source when they met and annihilated each other) 

Information, energy and time and space must be considered in the same picture.

The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant, it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside.

"My question then do we know for sure that the universe itself is a closed system"?, if not information could be leaking into it from the "Outside"?

The Big Bang might have been a "White Hole" ? or a leak from the outside?
« Last Edit: 14/06/2016 02:13:06 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile

Always from moderators?
No, there are members whose contributions are judged to be reliable and who admit when they are mistaken eg PmbPhy, Ethos, JeffreyH. In this thread I would also mention agyegy who's contribution is sound.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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

Always from moderators?
No, there are members whose contributions are judged to be reliable and who admit when they are mistaken eg PmbPhy, Ethos, JeffreyH. In this thread I would also mention agyegy who's contribution is sound.

Perhaps then I should considerably up my game, make my posts much more complex and profound, by the inclusion of much more detail and equations into my posts?  (I never seem to get any credit for my present method of posting). I have deliberately kept them as precise, simple and easy to read as possible, to enable the least informed member/visitor of having a real chance of actually understanding the answers to a particular topic question.

Maybe then I could join your list of the exalted few?

Alan
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 124 times
    • View Profile
I have deliberately kept them as precise, simple and easy to read as possible, to enable the least informed member/visitor of having a real chance of actually understanding the answers to a particular topic question.
That is the best way. More complex answers are only necessary in rare cases.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile

Always from moderators?
No, there are members whose contributions are judged to be reliable and who admit when they are mistaken eg PmbPhy, Ethos, JeffreyH. In this thread I would also mention agyegy who's contribution is sound.

Perhaps then I should considerably up my game, make my posts much more complex and profound, by the inclusion of much more detail and equations into my posts?  (I never seem to get any credit for my present method of posting). I have deliberately kept them as precise, simple and easy to read as possible, to enable the least informed member/visitor of having a real chance of actually understanding the answers to a particular topic question.

Maybe then I could join your list of the exalted few?

Alan

Not everyone reads every thread. Not every person that reads a thread will post a response. I don't see posting as some kind of competition. If I post something and get no replies then I move on and try to research the answers I want from other sources. People will be reading what you write and it may well be giving them something to think about. Listening is even more important than writing your own ideas down. I have learned an awful lot by doing just that.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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

Always from moderators?
No, there are members whose contributions are judged to be reliable and who admit when they are mistaken eg PmbPhy, Ethos, JeffreyH. In this thread I would also mention agyegy who's contribution is sound.

Perhaps then I should considerably up my game, make my posts much more complex and profound, by the inclusion of much more detail and equations into my posts?  (I never seem to get any credit for my present method of posting). I have deliberately kept them as precise, simple and easy to read as possible, to enable the least informed member/visitor of having a real chance of actually understanding the answers to a particular topic question.

Maybe then I could join your list of the exalted few?

Alan

Not everyone reads every thread. Not every person that reads a thread will post a response. I don't see posting as some kind of competition. If I post something and get no replies then I move on and try to research the answers I want from other sources. People will be reading what you write and it may well be giving them something to think about. Listening is even more important than writing your own ideas down. I have learned an awful lot by doing just that.

I fully accept that, thank you!

I do carefully read the posts of the more informed members of the forum and have leaned a lot in the process, which is hopefully evident in the increasing quality of my own posts?

Alan

Alan
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Just keep at it. Science is fascinating and a very extensive subject. Too much for anyone to learn properly. At the moment I am going to try to start reading again. I had stopped for a while but it will be reading on mathematics rather than physics.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
I could probably come up with dozens of theories, but they'd still have no more legitimacy than anyone else's, when it comes down to it.  Cause if it's one thing I've learned from my exploration of the universe and its wonders, is that literally ANYTHING is possible.  Anything at all.  Any theory could hold water, no matter how unreasonable or unlikely it sounds to another. 

So having that said, I guess I'll go in this direction.  We are taught energy can be neither created nor destroyed.  However we forget one small caveat: the fact that only applies to our universe, only to our set of physics, only to our 'reality' and within our own bounds.  No law of physics though, none at all, are said to be multiversally multiversal, if that makes sense (is that the first such a phrase has been uttered?  If so, I hereby lay claim to it!!!).  So we have no idea what the rules for energy or the creation/destruction of it would be external of our own universe, and therefore there can be a whole other set of theories as to where the energy that formed the singularity that has expanded ever since and condensed into all forms of matter may have come from.  Just something to ponder...
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.


Not sure I agree with this, energy being an 'attribute' of mass, and not a 'physical' thing, if by physical you mean actually existing as its own entity.  Spin, in relation to the spin of a particle, is an attribute.  Spin cannot turn into anything else, cannot take any other forms, it does not exist in any physical sort of sense.  The same cannot be said for energy; however, since all matter that exists condensed from a singularity of unimaginable energy.  And no, I'm not a physicist and am definitely a layman, so of course I attest that I may really be missing something in your comment.  But I'm just looking at it at face value and logically, and replying from that angle.

« Last Edit: 14/06/2016 21:02:39 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
I could probably come up with dozens of theories, but they'd still have no more legitimacy than anyone else's, when it comes down to it.  Cause if it's one thing I've learned from my exploration of the universe and its wonders, is that literally ANYTHING is possible.  Anything at all.  Any theory could hold water, no matter how unreasonable or unlikely it sounds to another. 

So having that said, I guess I'll go in this direction.  We are taught energy can be neither created nor destroyed.  However we forget one small caveat: the fact that only applies to our universe, only to our set of physics, only to our 'reality' and within our own bounds.  No law of physics though, none at all, are said to be multiversally multiversal, if that makes sense (is that the first such a phrase has been uttered?  If so, I hereby lay claim to it!!!).  So we have no idea what the rules for energy or the creation/destruction of it would be external of our own universe, and therefore there can be a whole other set of theories as to where the energy that formed the singularity that has expanded ever since and condensed into all forms of matter may have come from.  Just something to ponder...

You are speculating , there is absolutely no evidence of a macro universe, it has not even reached the stage of being considered a theory. Theories are based on some good evidence and there is of now, no evidence of macro or any other different universe, operating under different rules.

And even if there were other universes,  I simply cannot fathom how the conservation of energy would not apply in them as a fundamental law of physics?
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
I could probably come up with dozens of theories, but they'd still have no more legitimacy than anyone else's, when it comes down to it.  Cause if it's one thing I've learned from my exploration of the universe and its wonders, is that literally ANYTHING is possible.  Anything at all.  Any theory could hold water, no matter how unreasonable or unlikely it sounds to another. 

So having that said, I guess I'll go in this direction.  We are taught energy can be neither created nor destroyed.  However we forget one small caveat: the fact that only applies to our universe, only to our set of physics, only to our 'reality' and within our own bounds.  No law of physics though, none at all, are said to be multiversally multiversal, if that makes sense (is that the first such a phrase has been uttered?  If so, I hereby lay claim to it!!!).  So we have no idea what the rules for energy or the creation/destruction of it would be external of our own universe, and therefore there can be a whole other set of theories as to where the energy that formed the singularity that has expanded ever since and condensed into all forms of matter may have come from.  Just something to ponder...

You are speculating , there is absolutely no evidence of a macro universe, it has not even reached the stage of being considered a theory. Theories are based on some good evidence and there is of now, no evidence of macro or any other different universe, operating under different rules.

And even if there were other universes,  I simply cannot fathom how the conservation of energy would not apply in them as a fundamental law of physics?

Ummmm, every single one of us are speculating son, that's the whole point of the exercise.    And though I'm not a fan of the multiverse myself, I am also forced to admit that there are plenty of reasons to accept that it actually is plausible.  There is nothing that has ruled it out and it is no longer considered a fringe idea. In fact, some of the best and brightest in the field accept the possibility.

Science since it's very first days has been limited by those with limited minds; who only can think as deep as their own narrow beliefs.  I choose to not be a slave to such limitations; even when dealing in angles I'm not a fan of.  I will still never allow my mind, nor my thought experiments, to have any boundaries. 

And it's not surprising to me that you are unable to fathom such a concept as you state, because you are in fact a slave of your self imposed mental limitations.  And it is silly to say there is no evidence of there being different rules in different universes, since it is likely that it would be impossible, no matter how advanced we get, to ever have any proof of anything beyond the bounds of our own universe.  So it will always be speculation based on the best theories or concepts our intelligent minds can indeed fathom.  And right now we're just only getting started.  But yes, there are not only reasons to believe the multiverse concept can be real, but also reasons to believe that physics may indeed act differently there.  Unless, of course, you believe Stephen Hawking to be a chump...

 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
IAMREALITY?

For me to be your son you would have to be at least 105 years old so please no patronising here keep it serious.

I see nothing wrong with speculation, however, there is another sub-forum for this type of debate

Maybe you should start a thread under 'New Theories" below? 

Thanks

Alan
« Last Edit: 14/06/2016 22:14:22 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
IAMREALITY?

For me to be your son you would have to be at least 105 years old so please no patronising here keep it serious.

I see nothing wrong with speculation, however, there is another sub-forum for this type of debate

Maybe you should start a thread under 'New Theories" below? 

Thanks

Alan

Sorry son, but I feel no need to start a new thread in a sub forum, when it is perfectly appropriate as an answer written here.  You asked a question.  I merely gave my opinion on it.  It's ya know, kinda like the point here and stuff. 

But you have yet to refute one thing I've said nor give any credible reason as to why my replies are any more invalid than anyone else's.  You seem to want to think you're the be all end all, but you've clearly shown to be the opposite.  You want to dabble in the deeper mysteries of the universe, the things we do not yet know, yet you start with boundaries and mental limitations that are not in any way conducive to discovery or the process.   You don't seem to like there to be any discussion about the multiverse for example, when it is actually a product of our physics and starting to be regarded more and more as a likelihood; albeit one that may always be impossible to prove.  But the things we can prove, and the theories we do have, and as a product of our own physics, the concept and even likelihood of a multiverse is very, very real...

So you're just gonna have to find a way to get over it I think.  I'm sure in time you will.

For now though, I will continue to reply to whatever thread I like, whenever I like, however I like, and do not require your permission nor your advisement with any of it.  For I will not ever take advice from a limited mind.  Thanks.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 16:58:21 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
IAMREALITY?

For me to be your son you would have to be at least 105 years old so please no patronising here keep it serious.

I see nothing wrong with speculation, however, there is another sub-forum for this type of debate

Maybe you should start a thread under 'New Theories" below? 

Thanks

Alan

Sorry son, but I feel no need to start a new thread in a sub forum, when it is perfectly appropriate as an answer written here.  You asked a question.  I merely gave my opinion on it.  It's ya know, kinda like the point here and stuff. 

But you have yet to refute one thing I've said nor give any credible reason as to why my replies are any more invalid than anyone else's.  Fact is, you've got nuttin pal.  You seem to want to think you're the be all end all, but you've clearly shown to be the opposite.  You want to dabble in the deeper mysteries of the universe, the things we do not yet know, yet you start with boundaries and mental limitations that are not in any way conducive to discovery or the process.   You don't seem to like there to be any discussion about the multiverse for example, when it is actually a product of our physics and starting to be regarded more and more as a likelihood; albeit one that may always be impossible to prove.  But the things we can prove, and the theories we do have, and as a product of our own physics, the concept and even likelihood of a multiverse is very, very real...

So you're just gonna have to find a way to get over it.  I'm sure in time you will.

For now though, I will continue to reply to whatever thread I like, whenever I like, however I like, and do not require your permission nor your advisement with any of it.  For I will not ever take advice from a limited mind.  Thanks.

(PS... I just read your god post lmao.  Ok, it all makes sense to me now lol.  )

OH! GREAT ONE! who is only able to write in gutter level English and has the gall to insult the intellect of someone he knows nothing about will in future be ignored.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 14:54:42 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
Jeff is correct in what he said. When physicists use the term energy that is precisely what it means. Have you never read the Feynman Lectures on this topic? On the meaning and subject of energy Feynman writes
[quotes]
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives 28 -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
The same sentiment is reflected in most good texts on physics such as those by French, Glashow, etc.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

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

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
Jeff is correct in what he said. When physicists use the term energy that is precisely what it means. Have you never read the Feynman Lectures on this topic? On the meaning and subject of energy Feynman writes
[quotes]
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives 28 -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
The same sentiment is reflected in most good texts on physics such as those by French, Glashow, etc.

Feynman's the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature. Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing  energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter and energy that is useful tool in the physics .
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 14:53:43 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
OH! GREAT ONE! who is only able to write in gutter level English and has the gall to insult the intellect of someone he knows nothing about will in future be ignored.
Gutter level english lmao.  And awwww, how cute, you're gonna ignore me for merely coming at you with logic, could you be any more childish?  How bout actually responding to the points given to you instead of constantly replying as if you're the be all end all with your nose up in the air while obviously having no idea what you're talking about?  You are just too funny!  And nah, not insulting your intellect...  You've done more than a fine enough job of that on your own with your own words and sentiments son...

Oh, and ps... I will say I appreciate you calling me Great One though....  I don't mind sharing that title with Gretzky one bit!
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 17:00:21 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile

Jeff is correct in what he said. When physicists use the term energy that is precisely what it means. Have you never read the Feynman Lectures on this topic? On the meaning and subject of energy Feynman writes
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives “28” -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
The same sentiment is reflected in most good texts on physics such as those by French, Glashow, etc.

Who is Feynman??


Just kidding hehehe.  I'm familiar with him of course and have watched some of his lectures, but not necessarily what you are referring to.  I did just read a little about it, however. 

I guess what throws me off is how based on what I know everything had come from a singularity of unimaginably hot, pure, higher state energy, and how mass and matter only came thereafter.  How can something only be an attribute of something else that does not yet exist?  I guess that's the part that throws me off a bit.

And was Jeff earlier inferring that it is only an attribute of mass or that right now that's merely the only way we have to describe it?
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 16:49:31 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
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.
Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.
They don't and I'm not. There is no subtlety to E=mc. What Einstein said is there in black and white for all the world to see: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c." If somebody tells you something different, don't just take it for granted, ask him why he's contradicting Einstein. And when he can't or won't explain, you'll know there's a problem, won't you?

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass.
No it isn't. Please don't peddle such twaddle.

Mass itself is not straightforward.
Mass is straightforward.

John uses the term mass without specifying its type.
When used without qualification, we mean rest mass.

Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand.
I understand them all. The latter three are nowadays considered to be measures of energy. A photon has a non-zero inertial mass, but it has a zero rest mass.

It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science.
That's what you've been doing. Energy is not an attribute of mass because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.   

It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
The best answers come from people who explain things carefully and back up what they say with robust references to papers and evidence.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 17:22:59 by JohnDuffield »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
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.
Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.
They don't and I'm not. There is no subtlety to E=mc. What Einstein said is there in black and white for all the world to see: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c." If somebody tells you something different, don't just take it for granted, ask him why he's contradicting Einstein. And when he can't or won't explain, you'll know there's a problem, won't you?

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass.
No it isn't. Please don't peddle such twaddle.

Mass itself is not straightforward.
Mass is straightforward.

John uses the term mass without specifying its type.
When used without qualification, we mean rest mass.

Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand.
I understand them all. The latter three are nowadays considered to be measures of energy. A photon has a non-zero inertial mass, but it has a zero rest mass.

It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science.
That's what you've been doing. Energy is not an attribute of mass because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.   

It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
The best answers come from people who explain things carefully and back up what they say with robust references to papers and evidence.

Richard Feynman the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy, nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature.

Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter, that is useful tool in the physics and thermodynamics .

 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Richard Feynman the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy, nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature.

Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter, that is useful tool in the physics and thermodynamics .

De Ja Vu.  Not sure you're really saying much of anything at all though, or at least to the point that it needs to be repeated now for any further inquiry on the subject...  I can't help wondering if you're thinking it's more profound than it actually is?  But anyway, there may not be blobs of energy roaming about, but I'm not certain that makes it any less worthy of existence than fields, or waves, or anything else there aren't blobs of.  What I've gathered so far, is that energy is simply something we have not yet wrapped our heads around to the point of truly understanding, much like so many other aspects of physics, quantum physics, and everything else universal.  In the end it could have mind blowing explanations, and be far more 'real' than we could even begin to surmise right now.  The most important thing Feynman said was that we simply do not know what it is.  I would caution you'd be well served to not try to imply that you in fact do.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
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.
Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.
They don't and I'm not. There is no subtlety to E=mc. What Einstein said is there in black and white for all the world to see: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c." If somebody tells you something different, don't just take it for granted, ask him why he's contradicting Einstein. And when he can't or won't explain, you'll know there's a problem, won't you?

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass.
No it isn't. Please don't peddle such twaddle.

Mass itself is not straightforward.
Mass is straightforward.

John uses the term mass without specifying its type.
When used without qualification, we mean rest mass.

Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand.
I understand them all. The latter three are nowadays considered to be measures of energy. A photon has a non-zero inertial mass, but it has a zero rest mass.

It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science.
That's what you've been doing. Energy is not an attribute of mass because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.   

It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
The best answers come from people who explain things carefully and back up what they say with robust references to papers and evidence.

Define what you think Einstein meant by radiation. You have your audience.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
John, for your personal education and development. Read and absorb.  ;D

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_coefficients
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
John, for your personal education and development. Read and absorb.  ;D

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_coefficients


I read the article. Thanks

I know you know what I am saying below? However, I would like to put it over in my own way!

Energy for instant is released from an atom when an electron changes is discrete position from either a higher or lower state from the electron cloud or "Orbit", ("which is not a correct description of the make up of an atom but useful analogy") with the resulting release of a photon of light "containing potential energy", as is in the case of atomic fusion in the sun, where hydrogen atoms in the core are progressively over vast periods of time fuse into heaver and heaver elements. This energy then gets released in turn into the universe increasing its state of chaos and entropy.

In the almost unimaginably distant future at say "the heat death of the universe", all the original energy released into the universe "would still be it is confines", but so dissipated and the entropic state increased to almost infinity, that no further activities could ever take place again.

The basic causes of release of energy is the fusion taking place due to the huge force of gravity and colossal temperature at the core of the sun Thus; in my opinion while gravity plays a huge part in the energy flow or entropy of the universe at large, "it not really the primordial source of energy".

Energy can only be described as "an equation of thermodynamics" and is not a real separate, tangible material thing that could, "hypothetically, be picked up and held in a persons hands"
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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