[Alan McDougall (OP)]

Physicists define energy as the capacity of a physical system to do work. It exists in several forms such as heat, mechanical energy, light, electrical energy etc

According to the Law of Conservation of energy, the total  energy of a system remains constant, though energy may transfer into another form.

Einstein realised that matter is actually energy in another form and his famous formula E=mc2 has been demonstrated to hold true. In other words Energy equals mass times speed of light squared.
 
So, where did energy come from? This is actually asking the question :Where did our universe come from? I would say it came from the Creator God who planned it and brought it into being. Since we are told in Scriptures that God exists before the universe, we can conclude that he used some of his energy to create all the energy of our universe. How did he do that? We can only speculate but I like to suggest that

God exists in a Timeless Dimension that pulsates with energy of that Timeless Dimension. Our universe is locked into time and so I like to imagine that the Creator locked a very precise amount of this timeless energy into time, so creating the universe in a flash of immense energy.
 
Scientific discoveries are showing that for our universe to exist there had to be a large number of extremely finely-tuned factors, such as the relationship between the known forces of nature. If any one of these factors was only fractionally different we would not exist. Therefore, to my mind the Big Bang Creation is a wonderful description of the moment when God locked some of the Timeless Dimension energy into the limitations of time.

Personally I see no conflict between the Big Bang and God.
 

(Give a better candidate for God as the source of all energy?)

[Colin2B]

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/ <- Matter and energy are very different things. Matter is a thing and energy is a property of things. Thus things can be made of matter but they cannot be made of energy.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/mass-and-energy/ <- Mass is a property and energy is a property and there is a relation between mass, energy, and momentum but the aren't equivilent.

Alan,
These are really worth reading. 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.
Also worth reading are these articles on PmbPhy's web site http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/other.htm

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/ <- Matter and energy are very different things. Matter is a thing and energy is a property of things. Thus things can be made of matter but they cannot be made of energy.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/mass-and-energy/ <- Mass is a property and energy is a property and there is a relation between mass, energy, and momentum but the aren't equivilent.

Alan,
These are really worth reading. 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.
Also worth reading are these articles on PmbPhy's web site http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/other.htm

By the way I was a member of Pmbphy's site but he did not like anyone challenging him and dominated it like a dictator.

As for the link, thank you, I think everyone in this thread should read the article, not just me although I admit I am an engineer not a physicist, but a person interested in learning as much as possible as advanced physics at this late stage of my rather protracted life span of almost 76 years young.

Yes compared to some of you, my understanding of the deep maths in physics is basic, however when compared to the average Joe on the high street it is highly advanced.

What we do not need is to be mocked or accused of dishonesty when our take on a subject is wrong.

Alan

[JohnDuffield]

...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. 

[PmbPhy]

These are really worth reading. 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.
Also worth reading are these articles on PmbPhy's web site http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/other.htm

Although Dr. Strassler and I don't agree on everything I do admire him. His website is really good, i.e. very informative and well-written. Thanks for the kudos regarding my website. Did you read the following webpage:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/cm/what_is_energy.htm

Feynman and myself share the same concept of energy. I quoted him in reply #12. Did you read it or my webpage above? There are many journal articles about this subject in the physics literature. If anybody wants to read any of those articles all they have to do is go to: http://booksc.org/ and type What is energy? into the search window, click "search" and then a list of articles will appear. Do a search using the phrase "What is energy" and you'll see that 8 items will be listed.

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?

[jeffreyH]

...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?

[jeffreyH]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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?

[JohnDuffield]

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?   

[puppypower]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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?

[jeffreyH]

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.

[PmbPhy]

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.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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

[Colin2B]

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.

[Colin2B]

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

[jeffreyH]

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.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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! 

[PmbPhy]

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

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

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.

[Colin2B]

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.