[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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!

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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

[JohnDuffield]

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. 

[jeffreyH]

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.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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. 

[jeffreyH]

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.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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!

[JohnDuffield]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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=??

[jeffreyH]

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.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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?

[Colin2B]

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.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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

[Colin2B]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

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

[jeffreyH]

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.

[IAMREALITY]

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...

[IAMREALITY]

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.