If Energy is neither created nor used up, where did energy come from?

  • 129 Replies
  • 14466 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
If Energy is neither created nor used up, where did energy come from in the first place?

Alan
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • View Profile
I don't know the answer to this.

LOL, if I did, the wife would be looking at hotels in Stockholm.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
I don't know the answer to this.

LOL, if I did, the wife would be looking at hotels in Stockholm.

Nevertheless , why not give it a bash?
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • View Profile
Because I've thought about it for years, and I can't come up with anything that offers any kind of explanation. I'm not fond of creation ex-nihilo, and I find the universe has always existed  unsatisfactory too. As to where space or energy came from and how the universe began, well, that's where I hit the buffers. I just don't know.

*

Offline RobC

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 25
    • View Profile
This question is worst than "Do dark energy/dark matter really exist?

Surely it's in the category of "we will never find out".

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • View Profile
Dark matter and dark energy really exist.

Shucks, that's an easy one!

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
If Energy is neither created nor used up, where did energy come from in the first place?
The answer to your question is very easy to understand. To begin to understand your question you need to have a firm grasp of what energy is. I strongly recommend reading The Feynman Lectures on Physics - Volume I by Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, Addison Wesley, (1963)(1989). Read Section 4-1 What is energy? which starts on page 4-1. You can download that text here:
http://book4you.org/book/2047593/a467ef

The website is free to use. Registration is free too but you must register. It's worth it because it's an awesome website. You can download practically any physics text that you'd like from that site. The main page is: http://book4you.org/

However, if you don't want to go through the entire business of registering for the site, downloading the book and reading the section then you can go to my website and read What is Energy?[/b ] at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/cm/what_is_energy.htm

From that page you'll learn that energy is not a physical entity, i.e. it's not a substance of any kind. Energy is merely a bookkeeping system which keeps track of a set of quantities, the sum of which is a constant of motion. The value of that constant (i.e. the total energy) is not important since in nearly all cases you can change it and not alter the physics (Even in the exceptions you can probably argue that the constant can be set to zero. However, that's an entirely different discussion). The important thing to keep in mind is that there are energies which have a negative value which can cancel those values of energy which are positive.

So the energy never came from anywhere since it's not a physical substance. However there is a real meaning to the values of the energy. But its the total that you're interested and that total for the entire universe can be set to zero.

In The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth explains why the total energy of the universe is zero. You can read that appendix online. I placed it on my website at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/ask_a_physicist/guth_grav_energy.pdf

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • View Profile
Pmb: I must beg to differ.

Matter is made of energy. This is what Einstein's E=mc² paper is all about (Einstein wrote L instead of E). He made it clear that "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". He also said "if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²". And we now know about electron-positron annihilation. That's where two bodies give off all their energy, and then they don't exist any more. Radiation is a form of energy. Energy is not just some book-keeping abstraction.

Also note the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity where Einstein says "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". Gravitational field energy is positive, not negative. The total energy of the universe is not zero. If you let two bodies fall towards one another, conservation of energy applies. You do not end up with less energy than you started off with. Gravity converts potential energy into kinetic energy, and when you dissipate this you're left with a mass deficit. But the books always balance, and they don't add up to zero.   

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
John that is why you will never be any good at science. You don't understand the simplest of concepts. You are also another cut and paste merchant. Stop spreading disinformation, go away and learn the mathematics. I might then take you seriously. And I don't mean go to google and find some equations to paste here.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
From that page you'll learn that energy is not a physical entity, i.e. it's not a substance of any kind. Energy is merely a bookkeeping system which keeps track of a set of quantities, the sum of which is a constant of motion. The value of that constant (i.e. the total energy) is not important since in nearly all cases you can change it and not alter the physics (Even in the exceptions you can probably argue that the constant can be set to zero. However, that's an entirely different discussion). The important thing to keep in mind is that there are energies which have a negative value which can cancel those values of energy which are positive.

Nonsense!
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline impyre

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 27
    • View Profile
John that is why you will never be any good at science. You don't understand the simplest of concepts. You are also another cut and paste merchant. Stop spreading disinformation, go away and learn the mathematics. I might then take you seriously. And I don't mean go to google and find some equations to paste here.
That seems a little combative.
In regards to the OP, I'm certain you already know that no one can offer any evidence on this... so I'll assume you want opinions. Mine is that the energy was provided by an external universe in the creation of a black hole, and that the big bang was the formation of the singularity as viewed from the inside. A space where the laws of physics are starting to break down, so new ones are born. Maybe just a silly fantasy, but it's a cool one. :p

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
Nonsense!
Spoken like someone who has no understanding of energy. What I just said is well-known by any well-educated physicist. It's not a personal opinion of mine. You didn't read Feynman's text on energy like I suggested, did you? If you did then you wouldn't have made such a rude remark such as this.

Try actually learning about energy before making anymore ignorant comments like that. E.g. read From Alchemy to Quarks by Sheldon L. Glashow (Won the Nobel Prize for his work on the electroweak interaction). Read Chapter 3 - Energy and Momentum page 104.
Quote
In Hindu myth, Vishnu appears as nine avatars: fish, turtle, pig, monster, dwarf, Krishna, Buddha, and Rama the creator or the destroyer. As a white-winged horse, he will one day destroy Earth. Vishnu has much in common with energy. It, too, is an abstract quantity that is difficult to define because it comes in many guises. It's central property (shared with momentum and angular momentum) is conservation - energy can be neither made nor lost. Our primary source of energy is the Sun, but in a far off time it will fulfill Vishnu's prophecy:
The Sun is destined to explode and engulf the Earth.
The key remarks here are that energy is an abstract quantity and that its difficult to define. In fact its thought that it actually cannot be properly defined.

More later.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
The following is from chapter 4 of The Feynman Lectures - Volume I.
Quote
4-1 What is energy?

In this chapter, we begin our more detailed study of the different aspects of physics, having finished our description of things in general. To illustrate the ideas and the kind of reasoning that might be used in theoretical physics, we shall now examine one of the most basic laws of physics, the conservation of energy. There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. (Something like the bishop on a red square, and after a number of moves—details unknown—it is still on some red square. It is a law of this nature.) Since it is an abstract idea, we shall illustrate the meaning of it by an analogy.

Imagine a child, perhaps “Dennis the Menace,” who has blocks which are absolutely indestructible, and cannot be divided into pieces. Each is the same as the other. Let us suppose that he has 28 blocks. His mother puts him with his 28 blocks into a room at the beginning of the day. At the end of the day, being curious, she counts the blocks very carefully, and discovers a phenomenal law—no matter what he does with the blocks, there are always 28 remaining! This continues for a number of days, until one day there are only 27 blocks, but a little investigating shows that there is one under the rug—she must look everywhere to be sure that the number of blocks has not changed. One day, 4-1 however, the number appears to change—there are only 26 blocks. Careful investigation indicates that the window was open, and upon looking outside, the other two blocks are found. Another day, careful count indicates that there are 30 blocks! This causes considerable consternation, until it is realized that Bruce
came to visit, bringing his blocks with him, and he left a few at Dennis’ house. After she has disposed of the extra blocks, she closes the window, does not let Bruce in, and then everything is going along all right, until one time she counts and finds only 25 blocks. However, there is a box in the room, a toy box, and the mother goes to open the toy box, but the boy says “No, do not open my toy box,” and screams. Mother is not allowed to open the toy box. Being extremely curious, and somewhat ingenious, she invents a scheme! She knows that a block
weighs three ounces, so she weighs the box at a time when she sees 28 blocks, and it weighs 16 ounces. The next time she wishes to check, she weighs the box again, subtracts sixteen ounces and divides by three. She discovers the following:

(number of blocks seen) + [ (weight of box) − 16 ounces]/3 ounces  =  constant.    (4.1)

There then appear to be some new deviations, but careful study indicates that the dirty water in the bathtub is changing its level. The child is throwing blocks into the water, and she cannot see them because it is so dirty, but she can find out how many blocks are in the water by adding another term to her formula. Since the original height of the water was 6 inches and each block raises the water a quarter of an inch, this new formula would be:

(number of blocks seen) +[ (weight of box) − 16 ounces]/3 ounces
+ [ (height of water) − 6 inches]/1/4 inch = constant.                                                            (4.2)

In the gradual increase in the complexity of her world, she finds a whole series of terms representing ways of calculating how many blocks are in places where she is not allowed to look. As a result, she finds a complex formula, a quantity which has to be computed, which always stays the same in her situation.

What is the analogy of this to the conservation of energy? The most remarkable aspect that must be abstracted from this picture is that there are no blocks. Take away the first terms in (4.1) and (4.2) and we find ourselves calculating more or less abstract things. The analogy has the following points. First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out. Second, the energy has a large number of different forms, and there is a formula for each one. These are: gravitational energy, kinetic energy, heat energy, elastic energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, radiant energy, nuclear energy, mass energy. If we total up the formulas for each of these contributions, it will not change except for energy going in and out.

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 when 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.
Again, as I keep saying, energy is an abstract thing just as Feynman agrees.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Energy is just vibrating particles left over fro the big bang!

The primordial energy has being dissipated, by the relentless progress of increasing entropy,  into the universe which is cooling down as particles become much less active in the near absolute zero of the dying universe.

Heat is nothing more than particles vibrating from a source of the big bang.

When fundamental particles stop moving, then at absolute zero nothing will ever happen again

Alan
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
John that is why you will never be any good at science. You don't understand the simplest of concepts. You are also another cut and paste merchant. Stop spreading disinformation, go away and learn the mathematics. I might then take you seriously. And I don't mean go to google and find some equations to paste here.
That seems a little combative.
In regards to the OP, I'm certain you already know that no one can offer any evidence on this... so I'll assume you want opinions. Mine is that the energy was provided by an external universe in the creation of a black hole, and that the big bang was the formation of the singularity as viewed from the inside. A space where the laws of physics are starting to break down, so new ones are born. Maybe just a silly fantasy, but it's a cool one. :p

Well John says things that are just not true. Then he will accuse those pointing out his errors of gaining their knowledge via 'pop science magazines'. Of course without any shred of evidence to suggest where others learn about physics. Which is a pursuit that John avoids like the plague. Just ask him some probing questions and you'll soon get the idea.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • View Profile
That seems a little combative.
In regards to the OP, I'm certain you already know that no one can offer any evidence on this...
It isn't a little combative, impyre. It's dishonest. See my post above where I referred to Einstein, twice. It was Einstein who said radiation is a form of energy and the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Google on conversion of matter to energy. This is what E=mc² is all about. Energy is real, matter is made of it. You are made of it.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2016 22:45:37 by JohnDuffield »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
That seems a little combative.
In regards to the OP, I'm certain you already know that no one can offer any evidence on this...
It isn't a little combative, impyre. It's dishonest. See my post above where I referred to Einstein, twice. It was Einstein who said radiation is a form of energy and the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Google on conversion of matter to energy. This is what E=mc² is all about. Energy is real, matter is made of it. You are made of it.

So you can post links and mention famous physicists. Yet you can't even answer a simple question on the FLRW metric. You posted the link on it to support a point you were making. Do you understand it or not? It is a simple question. You can put this to bed right now. Show everybody that you are not just smoke and mirrors.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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.

Energy is exactly how I described it, and my knowledge of physics is not "BASIC"  THE VIBRATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES, THAT WERE SET IN MOTION AT THE MOMENT THAT OUR UNIVERSE EMERGED OUT OF THE BIG BANG SINGULARITY

As an analogy think of a string of a musical instrument, you pluck it giving it energy to vibrate, thus; you are the source of the energy that made the string vibrate and "You are a real material thing"

Now replace yourself with the big bang which is the source of all energy that exists in all its forms in the universe, it is all still in the universe but dissipated due to the increasing entropy. You no longer play a part in you have plucked the string and left it vibrating until the vibration stopped.

To then go further to find the true source of all energy we must find the prime mover using increasing regressing until we are left with God as pure energy, the real thing, because God is light (energy) and in him is no darkness whatsoever.

I know there is no way to capture an amount of hypothetical energy and put it into a container, just as in my example we cant put you in container and call you bottle of pure energy. You represent the Big Bang, plucking the string of the universe setting all things in motion!
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile

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?)
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2090
    • View Profile
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
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
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
« Last Edit: 05/06/2016 20:44:19 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • 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=mc² 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. 
« Last Edit: 05/06/2016 17:18:30 by JohnDuffield »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: Colin2B
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? :)

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • 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=mc² 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 »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • 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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • 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=mc² 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?   

*

Online puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 600
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4195
  • 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=mc² 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?
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • 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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2090
    • 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=mc² 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.



and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2090
    • 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
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • 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=mc² 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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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! 
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • 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.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2090
    • 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.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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 »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • 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=mc² 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
  • *****
  • 4195
  • 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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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. 
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • 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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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!
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 507
    • 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=mc² is wrong, then it's you attempting to slur someone with an established reputation.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4195
  • 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=mc² 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.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • 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 Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)