• Announcements

    • Cap'n Refsmmat

      SFN Upgraded   07/22/17

      SFN has been upgraded to IPB version 4. View the announcement for more details, or to report any problems you're experiencing.
Knowledge Enthusiast

What created energy if energy cannot be created?

36 posts in this topic

According to the law of conservation of energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. If that is so, then how is it the case that there is energy in the universe?

Is the reason because the big bang led to the creation of an imbalanced amount matter and anti-matter that annihilated until there was only matter left in the universe? According to Einstein, anything with mass curves space creating a force we describe as gravity. Gravitational force creates potential energy that transforms into kinetic energy until equilibrium is reached. Therefore, the curvature of space caused by the mass of particles is fuelling the universe with energy.

Can anyone tell me what I am missing or misunderstanding? I only have a college level physics and mathematics background.

Edited by Knowledge Enthusiast
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good question.

 

The answer is basically that we don't know.

 

The big bang is a model of the expansion of the universe from a very short time after t=0 until now. We don't know what happened before that but it looks like either the energy has always existed or the time symmetry was broken.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on what Klaynos said, conservation of energy is the result of time-translation symmetry. If the laws of physics changed at some point in time, energy would not be conserved across that boundary.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good question.

 

The answer is basically that we don't know.

 

The big bang is a model of the expansion of the universe from a very short time after t=0 until now. We don't know what happened before that but it looks like either the energy has always existed or the time symmetry was broken.

 

To expand on what Klaynos said, conservation of energy is the result of time-translation symmetry. If the laws of physics changed at some point in time, energy would not be conserved across that boundary.

Well, there must be at least one innate and eternal property that the universe has because even if one is as skeptical as Descartes, the ability to think means that there is something rather than nothing, and something cannot spontaneous appear out of nothing if nothing doesn't have at least one innate and eternal property.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, there must be at least one innate and eternal property that the universe has because even if one is as skeptical as Descartes, the ability to think means that there is something rather than nothing, and something cannot spontaneous appear out of nothing if nothing doesn't have at least one innate and eternal property.

Time may be an emergent property, so, if it is, then our post-big bang temporal notions concerning before it emerged don't apply.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, there must be at least one innate and eternal property that the universe has because even if one is as skeptical as Descartes, the ability to think means that there is something rather than nothing, and something cannot spontaneous appear out of nothing if nothing doesn't have at least one innate and eternal property.

 

 

If the negative gravitational potential energy of the universe is large enough in magnitide, it's possible that the net energy is zero.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the law of conservation of energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. If that is so, then how is it the case that there is energy in the universe?

Is the reason because the big bang led to the creation of an imbalanced amount matter and anti-matter that annihilated until there was only matter left in the universe? According to Einstein, anything with mass curves space creating a force we describe as gravity. Gravitational force creates potential energy that transforms into kinetic energy until equilibrium is reached. Therefore, the curvature of space caused by the mass of particles is fuelling the universe with energy.

Can anyone tell me what I am missing or misunderstanding? I only have a college level physics and mathematics background.

I like that subject very much !

In a way, its like i said before in an other post , that << energy can only be detected with the presence of matter,, it can maybe stated in a different way but never the less matter still a part of the answer ...and must be a part of the equation . I do believe.

Who would thing of a perpetual motion machine build from scratch with the use of Energy Impossible .

Energy cannot be renewed from energy ,,only from a force and that force as i know it is the natural G F. plus a physical force .

Edited by Roger Dynamic Motion
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the ability to think means that there is something rather than nothing, and something cannot spontaneous appear out of nothing if nothing doesn't have at least one innate and eternal property.

 

Speaking scientifically, this "something from nothing" appears to be the only answer/solution, although as yet, it is still speculative.

What other scientific answer is there? An infinite universe? I see that as much harder to accept.

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Speaking scientifically, this "something from nothing" appears to be the only answer/solution, although as yet, it is still speculative.

What other scientific answer is there? An infinite universe? I see that as much harder to accept.

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

One that has always been here is a lot easier to comprehend than one that came out of nothing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or turtles all the way down cyclic models such as LQC bounce model

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or turtles all the way down cyclic models such as LQC bounce model

I was actually thinking of the Turtle Universe model. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One that has always been here is a lot easier to comprehend than one that came out of nothing.

You think so?

What is your definition of nothing?

Space and time, [spacetime] as we know them, did have a beginning and the matter that evolved via phase transitions and such, will also come to an end as far as we know.

Perhaps what some define as nothing, is what has always been there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I afraid that if we accept our Universe is absolutely eternal in materialistic sense of this word it leads to philosophical paradoxes

and things which contradict human mind. For example: if life is capable to self-organization and eternal development then in

eternal Universe we suppose to have eternal life which already achieved infinite level of development, etc.

It would be more logical to accept for the Materialists to assume that our Universe exist quite limited amount of time and self-created

out of "nothing". Or assume that their concept of "time" is incorrect.

Edited by Moreno
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I afraid that if we accept our Universe is absolutely eternal in materialistic sense of this word it leads to philosophical paradoxes

and things which contradict human mind.

 

 

I don't suppose the universe cares much about that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the law of conservation of energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. If that is so, then how is it the case that there is energy in the universe?

Is the reason because the big bang led to the creation of an imbalanced amount matter and anti-matter that annihilated until there was only matter left in the universe? According to Einstein, anything with mass curves space creating a force we describe as gravity. Gravitational force creates potential energy that transforms into kinetic energy until equilibrium is reached. Therefore, the curvature of space caused by the mass of particles is fuelling the universe with energy.

Can anyone tell me what I am missing or misunderstanding? I only have a college level physics and mathematics background.

Well, what I have always understood, that is; energy cannot detected its own presence and one cannot verified the presence of energy if separated from matter So, what created Energy? if it is not the presence of ''particles Matter'' in space Edited by Roger Dynamic Motion
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what I have always understood, that is; energy cannot detected its own presence and one , cannot verified the presence of energy if separated from matter

 

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

 

Careful, you will be telling him about extensive, intensive and don't care properties next.

 

And they are state secrets.

 

:)

Edited by studiot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

Not more that I can separate the weight of one pound of dusted lead to a pound of a solid block of lead .

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

 

 

You can't separate energy from matter,

 

quote / what happen in a fission reaction to the energy lost ?

 

Edited by Roger Dynamic Motion
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

Not more that I can separate the weight of one pound of dusted lead to a pound of a solid block of lead .

You can't separate energy from matter, it's a property of matter, like color or shape or mass. You can change the properties, but you can't separate them from the matter they're a property of. Can you separate the density of a piece of iron from the iron itself?

 

 

You can't separate energy from matter,

 

Quote}Not more that I can separate the weight of one pound of dusted lead to a pound of a solid block of lead .

 

quote / what happen in a fission reaction to the energy lost ?

 

 

Edited by Roger Dynamic Motion
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not more that I can separate the weight of one pound of dusted lead to a pound of a solid block of lead .

 

 

You haven't separated the weight (a property) from the material.

 

 

what happen in a fission reaction to the energy lost ?

 

Some of it goes in to the kinetic energy of the fission products. Some of it is released as photons (gamma or X rays). None of it is released "pure energy" separate from anything else.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't separated the weight (a property) from the material.

 

 

Some of it goes in to the kinetic energy of the fission products. Some of it is released as photons (gamma or X rays). None of it is released "pure energy" separate from anything else.

and the mass is conserved ?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the mass is conserved ?

 

 

Mass-energy is conserved.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RDM - think about it... what is given off in a fission reaction? What is radiation made off?..... Now look at your question again.

 

 

# - sorry - this was in reply to post#20.... before I read page 2 of this thread.

Edited by DrP
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now