Jump to content

The Creation of Energy


Guest Reef Farah
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Reef Farah

There is a concept which many physists choose to ignore. We all know that the Law of Conservation of Energy states that "Energy can neither be created or destroyed and that it could only be transformed". Now Modern physics has shown enough evidence that Matter on the other hand could be created and destroyed, however matter itself is 'frozen energy'. In a sense that energy is required to create matter and energy is released when matter is destroyed. Such that energy is always conserved.

 

So if we look at the whole universe, and calculate the total energy of the whole universe by converting all the mass into energy and adding up all the elctromagagnetic waves and so on .... we should find a finite number. This number should be finite because the Law of conservation of energy has to hold. So my question is where did this finite energy amount come from? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first of all remember that e = mc^2 means that energy can be made into mass and mass can be made into energy.

 

secondly there is a theory that before before the big bang all that existed is some form of pure energy, mega amounts stored in a single place... this then formed the universe (incl. energy and mass)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Reef Farah

true but that original 'concentration' of energy had a finite number too. That number equals the total energy that exists today. My Question is let's assume hypothetically that this number is 10^137 units of energy why is it 10^137 and not 10^146. Like where did this 10^137 come from???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first of all remember that e = mc^2 means that energy can be made into mass and mass can be made into energy.

 

secondly there is a theory that before before the big bang all that existed is some form of pure energy' date=' mega amounts stored in a single place... this then formed the universe (incl. energy and mass)[/quote']

 

nope, [math]E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2[/math]. sorry, just slightly wrong. we have all done it before we knew better.

 

i never heard of the second part. frankly, know one knows where it came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few things to consider. One is that the net energy of the universe could be zero, since gravitational potential energy is negative.

 

Another is that conservation of energy stems from the symmetry under time translation - that is, the laws of physics don't change in time. If it did, energy would not be conserved, and vice-versa. Since the laws of physics were set at the big bang, we can't say that energy conservation applies before it happened. The answer may be that we don't know, and can't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whilst the equation you quoted is true, e=mc^2 will suffice as a demonstration of the conversion of energy to matter and vice versa, i am very aware of the "fuller version" you said, however mine was totaly perfect for what i said. e=mc2 is as true as any other equation, its just not always applicable in every situation... in this situation it was fine.

 

nope' date=' 31a851303579e5c135487bc8e51f84aa.gif. sorry, just slightly wrong. we have all done it before we knew better.

 

i never heard of the second part. frankly, know one knows where it came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few things to consider. One is that the net energy of the universe could be zero' date=' [b']since gravitational potential energy is negative. [/b]

Another is that conservation of energy stems from the symmetry under time translation - that is, the laws of physics don't change in time. If it did, energy would not be conserved, and vice-versa. Since the laws of physics were set at the big bang, we can't say that energy conservation applies before it happened. The answer may be that we don't know, and can't know.

 

I read somewhere that thought stopped Einstein in his tracks while crossing a street.

 

Why is it considered negative?

 

Also when Galaxies are moved apart due to the expansion of the universe where does that energy come from? It cannot "simply" be momentum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The modern nuclear theory uses a simple principle of formation of nucleus by confluence of protons and neutrons.

We can find some strange results with the help of this nuclear arithmetic with stable isotopes of hydrogen and lithium.

Let's make the following designations:

(1H1) – protium (a stable isotope 1p)

(2H1) – heavy hydrogen (a stable isotope 1n+1p)

(3H1) – tritium (almost a stable isotope 2n+1p)

(6Li3) – a stable isotope (3n+3p)

(7Li3) – a stable isotope (4n+3p)

As a result of addition of protons and neutrons we have:

(1H1) + (6Li3) = (7Be4)

(1H1) + (7Li3) = (8Be4)

(2H1) + (6Li3) = (8Be4)

(2H1) + (7Li3) = (9Be4)

(3H1) + (6Li3) = (9Be4)

(3H1) + (7Li3) = (10Be4)

In the nature, only stable (9Be4) and barely perceptible (10Be4) with a half-life period more than 1.5 million years exists. The isotope (8Be4) is absent.

On the other hand chemical arithmetic gives result:

(2H1) + (6Li3) = LiD

Lithium deuteride serves as working substance in a hydrogen bomb.

Hence, it is possible to assume, that in the nature "cold" thermonuclear synthesis of separate atoms and molecules takes place:

(2H1) + (6Li3) –> (8Be4) –> (EM-energy)

or

2(2H1) + 2(6Li3) –> 2LiD + pressure –> (EM-energy)

:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope' date=' [math']E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^4[/math]. sorry, just slightly wrong. we have all done it before we knew better.

 

i never heard of the second part. frankly, know one knows where it came from.

 

This is one of the frustrating things I am finding with trying to understand the derivations of science through text books.

 

One book happily provides a proof that [math]E=mc^2[/math], whilst a little research actually says no, [math]E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^4[/math]

 

How am I supposed to know what is right and wrong???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the frustrating things I am finding with trying to understand the derivations of science through text books.

 

One book happily provides a proof that [math]E=mc^2[/math]' date=' whilst a little research actually says no, [math']E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^4[/math]

 

How am I supposed to know what is right and wrong???

 

Did the first tell you the object was assumed to be at rest?

 

Knowing the assumptions present in a derivation is very important, as it indicates when the resulting equation is and is not valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question is where did this finite energy amount come from?

 

Just as confused as you. The only thing I can come up with is that the laws of physics might have been different when the energy was created. That doesn't make sense though. I think that we'll never know the answer to that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why you make this assertion about conservation of energy. We already see violations of this in particle physics. It is just a consequence of the uncertainty principle:

 

[math]\Delta E \Delta t > \frac{h}{2 \pi}[/math]

 

So we can violate energy conservation as long as we do it quickly enough. We can 'borrow' an amount of energy [math]\Delta E[/math] as long as we give it back in time [math]\Delta t 2 \pi / h[/math].

 

We see this in particle physics all the time. For example, in e+e- collisions at say 50GeV, you will see the reaction [math]e^+e^- \to Z^*\to e^+e^-[/math] even although the Z boson has a mass of 91.2GeV. By rights we should not be able to make the Z with the energy available, but we can borrow energy for a short time to make up the difference. We say that the Z is 'virtual', and the * is added to distinguish this. In fact, the more energy we need to borrow (the more 'virtual' the Z is) the quicker we have to give it back, so the faster the decay back to electrons. To some extent, every particle we see is virtual, because a non-virtual ('on-shell') particle would never decay.

 

Anyway, there is some speculation that the universe is just one big vacuum fluctuation. We have borrowed the energy for a short time, and will have to give it back soon or expect a visit from the bailiffs....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

In order to answer the question, how much of pure energy is in the universe (10^137J, 6*10^73J or 3*10^73J), it is necessary to answer the question, how much of pure energy is in atom.

The answer to this question is hidden in a phenomenon of annihilation (in particular, in a phenomenon of annihilation of berrylium).

At "explosion" of atoms (8Be4) not only EM-radiation arises, but also various particles. These particles can be accelerated by force of explosion and by pressure of EM-energy till speed of light. In this case (the same way as electron at speed of light) these particles will cause a birth of antiparticles. The appearing antiparticles will be annihilate with a matter of our space and will increase factor of transformation of a matter to energy.

Our new research concerns fullerens and nanotubes:

http://vlamir.nsk.ru/WHAT_DIAMOND_SPEAKS_ABOUT_e.pdf

i.e. it concerns to development of technology for realization of micro-dosated annihilation of berrylium.

But, as I believe, this work is of interest for experimentalists in other areas of science and for theorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the first tell you the object was assumed to be at rest?

 

Knowing the assumptions present in a derivation is very important' date=' as it indicates when the resulting equation is and is not valid.[/quote']

 

 

It used the model of a photon being emitted from one side of a box and being absorbed at the other. It went along the law of moments route.

 

I've actually just found a small paragraph further on in the book that states "For particles large enough for their rest mass to be significant, we need to use a more complete expression" which they call the momenergy formula.

 

I guess you shouldn't judge a book by one page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I notice you all talking about THE BIG BANG. I should point out that recently a lot of new information suggests this idea needs to be re-examined, or at least tweaked. It may be that there was more than onw "bang".

 

Also, on the topic of energy, no one has mentioned dark energy. According to particle physics, this is the most abundant kind of energy in our universe! As I don't a whole lot about it, I will leave the detailed explanations to others (or you can read various definitions here, http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2040&dekey=darkmatt&gwp=8&curtab=2040_1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rebel, I think, that the model of "box" is lame for photons. Absorption of photons is equivalent to transformation of rectilinear resonant energy into rotating. Emission of photon occurs as a result of subtraction of smaller rotating energy from the greater. Ordinary "box" is not able to do it.

In our last work concerning alternating transformations “an energy <=> a matter” you can see one more cycle:

protium + gamma => electron and positron –> acceleration in the accelerator on counter beams => proton or antiproton

http://vlamir.nsk.ru/THE_MOST_IMPORTANT_QUANTUM_NUMBER_e.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that article Vlamir, i found it interesting.

 

Who are the authors, and what do they mean by an electric wind? I was just talking to someone yesterday, who spoke about electric wind, blowing at the speed of light.

 

I see that you have their picture as your Avatar.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.