Where Does Energy Originate?

[Drakkith]

I have and can't get a clear understanding. Seems conflicting to me. Where I get lost is if there is nothing left, no stars, no mass, no matter, how can there be energy? And if that is the case, how can we say energy can not be destroyed?

If the universe dies or fades away, the last star, and black hole fades away, and there is nothing left, would there still be energy?

Why do you think there will be nothing left in the future? All theories on the end of the universe still consider there to be something left to my knowledge.

 

[tiny-tim]

… if there is nothing left, no stars, no mass, no matter, …

there isn't nothing left, it's all still there, either as matter or as radiation (photons etc) …

the energy density goes towards zero, the total energy stays the same

 

[3rdHeaven]

there isn't nothing left, it's all still there, either as matter or as radiation (photons etc) …

the energy density goes towards zero, the total energy stays the same

I thought energy was activity, if there is no activity left, the last sun fades, the last black hole fades, it will be just empty, no matter, no activity. How can there still be energy? What am I missing here?

Are you saying before the nano second there is nothing, it transforms to some thing else? Perhaps another big bang? So there can never be nothing left or am I still missing a piece here?

 

[tiny-tim]

I thought energy was activity …

energy is existence …

if there's any matter left, even at 0°K, it has energy (e = mc²)

if there is no activity left, the last sun fades, the last black hole fades, it will be just empty, no matter, no activity. How can there still be energy? What am I missing here?

Are you saying before the nano second there is nothing, it transforms to some thing else?

what nanosecond?

are you talking about the "big crunch" scenario? that concentrates the energy

the ever-expanding universe (the one i've chosen to live in ) doesn't have a final nanosecond

 

[3rdHeaven]

energy is existence …

if there's any matter left, even at 0°K, it has energy (e = mc²) what nanosecond?

are you talking about the "big crunch" scenario? that concentrates the energy

the ever-expanding universe (the one i've chosen to live in ) doesn't have a final nanosecond

So you don't believe given enough time that every star will eventually die out as the universe expanding further apart? End of stars in 100 trillion years, end of matter – 10^30 years. Theorists anticipate that all protons in the Universe will decay over the course of 10^30 years. End of Black Holes – 10^100 Years. When the last black hole evaporates, all that will remain in the Universe are photons of radiation, and elementary particles that escaped capture by black holes. The temperature of the entire Universe will reach a final temperature just above absolute zero. Why not expect whatever photons that survive to not die out too? Given enough time. At this point I fail to see how any further activity could occur but realize that failure could be my own failure and want to know where I fail. Thx.

I am not a fan of the big crunch :)

 

[tiny-tim]

… Why not expect whatever photons that survive to not die out too? Given enough time.

how??!

you're just making that up! ​

 

[3rdHeaven]

how??!

you're just making that up! ​

What part do you think I'm making up?

 

[tiny-tim]

What part do you think I'm making up?

uhh? this part …

… Why not expect whatever photons that survive to not die out too? Given enough time.

 

[3rdHeaven]

uhh? this part …

You think I'm making up a question? No I honestly wanted an answer so I know where I am failing in my understanding.

 

[tiny-tim]

You think I'm making up a question? No I honestly wanted an answer so I know where I am failing in my understanding.

you're imagining photons which "die out"

that's totally non-scientific, with neither maths nor data to support it … you might as well talk about Heisenberg compensators, warp drives, etc

 

[Drakkith]

You think I'm making up a question? No I honestly wanted an answer so I know where I am failing in my understanding.

The wording in your question gives the appearance that you are "suggesting" that photons decay on their own, which does not happen. (Suggesting instead of asking) I think that is why Tiny-tim is saying you are making it up.

 

[3rdHeaven]

Thx for the responses.

I still need to work out energy for my better understanding of it.

btw, I though beginning a sentence with "why not" would clearly be a question. My bad.

 

[bill alsept]

Why does it matter where it came from?

Why does it matter where anything came from?

 

[bill alsept]

FOUND THE DEFINITION OF! "Energy" ITS! a total confusion :)

lol, I mean we just know a few little tiny facts about it that are some true and maybe some are not so... completely true, about it. Yet... We can't define it properly because: we don't understand it right lol(not fully).

Same thing goes for gravity or space. We just don’t know. Isn't it exciting?

 

[tiny-tim]

Why does it matter where anything came from?

but what if it goes back there?

 

[Hypo]

Same thing goes for gravity or space. We just don’t know. Isn't it exciting?

Its is at the same time is really confusing...
Not know where something came from and its "constant" how could you imagine energy to be infinite... Can't be created or destroyed... Confusing and mind bothering thought.

 

[Hypo]

Why does it matter where anything came from?

Why? Well, everything in our daily lives every second of it depends on energy. Knowing more about it would be useful for our development and unlocking mysteries about life.

It has 2 main laws stated over 100 years ago and its still stand as it is. I just think we should study or review it.

I totally agree with the concept that it's always conserved. But can't be created or destroyed... That is the bothering part I'd like to find a solution for...

 

[Drakkith]

It has 2 main laws stated over 100 years ago and its still stand as it is. I just think we should study or review it.

What makes you think we aren't doing this?

I totally agree with the concept that it's always conserved. But can't be created or destroyed... That is the bothering part I'd like to find a solution for...

Solution to what? It can't be created or destroyed because that would require weird things to happen that we don't see, such as a rock that has fallen to the ground suddenly teleporting back to where it fell from, or the exhaust from a car suddenly splitting and recombining back to gasoline and oxygen for no reason.

 

[Mark M]

Why? Well, everything in our daily lives every second of it depends on energy. Knowing more about it would be useful for our development and unlocking mysteries about life.

It has 2 main laws stated over 100 years ago and its still stand as it is. I just think we should study or review it.

I totally agree with the concept that it's always conserved. But can't be created or destroyed... That is the bothering part I'd like to find a solution for...

We DO understand why energy is conserved, because of Noether's theorem. Certain symmetries will ensure the conservation of certain quantities. For example, space-translation invariance. This means the laws of physics are the same regardless of your position. For example, Newton's laws still hold in the Andromeda galaxy just as well as they do here. Using Noether's theorem, we can use this symmetry to demonstrate the conservation of momentum.

Similarly, time-translation invariance, the symmetry in the laws of physics over time, ensures that energy must be conserved.

You can look up a mathematical derivation of the theorem or both momentum and energy. See here:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/noetherth.htm

 

[Mark M]

Solution to what? It can't be created or destroyed because that would require weird things to happen that we don't see, such as a rock that has fallen to the ground suddenly teleporting back to where it fell from, or the exhaust from a car suddenly splitting and recombining back to gasoline and oxygen for no reason.

Drakkith, I think you're confusing the conservation of energy, the first law, with the second law. This states that entropy will always increase towards the future. All of the things you listed *could* happen, but they're so statistically unlikely I wouldn't count on it. However, like you say, a violation of the conservation of energy would lead to nonsensical results.

 

[DeepSpace9]

Is the current mass of the universe a constant? Or is it possible for mass to be added to the universe? Or deducted?

 

[audioloop]

I have and can't get a clear understanding. Seems conflicting to me. Where I get lost is if there is nothing left, no stars, no mass, no matter, how can there be ? And if that is the case, how can we say can not be destroyed?

If the dies or fades away, the last star, and black hole fades away, and there is nothing left, would there still be ?

I thought was activity, if there is no activity left, the last sun fades, the last fades, it will be just empty, no matter, no activity. How can there still be ? What am I missing here?

?

just spread...-------
good to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

 

[audioloop]

I'm not sure I agree with this " comes from nothing" idea. If virtual particles do and they work like we think they do, then we know exactly where the comes from, and it isn't "nothing" as far as I understand.

not nothing.
I agree.

 

[Drakkith]

Drakkith, I think you're confusing the conservation of energy, the first law, with the second law. This states that entropy will always increase towards the future. All of the things you listed *could* happen, but they're so statistically unlikely I wouldn't count on it. However, like you say, a violation of the conservation of energy would lead to nonsensical results.

If they happened, would that not be a violation of the conservation laws?

 

[Mark M]

If they happened, would that not be a violation of the conservation laws?

No, remember that one of those events is just an everyday process played in reverse. For example, if a cup of coffee with some cream in it spontaneously split into the coffee and the cream. If this violated a conservation law, then so would its reverse, mixing coffee and cream. However, we do this everyday and no laws are violated.

However, this would seem to violate the second law. But, as shown by Boltzmann in the late 19th century, the second law is just a statistical likelihood . There are more ways to have more entropy than less, so systems will naturally evolve towards states of more entropy. However, nothing strictly forbids something like coffee with cream splitting into coffee and cream. It's just highly, highly, unlikely.

 

[bluey]

There can be no nothing without something!Think about it,you have to have something to relate to nothingness As in ying and yang, its the symmetry of nature that expresses itself in electro-magnetism, ying as in electro and yang as in magnetism,without one or the other we don't exist,there wouldn't be any radiation heat light ect...

 

[DennisN]

I totally agree with the concept that it's always conserved. But can't be created or destroyed... That is the bothering part I'd like to find a solution for...

• If energy can be created, would energy be conserved?
• If energy can be destroyed, would energy be conserved?

Aren't these things just different ways of saying the same thing?

Example from wiki:
"The law of conservation of energy:
This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system remains the same."

 

[Drakkith]

No, remember that one of those events is just an everyday process played in reverse. For example, if a cup of coffee with some cream in it spontaneously split into the coffee and the cream. If this violated a conservation law, then so would its reverse, mixing coffee and cream. However, we do this everyday and no laws are violated.

I don't really understand. If the coffee split into coffee on one side, and cream on the other due to the random nature of the movement of the molecules, then that's fine, that has nothing to do with energy. But CO2 splitting and reforming into gasoline seems like a pretty big violation, as does the rock.

 

[chill_factor]

I don't really understand. If the coffee split into coffee on one side, and cream on the other due to the random nature of the movement of the molecules, then that's fine, that has nothing to do with energy. But CO2 splitting and reforming into gasoline seems like a pretty big violation, as does the rock.

The rock can take thermal energy from its surroundings and turn it into mechanical energy if the 2nd law did not exist. Same for the exhaust, if it wasn't for the 2nd law, it can take thermal energy from the air to reform the chemical bonds.

Energy is part of the system. Let me give you an example for the OP:

Lets say you have a car moving at 100 miles per hour. It crashes into a stationary wall (lets put this as moving 0 miles per hour). There's energy which goes into shredding the metal of the car. But what about the same car, crashing into a wall moving at 99 miles per hour in the same direction? Maybe just minor bumper damage. WHY?!

If energy was something concrete, then why should the same car moving at the same speed, have different outcomes when it crashes into the same wall, but the wall moving differently?

The answer: energy is the property of a system. It is a helpful number that makes the calculations work out right. Don't worry about why. Lots of "why" questions have no answer. Instead think "how".

 

[vincentm]

Lots of "why" questions have no answer. Instead think "how".

Beautiful response, well put

 

[Whovian]

There can be no nothing without something!Think about it,you have to have something to relate to nothingness As in ying and yang, its the symmetry of nature that expresses itself in electro-magnetism, ying as in electro and yang as in magnetism,without one or the other we don't exist,there wouldn't be any radiation heat light ect...

With all due respect, we're not talking philosophy here; we're talking cosmology.

 

[Farahday]

• If energy can be created, would energy be conserved?
• If energy can be destroyed, would energy be conserved?

Aren't these things just different ways of saying the same thing?

Example from wiki:
"The law of conservation of energy:
This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system remains the same."

Energy is a condition. Mass is a condition. They are interchangeable according to Uncle Al. Fathom, for a moment, that there are things other than mass and energy. In fact most of the cosmos is comprised of such things.

BTW - I always try to keep my ying-yang balanced

 

[Drakkith]

Energy is a condition. Mass is a condition. They are interchangeable according to Uncle Al. Fathom, for a moment, that there are things other than mass and energy. In fact most of the cosmos is comprised of such things.

BTW - I always try to keep my ying-yang balanced

What do you mean by saying the cosmos is comprised of stuff other than mass and energy?

 

[Mark M]

I don't really understand. If the coffee split into coffee on one side, and cream on the other due to the random nature of the movement of the molecules, then that's fine, that has nothing to do with energy. But CO2 splitting and reforming into gasoline seems like a pretty big violation, as does the rock.

Sorry for not noticing this reply earlier Drakkith, I'll reply now:

Right, nothing wrong with the coffee, it's just a statistical fluctuation. Now, for the other two: let's consider the rock.

So, when you drop a rock from some height, it starts with some potential energy. When it is released, the potential energy converts to kinetic energy very rapidly, until the potential energy is zero and kinetic energy is maximum (moment of impact). Now, the rock's potential energy is zero, and so is the kinetic energy, since it's just sitting on the ground. What happened to the energy? Well, some, because of Newton's third law, is transferred to the earth. So, the Earth moves an absolutely minuscule amount. Much of the rest of the energy becomes heat energy, useless energy (in the sense that it can't do work, since it has very high entropy).

If the second law didn't exist, this could happen backwards. The Earth could transfer some movement to the rock, and the heat energy could be re-absorbed. This becomes kinetic energy, causing the rock to move up until gravity is too strong to continue, at which point the rock is in the original position.

So, why don't we see this happening? Well, because of the second law, the heat is absolutely useless since it has a very high entropy. It can't do anything. However, since we know the second law is a statistical law, this could happen.

Similarly, with the chemical reaction, the higher entropy result normally doesn't become the chemicals that went into the reaction because this would constitute a decrease in entropy. But, they could come to together in just the right way to do the reaction in reverse (and gaining any energy released via heat). But don't bet on seeing it happen.

 

[Drakkith]

I think I see what you are saying Mark. Consider my examples to mean that all this happens for NO reason. IE the rock is moved back up to it's starting position and the heat it created still exists, while the CO2 splits and combines back into gasoline yet there isn't enough energy to do so to all the molecules.