Question about energy, can't create/destroy etc

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ryosuke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of energy conservation, gravitational potential energy, and the implications of tidal forces on energy dynamics within the universe. Participants explore the nature of energy in relation to gravitational interactions and the broader implications for the universe's energy and matter.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that since energy cannot be created or destroyed, there must be a finite amount of energy in the universe, questioning the source of kinetic energy gained by a rock falling towards a planet.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that the universe may have infinite matter if it extends indefinitely, referencing the Gabrilles horn paradox.
  • A participant mentions that while the universe is expanding, it does not technically go on forever.
  • One participant states that gravitational potential energy has existed since the Big Bang and can be calculated between any two bodies in the universe.
  • Another participant agrees that the rock possesses potential energy due to its distance from the planet, emphasizing that Newton's laws are sufficient for macroscopic objects.
  • A participant raises a question about the energy gained from tidal forces, asking where this energy originates if energy cannot be created or destroyed.
  • Another participant clarifies that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing, explaining the transfer of angular momentum between the Earth and Moon.
  • One participant notes that the Earth is not a closed system, suggesting that energy conservation does not apply perfectly in this context.
  • Participants discuss the potential future synchronization of Earth's day with the lunar month and its implications for life on Earth.
  • Another participant questions the assumption that life could not adapt to a single revolution per day, suggesting that gradual changes might allow for adaptation.
  • One participant recalls a documentary suggesting that without tidal forces, life would face chaotic environmental conditions, making adaptation difficult.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on energy conservation and the implications of gravitational interactions, with no clear consensus reached on the nature of energy in the universe or the adaptability of life to extreme changes in environmental conditions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about energy conservation, the nature of gravitational forces, and the implications of tidal forces, which may not be universally accepted or fully resolved among participants.

Ryosuke
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I just had a thought today and i thought i'd come here and post it up, hopefully i got the right section. Keep in mind i haven't done physics for a year. :rolleyes:

Anyways, i know you can't create, or destroy energy, so, i assume I'm correct in assuming there's a finite amount of energy in the universe.

Now, say you have a chunk of rock floating through space, it happens to fall under the gravitational pull of a planet, now this rock would gain kinetic energy wouldn't it as it falls towards the planet? when it hits, it disperses into heat etc etc, so that's okay, but the energy where did it come from? Was it transferred from the gravitational pull of the planet? If so, would that mean that gravity has infinite potential energy? Since a gravitational pull never weakens unless the mass of a planet is decreased (which isn't happening) so I doubt that, because that would mean that energy in the universe is not finite, and that energy can be created... i think.

So then i thought, perhaps the chunk of rock has potential energy already floating in space, as it was predetermined to fall to that planet, but this would only apply to Newtons model of the universe and that all particles theoretically have a path laid out for them, but with quantum physics that was disproved.



So can anyone tell me the real deal or poke holes in my writing?
 
Science news on Phys.org
I've heard that the universe has a finite amount of matter. However, perhaps it has an infinite amount if the universe does indeed go on forever.

Reminds me of the Gabrilles horn paradox. Infinite but with finite surface area.
 
I think i can answer what you said, as it doesn't technically go one forever, but it is expanding at such a rate, that it seems to go on forever, i think that's right.

Anyways, anybody with my question?
 
If you want, you can right now calculate the gravitational potential energy between yourself and any other body in the universe. That energy has been there since the Big Bang.
 
Ryosuke said:
So then i thought, perhaps the chunk of rock has potential energy already floating in space, as it was predetermined to fall to that planet, but this would only apply to Newtons model of the universe and that all particles theoretically have a path laid out for them, but with quantum physics that was disproved.

You're right. The rock already had the potential energy, simply by being a distance away from the planet. (If you want to put the rock from nearby to a distance farther from the planet you have to fight against the gravitational pull, so it would gain potential energy again).

When dealing with rocks, and macroscopic objects in general (a dust particle is already macroscopic), Newtons laws offer an accurate enough description. When I want to know where I can find a tennisbal at a given time after throwing it, I`m NOT going to use quantummechanics. The uncertainty in determining the position and velocity is neglegible even for a grain of sand, let alone an asteroid or meteorite.
 
ahh, you're right, there should be a little hitting head emoticon, i knew i was wrong i just didn't know why.
 
the energy created by tidal forces

There are several ways we capture energy by tides and convert it to electrical energy. If energy can't be created nor destroyed, where does the energy come from that we are continually gaining from tidal forces. Does the gap between the Earth and moon narrow in proportion to the energy we gain daily through tides?
 
Sparky968,

Actually, the gap between the Earth and the Moon is slowly increasing. A few hundred million years ago the Moon was a lot closer to the Earth than it is now, and months were a lot shorter.

For the Earth/Moon system, the angular momentun of the Earth's rotation about its axis is transferred to the orbital angular momentun of the Moon about the Earth. The Moon gets an orbital energy boost out of this too. Upshot: The Earth spins slower and slower (days gets longer) while the Moon moves into a larger, slower, but higher energy orbit. Eventually the day on Earth will become synchronized with the lunar month, with huge temperature extremes between night and day.
 
sparky968 said:
There are several ways we capture energy by tides and convert it to electrical energy. If energy can't be created nor destroyed, where does the energy come from that we are continually gaining from tidal forces. Does the gap between the Earth and moon narrow in proportion to the energy we gain daily through tides?

The Earth is not a closed system, so energy conservation doesn't apply perfectly.
 
  • #10
Everett said:
Eventually the day on Earth will become synchronized with the lunar month, with huge temperature extremes between night and day.
When my teacher first told me this, I was shocked. :eek:
Life on Earth's surface would be impossible if there were only one revolution per day. I didn't calculate the time it will take for this to happen though.
 
  • #11
Galileo said:
Life on Earth's surface would be impossible if there were only one revolution per day. I didn't calculate the time it will take for this to happen though.

Why do you think life wouldn't be able to adapt to those circumstances, especially as the change will occur only very gradually?

I can imagine the creatures in the early days of the Earth's history talking about how impossible life would be if their puddles dried up...
 
  • #12
Life needs regularity in the environment. I remember something from a docu, that if there were no tidal forces the climate would become utter chaos and life would be unable to adapt.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
49
Views
5K