- #1
The Math Guy
- 12
- 0
I have a question. Can energy exist by itself (without time and matter)? Or is it the case that if there is energy, then there must be matter (and therefore time)?
phinds said:energy is not a thing, it's a characteristic of things. Asking if there can be energy without things is like asking if there can be color without light.
The Math Guy said:So then would I be correct in saying that time, matter, and energy are all inseparable? The three always exist together?
PeterDonis said:The word "exist" is problematic, because the three kinds of things you mention are three different kinds of things. Even if one were to say they all "exist", they don't all exist in the same way.
Can you give some more context about why this question concerns you? We could give a better answer if we knew more about why you want to know.
The Math Guy said:For example, we know that time and matter are inseparable.
The Math Guy said:Could an entire universe be made of nothing but energy while being outside time?
PeterDonis said:How do we know this?
What would it mean for a universe to be "outside time"?
You seem to me to be speculating without a good conceptual basis.
Chronos said:If you take a close look at international standards, The fundamental unit of energy is the Joule, which is expressed in terms of meters, kilograms and seconds. Since the second and kilogram are fundamental to the internationally recognized unit of energy, it follows there is no internationally accepted definition of energy independent of time or matter. You will notice that distance [meters] is also a component in the fundamental definition of energy, so we may as well lump that in there, as well.
The Math Guy said:We know time and matter are inseparable because all of our values for time are defined with respect to matter.
PeterDonis said:That just means we, here on Earth, use matter to measure time. It doesn't justify the claim that "time and matter are inseparable" period.
ZapperZ said:BTW, I do not understand why this is in the Cosmology forum.
Zz.
ZapperZ said:Light has an energy content. It also has an intrinsic spin angular momentum for a photon, and linear momentum. While it MAY be converted into entities with mass via a set of processes that obeys conservation laws, light itself has no mass content.
Secondly, another simple example is the electrostatic energy, such as the electrostatic potential energy. It depends only on charge content. Now, granted that a "charge" usually is carried by entities with mass (we are ignoring the exotic effects in many-body interactions, such as that resulting in spin-charge separation). Still, it doesn't change the fact that the calculation and definition of such electrostatic energy depends only on charge and not on the mass of these entities.
So I consider these two as examples where energy is not intrinsically tied to mass. Energy is intrinsically tied to space and time.
BTW, I do not understand why this is in the Cosmology forum.
Zz.
The Math Guy said:If the universe had no matter/energy in it, then time would not be ticking. Nothing would be happening, and there would be no way to differentiate units of time. One second and one million years would be essentially equivalent, so time would be both meaningless and nonexistent. If there is matter in the universe, then we may speak of time as existing. If there is no matter, then there is no time, and conversely, if time cannot be measured anywhere in the universe, then there must be no matter anywhere in the universe (or else the entire universe is frozen still and stuck that way for eternity).
In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons.
The Math Guy said:If the universe had no matter/energy in it, then time would not be ticking. Nothing would be happening, and there would be no way to differentiate units of time.
The Math Guy said:I asked a different question in the Cosmology Forum that was about Cosmology, but it got deleted for apparently not following the forum rules (which is ridiculous because I did follow the rules).
ZapperZ said:Then you might want to contact whoever actually understood the Big Bang model of the universe and wrote this at the CERN webpage:
This implies that for a very short time, there was ZERO matter in the universe before the first leptons and quarks formed. According to you, the universe could not have existed before there is no "time".
Zz.
ZapperZ said:I do not understand why this is in the Cosmology forum.
PeterDonis said:Your post got deleted because it was personal speculation, not physics. The PF rules do not allow personal speculation.
PeterDonis said:I'm not sure where else we would put it.
PeterDonis said:I realize this sounds plausible, but it is not correct according to our current theories. According to General Relativity, it is perfectly possible to have a spacetime with no matter and energy in it that still has a definite notion of time.
ZapperZ said:General Physics. The level of understanding, so far, has been at a very basic level, and it involves a more general concept of "energy", rather than the formation of the universe.
Zz.
The Math Guy said:I have a question. Can energy exist by itself (without time and matter)? Or is it the case that if there is energy, then there must be matter (and therefore time)?
In 100% of the universes that we have investigated there is energy, time, and matter.The Math Guy said:So then would I be correct in saying that time, matter, and energy are all inseparable? The three always exist together?
The Math Guy said:If time exists, then matter exists, and vice versa.
ZapperZ said:Then you might want to contact whoever actually understood the Big Bang model of the universe and wrote this at the CERN webpage:
This implies that for a very short time, there was ZERO matter in the universe before the first leptons and quarks formed. According to you, the universe could not have existed because there is no "time".
Zz.
phinds said:energy is not a thing, it's a characteristic of things. Asking if there can be energy without things is like asking if there can be color without light.
Funestis said:If energy is a characteristic of things, and is nonsensical to talk about without the context of applying it to 'something', then how could the very early universe be described as 'hot' while simultaneously being described as containing zero matter?
There is currently no scientific evidence or theoretical framework to suggest that energy can exist without time and matter. In fact, the concept of energy is closely tied to both time and matter, as energy is defined as the ability to do work or cause change in matter over time.
According to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another. This means that the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant. However, matter can be converted into energy and vice versa through processes like nuclear reactions or particle-antiparticle annihilation.
Time is a fundamental component of energy as energy is defined as the ability to do work or cause change over time. In fact, the unit of energy (joule) is defined as the amount of work done by a force of one newton acting over a distance of one meter in one second. Without the element of time, the concept of energy would not exist.
Energy itself cannot be observed directly, but its effects can be observed and measured. For example, the flow of electrical energy can be observed through the movement of electrons, and the release of energy in a chemical reaction can be observed through changes in temperature or the production of light.
No, energy and force are two distinct concepts in physics. Force is a push or pull on an object that can cause it to accelerate, while energy is the ability to do work. However, energy and force are related, as the work done by a force is equal to the force applied multiplied by the distance over which it acts.