Can energy truly be created or destroyed in an open system?

AI Thread Summary
Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system, but in an open system, energy can transfer in and out, affecting the system's total energy. The conservation of energy is not a fundamental law but rather a consequence of time's symmetry in physics. Systems can exhibit non-conservation of energy, such as an oscillating mass influenced by an external force. The measurement of energy is relative and depends on the observer's frame of reference, unlike electric charge, which is invariant. Understanding these concepts can be deepened through further study in cosmology and physics resources.
sandstorm
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

Can energy be created or destroyed in an open system? Do open systems exist? Where does energy come from?

I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me more about this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sandstorm said:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

Can energy be created or destroyed in an open system? Do open systems exist? Where does energy come from?

I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me more about this.

I'm not sure why this is puzzling. An "open" system simply means that you allow energy transfer in and out of the system. Example: you HEAT an object, where the object is the "system".

Thus, by definition, the amount of energy of that system isn't a constant.

Zz.
 
sandstorm said:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

I think I might more simply say that energy can't be created or destroyed. As ZapperZ pointed out, if a system is not isolated, then energy can be brought into it from the outside. Or it can leak out. But it's not created out of nothing.

This of course doesn't answer your question about where energy originally comes from. I think that would require a much greater command of cosmology than I have.

Since you're curious, I thought I might add a couple of more points about energy.

In my understanding, energy is conserved (remains constant over time) as long as the equations of motion of the system have no explicit time dependence. In other words, energy conservation is not a fundamental "law" of the universe. Rather, it's a consequence of the observation that there's no preferred origin for time. In a system where energy is conserved, you can start your clock at zero any time you want and it won't matter.

Given that, one can imagine systems where energy is not conserved. The classical example often given is an oscillating mass on a spring that's being driven by some external (typically periodic) force. Here the choice of zero time does matter. Basically, the longer that driving force is "on", the more energy gets pumped into the oscillating mass.

Finally, the amount of energy in a system is actually quite arbitrary. The kinetic energy of a particle depends on which inertial reference frame the observer chooses. The potential energy of a system is well defined only up to an arbitrary constant. This makes energy quite a different sort of beast than, say, electric charge. The amount of electric charge in a (closed) system is not only conserved, it's invariant. That means charge doesn't vary with the speed of the observer, unlike energy.
 
Cantab Morgan said:
I think I might more simply say that energy can't be created or destroyed. As ZapperZ pointed out, if a system is not isolated, then energy can be brought into it from the outside. Or it can leak out. But it's not created out of nothing.

Thanks, now I get it. That clears things up a lot.

Cantab Morgan said:
Since you're curious, I thought I might add a couple of more points about energy.

Thanks for that, too. I don't have a scientific background but I think energy is really interesting.

Cantab Morgan said:
In my understanding, energy is conserved (remains constant over time) as long as the equations of motion of the system have no explicit time dependence. In other words, energy conservation is not a fundamental "law" of the universe. Rather, it's a consequence of the observation that there's no preferred origin for time. In a system where energy is conserved, you can start your clock at zero any time you want and it won't matter.

Given that, one can imagine systems where energy is not conserved. The classical example often given is an oscillating mass on a spring that's being driven by some external (typically periodic) force. Here the choice of zero time does matter. Basically, the longer that driving force is "on", the more energy gets pumped into the oscillating mass.

Finally, the amount of energy in a system is actually quite arbitrary. The kinetic energy of a particle depends on which inertial reference frame the observer chooses. The potential energy of a system is well defined only up to an arbitrary constant. This makes energy quite a different sort of beast than, say, electric charge. The amount of electric charge in a (closed) system is not only conserved, it's invariant. That means charge doesn't vary with the speed of the observer, unlike energy.

I wonder where I might be able to learn more about this sort of thing. If you or anyone could recommend any books or websites that someone without much knowledge of science could understand I'd appreciate it.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top