Where Does Energy Originate?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the origins of energy, particularly in the context of the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. Participants explore philosophical and scientific perspectives on whether energy can come from nothing, especially in relation to the Big Bang theory. The conversation touches on theoretical implications and the confusion surrounding the nature of energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the origins of energy, questioning how it can exist if it cannot be created or destroyed.
  • Others note that the Big Bang theory does not specify the cause of the Big Bang, leading to questions about whether energy came with it or was created by it.
  • There are assertions that energy must have been created at some point, as the idea of it simply existing without origin seems illogical to some participants.
  • Some participants argue that the origin of energy does not affect the functionality of the laws of thermodynamics and conservation.
  • Others propose that there may be theories allowing for energy to exist from nothing, shifting the focus from "where did energy come from" to "why does anything exist at all."
  • Participants discuss the concept of energy being a constant that can be transformed but not created, with examples such as chemical energy in coal and nuclear energy.
  • There is a suggestion that dark energy's fate is uncertain, particularly if the universe's expansion were to stop, raising further questions about energy's transformation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express uncertainty and confusion regarding the origins of energy, with no consensus on whether energy was created or has always existed. Multiple competing views remain, particularly concerning the implications of the Big Bang theory and the nature of energy itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in understanding energy and its origins, with references to unresolved questions and the complexity of the topic. The discussion reflects a mix of philosophical inquiry and scientific reasoning without definitive answers.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the philosophical implications of energy in physics, students studying thermodynamics, and individuals curious about the foundational questions of existence in the universe.

  • #91
Drakkith said:
Perhaps abstract isn't the right word to use. Wikipedia says energy is an indirectly observed quantity.

hmmm... That sounds familiar.

Energy is like Om's bank account. He knows it exists, but has never seen it. It magically has a higher quantity every two weeks, apparently because work has been performed on the system. It's quantity goes down over two weeks due to entropy (his excuse). Statistical observations are routinely sent to Om for study.

Prove me wrong.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #92
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).
 
  • #93
OmCheeto said:
hmmm... That sounds familiar.

Energy is like Om's bank account. He knows it exists, but has never seen it. It magically has a higher quantity every two weeks, apparently because work has been performed on the system. It's quantity goes down over two weeks due to entropy (his excuse). Statistical observations are routinely sent to Om for study.

Prove me wrong.


Omg Om you should frame this...

Edit: I'll just add it to my signature block...
 
Last edited:
  • #94
Drakkith said:
Omg Om you should frame this...

Edit: I'll just add it to my signature block...

Wow. :redface:

I actually was thinking about this later. I decided god must be an accountant, as both finance, and the teeny world, are quantized.
 
  • #95
E = mc2 so if the energy is inside the matter, couldn't we produce lot of free energy from this?
 
  • #96
scientifico said:
E = mc2 so if the energy is inside the matter, couldn't we produce lot of free energy from this?

We'd need the same amount of antimatter to achieve this, but once that's done, while it wouldn't be free energy (we'd lose the matter,) in theory, we could.
 
  • #97
but we would need energy to create antimatter too?
 
  • #98
scientifico said:
but we would need energy to create antimatter too?

I don't think there's any easily obtainable naturally occurring antimatter that we know of (in fact, almost no naturally occurring antimatter at all that we know of,) so yes, one would need to spend a good amount of energy to produce the antimatter (along with its respective matter.) So, unless we find antimatter, we can't really get any net gain of energy out of it.
 
  • #99
Question: how do we know energy can not be created or destroyed?

Will there be any energy left when the last sun fades out and our universe is no more in 10^1000 trillion years from now or when ever that will be, when nothing is left again?
 
  • #100
Gerinski said:
So the point is not so much, "where did the energy come from" but rather "why does something exist rather than nothing"?
I suggest you try asking yourself "what sort of answer could there conceivably be to this question that would satisfy me". My prediction is that whatever answer you imagine will answer the 'why' by reference to something that either actually or hypothetically exists, regardless of whether we are able to observe it. But then that something is part of the something that exists, so it can't answer the question which was why there is not nothing.

It gets horribly circular and confusing. My own resolution of it is simply to conclude that it is impossible for there to be nothing, as the idea is inconceivable to us.

Given that there is something, physics is a great way of making sense of the something that there is.
 
  • #101
This is just something I heard in a book by Michio Kaku: matter and energy both have positive mass and energy. Gravity is a negative energy. So in effect, they both cancel out. If you added up all the mass and energy in the universe and subtracted the amount of gravitational energy, you would end up with nothing. Hope that helps. The universe, more or less, made a loan of lots of matter, then just paid for it with gravity.
 
  • #102
3rdHeaven said:
Question: how do we know energy can not be created or destroyed?

Will there be any energy left when the last sun fades out and our universe is no more in 10^1000 trillion years from now or when ever that will be, when nothing is left again?

Look up the definition of energy, apply it to your question, and see if it helps you.
 
  • #103
iced199 said:
... Gravity is a negative energy. ...

Wow. I've never thought of such a thing. So gravity can be measured in kilowatt hours? hmmm... I'll,... hmmm... Where do I start to solve such a problem?: "Express gravity in -kwh, -joules, and -BTU's".
 
  • #104
Drakkith said:
Look up the definition of energy, apply it to your question, and see if it helps you.

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?
 
  • #105
There is no unambiguous definition of 'energy' in GR.
 
  • #106
3rdHeaven said:
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.
 
  • #107
3rdHeaven said:
… 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 :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BLe15
  • #108
tiny-tim said:
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 :wink:

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?
 
  • #109
3rdHeaven said:
I thought energy was activity …

energy is existence …

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

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

the ever-expanding universe (the one i've chosen to live in o:)) doesn't have a final nanosecond
 
  • #110
tiny-tim said:
energy is existence …

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

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

the ever-expanding universe (the one i've chosen to live in o:)) 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 :)
 
  • #111
3rdHeaven said:
… Why not expect whatever photons that survive to not die out too? Given enough time.

how??! :confused:

you're just making that up! :smile:​
 
  • #112
tiny-tim said:
how??! :confused:

you're just making that up! :smile:​

What part do you think I'm making up?
 
  • #113
3rdHeaven said:
What part do you think I'm making up?

uhh? :confused: this part …
3rdHeaven said:
… Why not expect whatever photons that survive to not die out too? Given enough time.
 
  • #114
tiny-tim said:
uhh? :confused: 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.
 
  • #115
3rdHeaven said:
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
 
  • #116
3rdHeaven said:
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.
 
  • #117
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.
 
  • #118
russ_watters said:
Why does it matter where it came from?

Why does it matter where anything came from?
 
  • #119
Hypo said:
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?
 
  • #120
bill alsept said:
Why does it matter where anything came from?

but what if it goes back there? :cry:
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Questions on the consequence of an evolving dark energy parameter
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Red shifted tired light doubts
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School Conflict between the conservation of matter and the rapid expansion of our universe
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Undergrad No symmetries in the Universe at the Big Bang...?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Undergrad Varying laws of high energy physics in inflation?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Is my reasoning correct? Energy "before" the big bang?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School Estimates — True Size of the Universe?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
Undergrad Conservation of energy in cosmology
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Mining the Universe's expansion?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
High School How do the candidates for Dark Energy 'work'?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K