Where Does Energy Originate?

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

The forum discussion centers on the origins of energy, particularly in relation to the laws of thermodynamics and conservation, which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Participants express confusion regarding the implications of the Big Bang theory, questioning whether energy existed prior to the event or was created during it. The conversation highlights the philosophical and scientific challenges in understanding energy's existence and its relationship to the universe, emphasizing that current knowledge does not provide definitive answers about energy's origins.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the laws of thermodynamics
  • Familiarity with the Big Bang theory
  • Basic knowledge of energy conservation principles
  • Awareness of concepts related to dark energy and the universe's expansion
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Big Bang theory on energy creation
  • Study the laws of thermodynamics in detail
  • Explore theories regarding dark energy and its role in the universe
  • Investigate philosophical perspectives on the existence of energy and matter
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, philosophers, students of cosmology, and anyone interested in the fundamental questions surrounding energy and the universe's origins.

  • #31
Hypo said:
If it is accelerating it will lose that speed and then stop expanding at some point then roll up again form the gravity now maybe this is a theory. Oh yea there is on like that. "Big Crunch"

No, it will not. Not according to recent evidence.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Drakkith said:
No, it will not. Not according to recent evidence.

Could you link me you're evidences so I can take a look at it?

You're only support for that argument is that the universe is expanding? Why then(in you're opinion)?
 
  • #34
Hypo said:
If it is accelerating it will lose that speed and then stop expanding at some point then roll up again form the gravity now maybe this is a theory. Oh yea there is on like that. "Big Crunch"
You're confusing "accelerating" with "decelerating". "Accelerating" is to go faster and faster. As in - keep expanding at an ever increasing rate. It's the opposite of stopping.
 
  • #35
Are there any physical or mathematical equations to support the big bang?
I'd like to study each step by looking at each equation. Can you hint me with them?I have an idea I'd like to practice with math + physics to prove it.

So far nothing proves that the universe will keep on expanding with no end. What's been proven that it does expand and countless experiments years ago proved it so as recent ones.(Yet I believe all of you would say it won't end because 96% of the universe is energy + matter = both can't be created nor destroyed.)

Energy, matter, the beginning, the end all in all something is related something BIG out of the picture.

You could find what I'm saying is complete non-sense but keep in mind many theories and ideas started this way. Even if I was wrong I'm lift with good answers of what I'm talking about, or possibile better idea on certain things.

Hyp.
 
  • #36
Hypo said:
Are there any physical or mathematical equations to support the big bang?
I'd like to study each step by looking at each equation. Can you hint me with them?

Not a chance. The physics behind the standard model of cosmology is extremely complex and involves multiples kinds of math and multiple types of theories. You'd have to learn both General Relativity and at least a little bit of Quantum Mechanics, no small feat.

So far nothing proves that the universe will keep on expanding with no end. What's been proven that it does expand and countless experiments years ago proved it so as recent ones.(Yet I believe all of you would say it won't end because 96% of the universe is energy + matter = both can't be created nor destroyed.)

Are you looking for the ultimate irrefutable evidence? If so, you're never going to find it. We know what we are looking at and that it tells us that the universe is expanding and accelerating. Unless something changes then it will continue to expand, possibly forever. But, seeing as how we cannot see the future there is always the possibility that something will be different in the future.

Energy, matter, the beginning, the end all in all something is related something BIG out of the picture.

You could find what I'm saying is complete non-sense but keep in mind many theories and ideas started this way. Even if I was wrong I'm lift with good answers of what I'm talking about, or possibile better idea on certain things.

Hyp.

You are severely overconfident in your own ideas. People come to this forum all the time with similar ideas and usually have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. If you really want to come up with a new theory you are going to have to learn the current ones first and address the known issues with those. In addition, personal theories are not allowed on PF per the rules. Please keep to the standard models and theories.
 
  • #37
Drakkith said:
Not a chance. The physics behind the standard model of cosmology is extremely complex and involves multiples kinds of math and multiple types of theories. You'd have to learn both General Relativity and at least a little bit of Quantum Mechanics, no small feat.
Are you looking for the ultimate irrefutable evidence? If so, you're never going to find it. We know what we are looking at and that it tells us that the universe is expanding and accelerating. Unless something changes then it will continue to expand, possibly forever. But, seeing as how we cannot see the future there is always the possibility that something will be different in the future.
You are severely overconfident in your own ideas. People come to this forum all the time with similar ideas and usually have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. If you really want to come up with a new theory you are going to have to learn the current ones first and address the known issues with those. In addition, personal theories are not allowed on PF per the rules. Please keep to the standard models and theories.

I've given you the wrong image of what I am trying to achieve.

About the personal theories thing I'd say that's far enough.
 
  • #38
Hypo said:
Are there any physical or mathematical equations to support the big bang?
I'd like to study each step by looking at each equation. Can you hint me with them?
This will take you years. The Big Bang is a consequence of General Relativity, so you will have to learn that -- and the math required to learn it first.

So far nothing proves that the universe will keep on expanding with no end.
You can't say that. Just because you are unaware of the theory/evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're going to need to have a little trust in people who do know.
You could find what I'm saying is complete non-sense but keep in mind many theories and ideas started this way.
No they don't. What you're doing is idle speculation based on ignorance. New theories start with intensive study and complete understanding of what is already known about a particular subject.
 
  • #39
Hypo said:
Are there any physical or mathematical equations to support the big bang?
I'd like to study each step by looking at each equation. Can you hint me with them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law[/PLAIN]

"Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the General Relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed that the Universe is expanding and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.[2][3][4][5][6] Two years later Edwin Hubble confirmed the existence of that law and determined a more accurate value for the constant that now bears his name[7]."

The General Relativity equations mentioned in that wiki article are known as the Einstein Field Equations. They involve some pretty hairy mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Hypo said:
So far nothing proves that the universe will keep on expanding with no end. What's been proven that it does expand and countless experiments years ago proved it so as recent ones.

I think you misunderstand the concept of "proof" in science; there is no absolute proof, only evidence which supports or contradicts a hypothesis. All the evidence supports an expanding universe with an accelerating rate of expansion, while there is no evidence that the rate of expansion will slow.

Hypo said:
(Yet I believe all of you would say it won't end because 96% of the universe is energy + matter = both can't be created nor destroyed.)

The laws of the universe are limited to this universe. It makes no sense to talk about the laws of this universe (e.g. conservation of matter-energy) where the universe doesn't exist (e.g. "before" the big bang).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Hypo said:
Okay did energy come along with the "big bang" or was it created by big bang? I am really confused at that point what about you?

I mean what DO ALL OF YOU think about energy and where it came from? Honestly its just mind blowing when you study more about it.

Gosh, I'm surprised no one's brought this into the discussion.

Per our current understanding of the Universe, there was nothing before the Big Bang. That was the beginning of existence and it makes no sense to talk about before it. So all that energy's existed at every valid point in time.
 
  • #41
Per our current understanding of the Universe, there was nothing before the Big Bang.

no one knows: Some think time started at the Big Bang [Hawking] others think space and time started at the Big Bang...other think there was no Big Bang [e.g.; Steinhardt,Turok].
How about gravity and entropy, for example...
The Big Bang does not describe cosmic origins...it starts just after time zero. At the huge densities at the beginning of the Big Bang, gravity was the dominant energy. In this case it was repulsive gravity resulting in an inflationary model of cosmology. It is Einstein's cosmological constant that provides this repulsive push.



Are there any physical or mathematical equations to support the big bang?

Check out here to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_cosmology

Allan Guth had the original idea which has been improved upon over time...
 
  • #42
Hypo said:
Yet I believe all of you would say it won't end because 96% of the universe is energy + matter = both can't be created nor destroyed.
Hyp.

Don't forget gravity, it is the least understood form of energy, for example its relationship with entropy (well dark energy is probably less understood...).
It is likely that gravity holds the key to some answers to some of the deep puzzles.

We do not know why there is energy, many scientists believe that the net energy of the universe is zero, if so the question becomes "why did zero energy 'decouple' into positive and negative energy and make gradients".
In any case energy seems to be what makes everything in the universe exist, forces and matter, including gravity and dark energy, so we can say that energy is simply the reason why there is a universe at all.
 
  • #43
Gerinski said:
Don't forget gravity, it is the least understood form of energy, for example its relationship with entropy (well dark energy is probably less understood...).
It is likely that gravity holds the key to some answers to some of the deep puzzles.

Gravity is not a form of energy, it is one of the 4 fundamental interactions.

In any case energy seems to be what makes everything in the universe exist, forces and matter, including gravity and dark energy, so we can say that energy is simply the reason why there is a universe at all.

None of the fundamental interactions require energy to function. I think you are looking way too far into what energy is.
 
  • #44
I think maybe the word "energy" has become a bit overused in some places. Mostly sci fi. In lots of sci fi stories or games, people talk about energy as if it's a "thing" like a bullet or a piece of metal as a shield.

Energy isn't a thing at all, it's just a way to describe the properties of a system, like Drakkith said. Therefore it doesn't really "come from" anywhere, it's just there.

I mean, heck, a rock can have many different amounts of energy, depending on what you want.

Picture a boulder of mass m on top of a table that is h meters high, and the table is on top of a hill whose bottom is x meters down.

The boulder has mgh energy if you care about it falling from the table, but it also has mgx energy if you care about it falling from the table and down to the bottom of the hill. In fact you could even use mgx when considering it falling off the table only.

Energy is only relevant when you're talking about differences of energy, so really there is no "fixed" amount of energy, just a fixed amount of "stuff" which can be described with energy.
 
  • #45
bluey said:
Google is your friend!

OK Ill put it another way and this is understood by anyone with a bit more than a passing interest in physics,energy comes from nothing! take a configurable bit of space with nothing in it, no radiation,no heat or light nothing and you will get virtual particles popping in and out of existence.If you had a proton which is made of quarks the quarks and the gluon particles that hold it together make up about 10% of the mass,the rest is made up of virtual particles,which is nothing.this is one of the most precise measurements ever made in science.Go ahead and look it up.
 
  • #46
bluey said:
OK Ill put it another way and this is understood by anyone with a bit more than a passing interest in physics,energy comes from nothing! take a configurable bit of space with nothing in it, no radiation,no heat or light nothing and you will get virtual particles popping in and out of existence.If you had a proton which is made of quarks the quarks and the gluon particles that hold it together make up about 10% of the mass,the rest is made up of virtual particles,which is nothing.this is one of the most precise measurements ever made in science.Go ahead and look it up.

I'm not sure I agree with this "energy comes from nothing" idea. If virtual particles do exist and they work like we think they do, then we know exactly where the energy comes from, and it isn't "nothing" as far as I understand.
 
  • #47
Drakkith said:
I'm not sure I agree with this "energy comes from nothing" idea. If virtual particles do exist and they work like we think they do, then we know exactly where the energy comes from, and it isn't "nothing" as far as I understand.
Well that's Quantum mechanics for you!It is not intuitive to us on the macro scale and seems downright weird. We have the idea that condensed matter was created at the radiation decoupling stage soon after the big bang which it has been theorized was itself a quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy.
 
  • #48
bluey said:
Well that's Quantum mechanics for you!It is not intuitive to us on the macro scale and seems downright weird. We have the idea that condensed matter was created at the radiation decoupling stage soon after the big bang which it has been theorized was itself a quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy.

Yes, but that is not "nothing" in my opinion.
 
  • #49
Drakkith said:
Yes, but that is not "nothing" in my opinion.

The quantum fluctuation that caused the big bang came from nothing and the vacuum energy of space from which the virtual particles borrow their energy works out mathematically to be zero (nothing). Its to do with symmetry, something and nothing will cancel out. It took me a while to comprehend it but when the penny dropped it all became clear.
 
  • #50
bluey said:
The quantum fluctuation that caused the big bang came from nothing ...

I was under the impression that physicsts to not pretend to know WHAT caused the events at the singularity. Do you have citations for this?
 
  • #51
bluey said:
The quantum fluctuation that caused the big bang came from nothing and the vacuum energy of space from which the virtual particles borrow their energy works out mathematically to be zero (nothing). Its to do with symmetry, something and nothing will cancel out. It took me a while to comprehend it but when the penny dropped it all became clear.

Why would the vacuum energy of space be "nothing"?
 
  • #52
phinds said:
I was under the impression that physicsts to not pretend to know WHAT caused the events at the singularity. Do you have citations for this?

You have spelled physicists wrong! Don't be lazy,google it yourself.
 
  • #53
That is a strawman argument and irrelevant. Try the philosophy forum.
 
  • #54
Chronos said:
That is a strawman argument and irrelevant. Try the philosophy forum.

Exactly!
 
  • #55
So, what are you attempting to accomplish on this forum? Were I a Mentor this thread would have been immediately closed as irrelevant to scientific inquiry.
 
  • #56
The whole universes energy is borrowed.just like virtual particles emerge from nothing i think.

Quantum cosmology
 
  • #57
aishwariya said:
The whole universes energy is borrowed.just like virtual particles emerge from nothing i think.

Quantum cosmology

Okay. That's one theory, which comes from a complete misinterpretation of QM. See https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511176

bluey said:
You have spelled physicists wrong! Don't be lazy,google it yourself.
Don't insult Phinds! :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
bluey said:
You have spelled physicists wrong! Don't be lazy,google it yourself.

It was a slip of the figner :smile:
 
  • #59
phinds said:
It was a slip of the figner :smile:

a figner rotation :wink:
 
  • #60
Does anyone listen to Hawking anymore? We have 'something' rather than 'nothing' due to physical laws of gravity and quantum theory that govern our universe. Perhaps not other universes, of which there could exist an infinite number, per M-Theory, which Hawking has adopted as the only theory that will lead to the theory of everything, if, in fact, such a theory can ever be found.

Infinity and Nothing can be comprehended mathematically, but not physically. Unless, you come to the inevitable conclusion, perhaps pseudo scientifically, I am afraid, as I have, that Something and Nothing are one and the same, just different manifestations of each other.
 

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
1K
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
6K
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