Questions regarding energy in the universe

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the conceptualization of energy in the universe, particularly in relation to the Big Bang and dark energy. Participants express confusion over the portrayal of energy as a standalone entity, emphasizing that energy is a result of interactions involving matter. The conversation critiques popular science presentations, asserting that they often oversimplify complex scientific concepts, leading to misconceptions about the nature of energy and its role in cosmic events.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, including energy and matter interactions.
  • Familiarity with cosmological theories, particularly the Big Bang theory.
  • Knowledge of dark energy and its implications for the universe's expansion.
  • Critical thinking skills to differentiate between scientific fact and entertainment-based science communication.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of energy conservation and transformation in physics.
  • Explore the Big Bang theory and its implications for the origin of the universe.
  • Study dark energy and its role in the expansion of the universe.
  • Examine the differences between scientific communication and popular science presentations.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, cosmology enthusiasts, and anyone interested in understanding the complexities of energy in the universe and the impact of popular science media on public perception.

Brunolem33
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
As I am watching the current season of How the Universe Works, I am a bit confused when listening to physicists talking about energy as if it was a thing.

The way I understand it, energy doesn't exist by itself, but is rather the result of interactions involving matter.

Energy is released, captured, released and so on.

For example, nuclear reactions in the sun release energy, some of which is captured by tree leaves, that will later on be used as fossil fuel, thus releasing energy...

But there is no energy readily available as such, in the same way that there is no wind without air and a certain set of conditions.

Having said all that, what does it mean to say that the Big Bang was a massive release of energy previously concentrated in a small point?

Or what does it mean to say that dark energy is making the universe expand?

What energy? How can there be energy without a source?

Why and how would the release of energy associated with the Big Bang create heat, and what would be heated in the first place, since there was nothing but energy to begin with?

Energy is not cold or hot, or is it?

How can energy be compressed or expand?

One can do that with air, for example, because it is matter, but it seems meaningless to talk about volume when it comes to energy

Assuming that dark energy would be part of the energy released with the Big Bang, how could it have been preserved as such for billions of years, without being absorbed by the matter around it?

So many questions...
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Brunolem33 said:
The way I understand it, energy doesn't exist by itself, but is rather the result of interactions involving matter.
correct.
... what does it mean to say that the Big Bang was a massive release of energy previously concentrated in a small point?
It means that you are listening to a pop-science presentation that is entertainment and has little to do with actual science.

Or what does it mean to say that dark energy is making the universe expand?
SOMETHING is making the universe expand. We don't know what it is so well call it "dark energy" just to have a name to hang on it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mlesnita Daniel and davenn
Are you implying that the scientists who actively participate in this "pop science presentation" are charlatans who shouldn't be trusted?

And if so, what is the answer regarding the Big Bang? Was it not energy, but something else that was involved? Or do we simply don't know?
 
Brunolem33 said:
Are you implying that the scientists who actively participate in this "pop science presentation" are charlatans who shouldn't be trusted?
Possibly they are not charlatans but they absolutely are not to be trusted when appearing in these entertainment presentations. They will say things that they KNOW are simplifications to the point of being wrong. It's ENTERTAINMENT, not science.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mlesnita Daniel

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K