Where Does Energy Originate?
- Context: Undergrad
- Thread starter Hypo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
169 replies · 35K views
Hypo
- 58
- 0
Drakkith said:
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)?
- 23,899
- 11,354
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.Hypo said:
Hypo
- 58
- 0
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.
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.
Hypo 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.
Hypo
- 58
- 0
Drakkith said:
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.
- 23,899
- 11,354
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.Hypo said:
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.
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.
Jasso
- 102
- 1
Hypo said:
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:
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:
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:
Whovian
- 651
- 3
Hypo said:
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.
Naty1
- 5,605
- 40
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.
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...
Gerinski
- 322
- 15
Hypo 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.
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.
SHISHKABOB
- 539
- 1
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.
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.
bluey
- 17
- 0
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.
bluey
- 17
- 0
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.Drakkith said:
bluey
- 17
- 0
Drakkith 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.
- 19,385
- 15,621
bluey 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?
bluey
- 17
- 0
phinds said:
You have spelled physicists wrong! Don't be lazy,google it yourself.
Gold Member
- 11,420
- 750
That is a strawman argument and irrelevant. Try the philosophy forum.
bluey
- 17
- 0
Chronos said:
Exactly!
Gold Member
- 11,420
- 750
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.
aishwariya
- 3
- 0
The whole universes energy is borrowed.just like virtual particles emerge from nothing i think.
Quantum cosmology
Quantum cosmology
Whovian
- 651
- 3
aishwariya said:
Okay. That's one theory, which comes from a complete misinterpretation of QM. See https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511176
Don't insult Phinds!bluey said:
Last edited by a moderator:
- 19,385
- 15,621
bluey said:
It was a slip of the figner
- 25,837
- 258
phinds said:It was a slip of the figner
a figner rotation
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.
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.