Thread: What is the basis of energy?

Is there any theories on the force that drives an atom, in other words what is the source of energy that gives an atom energy. I realize to some degree that energy is simply transferred from point to point, heating a material causes transfer of energy on an atomic level.

If we took away all the stars in the universe would we be left with any form of energy other then kinetic? I'm just not one to believe you get something from nothing, so all forms of energy must have an origin. Do atoms ever have absolutely no production of energy? I assume you would have to freeze them, that in itself is a bit of a mystery.

I'm not sure what you mean. The laws you are referring to, I believe, kinetic energy have been disproven. In fact, according to Einstein's E=MC², energy equals mass.

Imagine, somewhere, in outer space you have this giant asteroid field. This asteroid field, is different in the fact that it all of the asteroids are static (they don't move). Now, if you toss an asteroid into the field, inevitably, other asteroids will move, and in turn also hit other asteroids.

Now, imagine that these asteroids can not be harmed when other asteroids hit them. Eventually, the asteroid field will die out because all of the photons that are send from collisions (with each collision (think of two fire-rocks hitting each other) sparks, light erupts, which results in loss of total energy). Well, at least it's motion will die out.

Now, it was long believed that because every motion needed a previous motion to engage that motion that God existed. Now, however, we have come to the conclusion that the Big Bang propelled all movement, and all the light we see around us right now is residual energy coming from that original bang.

I hope I cleared that up .

Mr U

So what your saying is that without the big bang nothing would exist, except for space, which is in itself something. The Universe sounds more like a simulation all the time. The original matter formed out of nothingness and exploded into space, the original space existed for no known purpose other then to perhaps house the results of this big bang. In the end we are still left with countless questions we can not answer. Picture a traveler before the big bang, they could travel forever and not get anywhere at all, however they would have covered distance and chances are left a trail of particles in their path. No matter what they chose to measure their distance in (Miles, Light years, etc) they would always appear to have not even moved. Before this big bang we wouldn't have an reference to time,distance, size, and many other things. In reality the universe we know may be the size of a pin head.

If the universe is infinity large I have to conclude that it is also infinity small and that an entire universe could exist within a single atom.

No, mathemetically, infinite and infinitely small are two different values. They are not identical. One is an approximation to zero, the other is infinite. You can also approximate one, for example. Just take an infinitely small number and add 1. You will have nearly one.

Space is not anything. Space is simply void. Room in which matter and anti-matter can expand in.

Also, we don't have reference for time, distance and size right now. There is no absolute reference point for time distance and size. All these measures are man made, and that traveler could just have concluded that he measured the distance he walked by feet, each foot being one measure. Also, he could set the time it took him to set one foot down from lifting it up as one time-foot.

Our measuring system is man-made, and it does not have an absolute point, if that is the word you are looking for.

the size of a pin head? I disagree. If space is unlimited, it does not matter how large our universe is. There is no absolute in size, and thus the universe can be 'measured' to be as big as a pin head, or the size of, well something really big.

Mr U

Space is not anything. Space is simply void. Room in which matter and anti-matter can expand in.

The fact that space can be referenced and identified as being space in and of itself makes it something. If you took a space trip you would be doing so in "space".

Space itself has to have a constructor, just not one we can apply are limited known laws of physics to.

Space in it's true form by definition would be void of all forms of energy, still it takes up quantity and therefore must exist. We just can't scoop it up and measure it.

Any single section of space no matter how big or small is infinite in breakdown, it can be divided countless times into smaller sections and one would never reach the end. One could argue that once you divide it up to the point that one atom would not fit in the space you have left makes it the smallest section you could divide to. The problem is without the existence of that atom in space breaks the boundary and allows you to divide infinity.

Any single section of space no matter how big or small is infinite in breakdown, it can be divided countless times into smaller sections and one would never reach the end. One could argue that once you divide it up to the point that one atom would not fit in the space you have left makes it the smallest section you could divide to. The problem is without the existence of that atom in space breaks the boundary and allows you to divide infinity.

This paradox has been proven wrong. Sadly, I have no idea how to explain it, but people have solved it .

Space is vacuum. The mere fact that we have a word for it does not imply it holds matter or energy. It is simply 0.

Space itself has to have a constructor, just not one we can apply are limited known laws of physics to.

This I disagree with. Space is 0, it houses the capablitiy of housing something, but that does not imply creation. Also, I'm unsure of what you mean by space taking up quantity.

Space can not be measured because it is infinite, and because we have no reference points to measure to. This because space is simply a definition for void of matter/energy.

Mr U

This I disagree with. Space is 0, it houses the capability of housing something, but that does not imply creation. Also, I'm unsure of what you mean by space taking up quantity.

For space to have the ability to house something implies that it is a vessel of forms that allows for in this case matter to be housed within it. It can be traveled across, the distance between objects within it can be calculated, even if it were 100% void of all forms of matter it still occupies a volume or quantity in the universe. If space were truly nothing then nothing could be housed within it, it would not exist in any form. It may be null, but it still has definition and requires a place to exist. Because we can not detect any presence of matter or known energy in space doesn't make it not exist, we simply do not have the means to identify it's true nature.

It's impossible to poor water into an imaginary glass, the water would not be contained within the glass. Space has to exist as an object in order for it to contain objects.

It's impossible to poor water into an imaginary glass, the water would not be contained within the glass. Space has to exist as an object in order for it to contain objects.

Try pooring a glass empty in outer space . I don't think we will ever agree on this point . Still, I understand your point, and I hope you will agree to disagree .

Mr U

I'm just so grounded in logic, I can accept the supernatural knowing it doesn't have to be restricted by any laws or logic, I find it difficult to step outside of logic when it comes to material things. I still like the concept of the Matrix to explain the universe, I figure it's just not what it appears or perhaps is more like a complex thought. Until we can disprove all laws of physics I have to keep applying known logic to try and explain it. I've read stuff from Steven Hawkings that while sounding cool don't hold up to the test of logic. In a universe that appears to have such a grand design I figure logic must hold true.

Originally Posted by (In)Sanity

I'm just so grounded in logic, I can accept the supernatural knowing it doesn't have to be restricted by any laws or logic, I find it difficult to step outside of logic when it comes to material things. I still like the concept of the Matrix to explain the universe, I figure it's just not what it appears or perhaps is more like a complex thought. Until we can disprove all laws of physics I have to keep applying known logic to try and explain it. I've read stuff from Steven Hawkings that while sounding cool don't hold up to the test of logic. In a universe that appears to have such a grand design I figure logic must hold true.

I find it difficult to understand what you are saying here. I too am a great fan of logic, and believe that all knowledge should flow from logic, from math, not experiments. I believe that all physical laws are based on laws of physics, all laws of chemistry based on physics, biology on chemistry and psychology on biology.

I also believe that psychology is so complex it is almost impossible for it to be deduced to logic, but it is possible, yet unlikely. Still, I do not understand the relation between logic and space. Imagine a fly in a giant bubble. The fly exists in the middle, and if it decides to fly to a side, it will die before reaching the side. It exists in a bubble, yet it can not detect the bubble. If this is what you are referring to if you say space, I will ask you what is beyond the walls of that bubble.

More space perhaps?

Mr U

I also believe that psychology is so complex it is almost impossible for it to be deduced to logic, but it is possible, yet unlikely.

This I would have to agree with. Chaos is hard to apply logic to.

I find it difficult to understand what you are saying here. I too am a great fan of logic, and believe that all knowledge should flow from logic, from math, not experiments. I believe that all physical laws are based on laws of physics, all laws of chemistry based on physics, biology on chemistry and psychology on biology.

Space could exist to infinity yet still have a constructor, the part that makes it difficult to understand is that we don't know what that constructor is. Think of it as the perfect piece of glass, so transparent it appears to not even exist. When I come buy with a marker and write on it all of a sudden I have my words floating in mid air, the glass still exists as an object, it's just so good we can't see it. Space I consider the same way, it appears 100% void of everything (by definition) however it has to exist as an object in order to hold other objects. We can't build space because we don't understand the building blocks that make it up.

How can gravity be transferred through space without the presence of atoms to interact with? We know this is the case, as our entire solar system and many others is built on this design.

We are missing something big.

I completely understand what you mean now. Still, I do not agree with your point, but as I stated before, I doubt we will agree on this. I simply believe only in what I can prove. A constructor seems far-fetched to me, unless it can be proven to exist, still I respect your opinion .

How can gravity be transferred through space without the presence of atoms to interact with? We know this is the case, as our entire solar system and many others is built on this design.

Gravity has been disproven. They are simply Space-Time distortions. I barely understand this, and I am unable to explain it, apart from the fact that it neither proves nor disproves your theory.

I believe light, the transfer of light, fits your theory more, and indeed we are missing something big, as we still do not know what light is, as it reacts as a particle and a wave under differentent circumstances, and thus scientists believe it is something different, perhaps a fluctuation of your space....

I do not believe in chaos, actually. I believe in causality. The only system tending to chaos is the universe as a whole, loosing photons into the 'void', whatever that is .

Still, I can much agree with you on the fact that we are missing something big. Still, we have uncovered a large portion and I am confident that the next generations will solve these problems with creative theories of their own .

Mr U

I think the key thing is that we have enough to work off of. Man doesn't have all the answer right now, but like you said we have made good progress.

I'm glad I was finally able to explain my conundrum. I'll see if I can come up with some more

Hi Mr U,

Gravity has been disproven. They are simply Space-Time distortions

I think you mean that the Newtonian concept of gravity has been disproven. The force of gravity is still thought to exist. Einsteins view of a warping of time space by the mass of a body changed the view that somehow the mass of a body created the gravitational force that attracted other objects. Gravity itself is seen as one of the four attractive/repulsive forces that exist in the universe, others being electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces.

Time and the three spacial dimensions were all created during the big bang (if you accept this theory) to talk of existence in any sense before the big bang is entirely meaningless. Equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created during the big bang. This occurs all the time on a small, single particle level, energy is being 'borrowed' from space-time in the form of a particle and its antiparticle which quickly anihilate each other and spacetime balance is restored. In the big bang, to begin with energy and matter were indistinguishable, as were the four dimensions. One of the 4 dimensions spontaneously became time, this allowed all further changes to take place. During a brief time a large amount of matter and antimatter which should have cancelled out leaving nothing was seperated and it is believed that large pockets of antimatter(equivalent in mass to all the regular matter) still exist somewhere in the universe.

In some ways matter can be thought of as concentrated energy, either way you look at it the two are interchangable. Energy can exist in several forms, but all energy must have some mass attributed to it and all mass must have some energy associated with it to exist.

The interaction between matter and spacetime is thought of in a way that basically says mass defines shape of space and shape of space defines movement of mass. In this way matter curves space around itself, matter wants to follow the lines of space and so 'falls' towards other matter hence gravity.

There is more to say of course, but the above explains what must be said unless anyone has some questions to make it more specific?

Time and the three spacial dimensions were all created during the big bang (if you accept this theory) to talk of existence in any sense before the big bang is entirely meaningless. Equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created during the big bang. This occurs all the time on a small, single particle level, energy is being 'borrowed' from space-time in the form of a particle and its antiparticle which quickly anihilate each other and spacetime balance is restored. In the big bang, to begin with energy and matter were indistinguishable, as were the four dimensions. One of the 4 dimensions spontaneously became time, this allowed all further changes to take place. During a brief time a large amount of matter and antimatter which should have cancelled out leaving nothing was seperated and it is believed that large pockets of antimatter(equivalent in mass to all the regular matter) still exist somewhere in the universe.

Apparently the reason we're made of matter and not anti-matter is that there was simply more matter than anti-matter at the start of the universe. Matter and anti-matter cancelled out and we're made of the remaining matter.

In some ways matter can be thought of as concentrated energy, either way you look at it the two are interchangable. Energy can exist in several forms, but all energy must have some mass attributed to it and all mass must have some energy associated with it to exist.

Mass is concentrated energy, so what do you mean "energy must have some mass attributed to it and all mass must have some energy associated with it to exist"? :|

I hadn't heard of that explaination for matter existing as it does, but it does make exactly as much sense.

Concerning matter and energy interchangability, don't worry about my first comment, i was just trying to give an idea of the nature the relationship. to expand on it; fundamental particles out of which all matter is constructed namely quarks and electrons bahave in the same way as photons, they have particle properties but are essentially energy waves.

What my second comment was saying is that there are two physical impossibilities imposed on matter by its interchangability with energy: 1)Achieving energy equivalent to the speed of light as this would be infinite and 2)achieving the absence of energy (absolute zero, aprox -273.16 degrees celsius) since in practice it would take infinite energy to remove this energy also.

In summary mass is not a different substance to energy, if indeed the term substance can be applied to either. they are the same in different forms and cannot be created or destroyed just interchanged between each other and their various forms.

One popular theory of energy is that it is just a differant form of matter, and vice versa. Matter converted to energy directly relates to matter antimatter reactions, a very intense reaction if much matter is converted into energy. In H bomb theory, Fusion of 4 Protons make evident He 4 structure because it takes neutron mass to hold together two protons in nuclei., thus 2P plus 2N becomes evident. to do this two protons must give up a positive charge each called positron emission. Positrons are antimatter electrons and annihilate each other causing gamma ray photons to be generated. Net energy from occurance is extreamly massive. Energy from mass produces massive energy, mass from energy requires massive energy if we ever figure out how fer the latter. Anything more that I add would probably confuse, so I quit.

Yup, atoms are driven by Quark reactivity. There are two distinct Quarks having magnetic polarity. Up Quarks have a positive polarity of, I believe 1/3 positive magnetic polarity, while down Quarks have -2/3 polarity. When atoms are excited, these Quarks are also excited thus giving off energy. There have been many traces associated with Quark emission via supercollider collision, but I am one who beleives that these strange traces are products of either up or down Quarks reaction to outside forces such as nutrino close trace, gravity wave theory... A very long explination could follow but perhaps searching the wonderful information source, the internet, may be in order.