If Energy cannot be created or destroyed, how can there be a beginning to the Universe ?

My example was not intended to be exhaustive listing every energy source known to man, I used radioactive material because it should be obvious to even the biggest dopes that one ounce of u235 for instance during the course of its cycle will emit something to the of 2 billion btus of ENERGY that can be used to power my car, heat my house etc.

So tell me what energy you will be using from a rock resting at ambient temperature to power so much as the propeller on a beenie hat? (It should have been obvious that I recognized radiant energy as a source of heat since I removed it from the rock example, but thanks for the lesson anyway)

Oh and btw, ambient temp is not 'room temp', ambient temp means its the same temp as everything else in the surrounding area.

 

Worthless post for what you and I are talking about. I extracted the only 2 parts that pertained below in "black".

In physics, energy is the property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object.

First there is no such thing as a particle with no mass.

"we like to consider it an energy"
"it's just convenient"

Yes its just a convenience and we 'think' of it that way just so we can make the numbers work, and it has no bearing on reality.

However back to reality mass in equilibrium is NOT energy as it cannot be used to do work.

It seems you agree, though you come at it through the back door instead of simply saying it outright.

Finally, the problem once again is with improper usage, like the lackers story, dumbing down people of lessor education to believe in **** like time travel, other universes, space-time, curved space and other mathematical number fudging slogans to be interpreted as a physically reality.

 

It's not always obvious what energy is. We started with thinking about energy as having only the forms of macroscopic movement and gravitational potentials. As we figured out that energy could also come as heat, electromagnetic potentials and a bunch of other stuff, we have added those to the model of what counts as types of energy.

The big break through was figuring out that mass is a type of energy (or can be transformed to energy, depending on whether you're committed to keeping mass a non-energy) which basically happened with figuring out E=mc^2. Well, also the fact that we could access this energy through radioactive decays. Of course there has been much refinement to our understanding of it, but that's the fundamental piece of understanding which is important for that idea.

Now colliders don't really do anything that cosmic rays haven't been doing for a long time, so processes that do this will have happened before. The first time humans constructed something which could do that, I would guess is the first colliders of the 50s. However, creating matter like that isn't a very efficient way of studying these phenomena. It's more a proof of concept that matter can come into existence, rather than a plausible way to construct anything useful at this point.

 

There are particles with no rest mass, or a rest mass of zero, if you prefer it that way. Photons for instance.

That's arguably all that any energy is, as far as we know. It would be fully possible to calculate objects falling under gravity using only forces and accelerations, but energy is very convenient in doing so.

I'm not really sure what your argument is. There are some subtle distinctions that I disregard here, but I'm not certain if that's where our disagreement lies, or if you disagree with the current understanding of particle physics as a whole. For instance, I could maybe phrase "mass is a type of energy" more correctly as "One of the forms energy can take is matter. That matter will have a rest mass and a momentum (in a certain frame). From the mass energy equivalence equation it can be found how much energy would be required to create matter with a certain mass.". I'm not sure if your criticism is of me doing that simplification, or if it has to do with the idea I'm trying to convey.

Well, one case where you can is in radioactive decays, as you have mentioned. In situations like in cosmic ray collisions and the LHC, mass often is "used" to do work (although the amounts are so small, and the large amount of effort that goes into it means I wouldn't think of it in terms of usefulness).

Imagine that you have a Z boson. It is standing still so it doesn't have a kinetic energy. The Z boson will decay. Into what is random, but let's consider a Z boson which decays into an electron and a positron. Those particles will be energetic, and will move very fast. They can in turn collide with other particles or objects, thus doing work. The Z boson had no energy other than its rest energy, yet after the entire process, there is energy. That energy didn't come from nowhere, it was stored in the particle as matter (with a certain mass).

As previously mentioned, I'm not certain what your argument is, but it's quite possible that we do agree. I make some simplifications, the finer details of which, I consider unimportant (especially when explaining it to people like uncouth).

I think in this case, any more proper language will merely serve to confuse, and wouldn't really improve uncouth's understanding.

 

In physics, energy is the property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object.

I didnt say that with the intention of your digging up every possible exception to the rule, the exception(s) prove the rule.

If the statement 'matter is energy' is a scientific truth then all matter must be capable of producing work, I gave the other guy the opportunity to explain what work a rock in equilibrium, (at rest, same temp, stationary) is capable of producing. Can you light it on fire maybe?

If matter is in fact energy then we can extract power from that rock.

Tell us how you intend to do that.

 

I mean, the fact that there is an exception indicates that the rule hasn't been properly formulated (in this case). It seems to me, radioactive decays prove that the energy is accessible to us (albeit making use of all of it isn't technologically feasible at the moment).

The definition says the property which must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on it. The energy you get out of a radioactive decay is the same property as the rest of the rest energy, even if you can't get it out. The definition you provided doesn't require that there must be a possible way of getting the energy out, just that if you did manage to get it out, it would be one possible way of performing work.

That being said, there are theoretically way of getting it out. If you produced a rock made of antimatter and combined the two, you would get a lot of energy. Half of that energy comes from the rock and half from the "anti-rock". Now, there are of course many practical problems, it would cost you even more energy to actually produce the anti-rock for instance, and the rocks might be impure (and there may be other processes happening too, which would be in the way) but the idea works.

For instance, at LEP (the Large Electron Positron collider which was in the LHC tunnels before the LHC was built) they collided electrons and positrons. They both have masses and are collided at high speeds. Their collision may result in two photons, the sum of whose energies will be the combined energy of the electron and the positron, mass included. The photons will then collide with a detector, and a small amount of work will be done (and in particular, the energy from the disappearance of the electrons and positrons will be a part of that).

 

Well if God exists simply by definition how about defining God.

 

I'm not claiming God exists. Therefore I have no need to defining God.

 

feel free to write a book about every point I did not put on the table.

you cant be serious can you? You dont know what the working definition of energy is????? Seriously????

AGAIN: Make that rock 'as described' fit the definition of energy, since its beginning to appear as if you think matter is energy, otherwise its very simple to agree.

 

because there is stuff outside out universe, so it did not come from nothing
but that said, (-1) + (+1) = 0, if you keep the (-1)'s and (+1) separate, you have something from nothing

 

you have nothing from nothing, wth do you call that? what 'something" do you think you have? LOL

 

I think its a case scientists just invent theories as they go along to support their position. If they claim there was a big bang where energy blew out into matter, then they need to replicate that in the lab.

Then where did this energy come from? Maybe a big bang full of matter blew out energy and this energy was blown out of the big bang to create matter. And so it goes on.

 

Wrong. What you are talking about are properties of our universe that were created when our universe was created. Are you saying NASA is wrong?

 

Apparently you do not understand Quantum fluctuations.....hence the simple minded logic.

BTW, zero is not nothing.

 

I love to watch atheists explaining math or science. They butcher the crap out of it but it is cute when they try.

 

Ironic given that fundamentalist theists are anti science and math.

 

There's no contradiction between the definition and seeing matter as energy. I understand that it doesn't do any good to think about it that way for the purpose of solving most real world physics problems, as the physicist needs to distinguish between the two (but only in the same sense that he needs to distinguish between liquid and gas), but

there's a process at work in the event depicted by the Feynman diagram whereby energy is converted to matter. If that process is responsible in some way for all the matter in the universe, then all matter is at least a manifestation of energy. And then, if all of it could, in principle, be converted back to energy, then all of it is stored energy(or a state of energy). Well, stored energy just is energy qua energy.

 

Well what then does your statement " God exists simply by definition" actually mean.

 

No they are not.

 

Kneejerk denials don't alter reality.

 

It means that at this point, God is simply a concept with no physical evidence. God exists in name/faith only.

 

It is good you can admit that.

 

FALSE!

Your comment is precisely the reason I point these fanciful incorrect notions out.

But if you think its not a contradiction feel free to help swensson demonstrate how to extract all that stored 'energy' from a rock.

 

You mean like coal?

 

He already told you how it could be done; a perfect anti-rock uniting with it perfectly. There's no law holding that that which must be transferred to an object to do work can never have been stored as mass. We get energy from matter all the time, and use it to do work. I don't see what the problem is.