Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 210 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#39330 - 08/06/11 07:47 PM Re: Energy [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
To me it's always a bit like the chicken and egg ... you need energy to create a force and a force transfers energy which came first who can say :-)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
.
#39334 - 08/06/11 10:35 PM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Orac
To me it's always a bit like the chicken and egg ... you need energy to create a force and a force transfers energy which came first who can say :-)

That's easy. If you break down anything you can find you will find that it consists of little packets (quanta) of energy in different forms. The universe consists of nothing but energy. So there isn't any question which came first, energy, that's all there is. Forces are the coupling devices between different energy packets.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39335 - 08/06/11 10:52 PM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Have I got this right?

At the dawn of our cosmos, only 'pure energy' is believed to have existed. No particles, not even photons. That energy transformed itself into all that exists today, owing to a bundle of fundamental laws that came with the package.

Something is known about the ways energy now manifests itself, and how it can be described in different ways as it's transferred from one form to another, all the while being conserved (well, so long as it doesn't disappear into another universe, I guess it would have to be). But almost all of the energy in the cosmos seems to be in forms that were entirely unsuspected until very recently, i.e. the mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Yet, even if/when those mysteries are solved, we will still not know what energy is in terms of anything else. As Bill Gill said, energy is energy.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#39337 - 08/07/11 01:48 AM Re: Energy [Re: redewenur]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I'm probably getting too quick off the mark in this reply. But I'm here so I might as well go ahead.

Basically that is about the way it is. The fact is that scientific laws are basically rules for how things work. They really don't say anything about what the universe is made of and where it came from. We say that a rock falls to the ground because of the law of gravity. But at the basic level we don't know what gravity is or where it comes from. We can tell how the rock will fall based on our understanding of gravity. But the real question "Why is gravity?" is something we just don't know, and probably never will know. That type of question is in the realm of philosophy.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39339 - 08/07/11 01:58 AM Re: Energy [Re: Bill]
gan Offline
Member

Registered: 07/21/10
Posts: 55
Here we know that our most imaginative theory "String Theory" tell us that Gravity is just Graviton, flying across space and time. (I don't actually believe in that)

For Energy. Yeah! It is the best question. I don't know. Energy starts from nowhere and goes to nowhere. xD
__________________________________________________________________
"Every moment of your life is infinitely creative and the Universe is endlessly bountiful. Just put forth a clear enough request, and everything your heart desires must come to you."
written by Shakti Gawain

Top
#39347 - 08/07/11 02:39 PM Re: Energy [Re: gan]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
String theory isn't the only thing that has gravitons, so does Quantum Theory. A graviton is a particle that carries gravitational force. Once again, that doesn't tell us what a graviton is, or what gravitational force is. We are still defining everything in terms of what it does. That's science. All it can tell us is how things interact.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39350 - 08/07/11 05:58 PM Re: Energy [Re: Bill]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
To me it's always a bit like the chicken and egg ... you need energy to create a force and a force transfers energy which came first who can say


Obviously, Bill answered this, but I think it's worth mentioning that the answer was contained in the wording of your question: you need energy to create a force, but you don't need a force to create energy.

BTW, evolution solved the chicken and egg problem: the chicken evolved from something else that was already laying eggs. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39351 - 08/07/11 06:15 PM Re: Energy [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
And that leads you straight into the 4 fundemental forces if you believe the story :-)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)


No problem with 4 forces, but I am yet to be convinced that there are more than 2 forms of energy.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39363 - 08/08/11 04:49 AM Re: Energy [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

but you don't need a force to create energy.


Give me an example of creating energy without a force?


Quote:

BTW, evolution solved the chicken and egg problem: the chicken evolved from something else that was already laying eggs. smile


And energy evolves from something that is a precursor to a force :-)


I am not doing a socrates here it is the way you can't have energy without containment else it explodes or implodes in a flash and ceases to be energy.

Containment requires forces which is my basic problem with Bill's conjecture that at the start of the universe we just had a bundle of energy ... you could not have that energy as a bundle without the containment forces in place else it would have exploded or imploded.

Anyone show me raw energy without a containment force anyhwere in the universe?

I should say even under string theory your strings have to be vibrating in one of the modes to be energy and as such have to be exerting a force just perhaps not in this physical world.

Edit: And a final thought for you the absolute classic high school physics problem to explain. I have two permanent magnets and I bring them in to a distance and release them. Where does the energy to drag them together arise and I can seperate them and do it over and over again how is this possible? BTW I am not proposing energy for nothing here just showing you a little problem with defining energy :-)


Edited by Orac (08/08/11 09:18 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39374 - 08/08/11 09:49 AM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Orac
I am not doing a socrates here it is the way you can't have energy without containment else it explodes or implodes in a flash and ceases to be energy

Isn't that what happened? But...

Originally Posted By: Orac
Containment requires forces which is my basic problem with Bill's conjecture that at the start of the universe we just had a bundle of energy ...

I don't think anyone is disputing that there was a force and that gravity may have been either separate or included. My understanding of 'just a bundle of energy' is that there were, at that moment, none of the subsequent manifestations of energy, but I'm not putting words into Bill's mouth, he will speak for himself smile
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#39376 - 08/08/11 02:21 PM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Here I go again. All ready to show my ignorance. I don't necessarily agree that energy requires containment. After all if you set off a stick of dynamite in a vacuum there is no containment for the energy released.

Then of course energy can provide its own containment. After all energy and mass are interchangeable. So a quantity of energy can generate a gravitational field that will contain the energy. This of course is a problem that I always had with the Big Bang Theory. With the entire mass of the universe contained in a point source, how did it start expanding? It seemed that the gravitational attraction of the mass should have contained the universe. That may be fixed by the idea of dark energy. It seems there is much more dark energy than there is normal(?) energy.

Originally Posted By: Orac
Containment requires forces which is my basic problem with Bill's conjecture that at the start of the universe we just had a bundle of energy ... you could not have that energy as a bundle without the containment forces in place else it would have exploded or imploded.

Well, at the start of the universe the energy that became the universe did explode, so I don't see a problem with that.

And on top of that we really have no idea what happened immediately after the start of the expansion of the universe. In the first few microseconds the energy density was so high that our current physics has no way to handle it. It is only after the Inflationary Period that things got cool enough for us to understand what happened.

Now I think I have driveled on long enough. I also seem to have kind of drifted around in what I had to say.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39380 - 08/08/11 04:21 PM Re: Energy [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I pretty much agree with what you are saying Bill except at some point when the laws of physics come into being I suspect the opposing forces have to be in effect.

The magnet example gives you a clear indication and actually you can try googling but I doubt you will feel comfortable with the answer.

So we take 2 bar magnets confine them in a plastic "c" section channel perfectly flat note they have 0 kinetic energy and some potential energy relative to there hieight from centre of earth it doesnt matter. Now we slowly move them closer micron by micron at some point they attract and fly together. You hear the click of noise and they moved so there is energy transfer. After the join they still have zero kinetic and the same potential energy. The classic school answer is there is no energy in a magnetic process but you can see that isn't strictly true we lie to the students. So now the question where does the energy come from? I will leave you to ponder that one and perhaps do some reading.

There is actually another place you see it but its dubious many will have seen it which is the effect on the plates when you charge up a capacitor in electricity. And finally the more bizarre one of why do some substances undergo radiactive decay.

They are all very very subtle effects and in effect we usually lie away the answer to make science easier to study :-)



Edited by Orac (08/08/11 04:22 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39381 - 08/08/11 07:37 PM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Orac
So we take 2 bar magnets confine them in a plastic "c" section channel perfectly flat note they have 0 kinetic energy and some potential energy relative to there hieight from centre of earth it doesnt matter. Now we slowly move them closer micron by micron at some point they attract and fly together. You hear the click of noise and they moved so there is energy transfer. After the join they still have zero kinetic and the same potential energy. The classic school answer is there is no energy in a magnetic process but you can see that isn't strictly true we lie to the students. So now the question where does the energy come from? I will leave you to ponder that one and perhaps do some reading.

As you say you can ignore the gravitational potential energy, because we are looking at a system that is all at the same level and gravity has no direct effect.

Now there is a potential energy present that has to be taken into account. That is the magnetic potential energy between the 2 magnets. As long as they are separated this potential exists. And it causes the 2 magnets to be attracted to one another.

Your description of the experiment leaves out one thing that is influenced by gravity. That is the friction that exists between the magnets and the surface of the channel. Gravity keeps the magnets in contact with the surface under them and produces the friction. This is why the magnets don't move toward each other until they are a certain distance apart. When the attractive force between the 2 magnets is large enough to overcome the effect of friction they begin to move toward each other.

As the magnets gain speed they gain kinetic energy. When they meet the kinetic energy is released as sound (the click you hear) and heat. At that point it is true the magnets will contain no kinetic energy and no potential energy with respect to each other, but the energy doesn't just up and disappear, it is transformed into a different form. The kinetic energy of the magnets is transferred to the molecules of air and the material the magnets are made of. Of course some of the energy will be transferred to the surface the magnets are moving on, which will be heated by the friction.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that schools teach there is no energy in a magnetic process. Magnetic processes are used to generate power, to change voltage levels in power transmission systems, and to turn motors, among many other things. There are some theoretical (idealized)discussions where things can be moved through a path which results in no net energy change. Of course in these discussions there are instantaneous changes in energy levels, but the overall result is that all the energy transferred between different parts of the system is returned to its source at the end.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39384 - 08/09/11 02:47 AM Re: Energy [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
In essence you are moving the problem around here is the formula for magnetic potential and yes thats the name we give it

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magpot.html

And down the rabbit hole you go ....

So where does the magnetic potential arise from and where did it go when the two magnets joined?

I hope I am starting to make sense now ... to answer the question you are going to need to understand electron spin and QM and its why we lie to students.

And the page above gives the answer

Quote:

These relationships for a finite current loop extend to the magnetic dipoles of electron orbits and to the intrinsic magnetic moments associated with electron spin and nuclear spin.


Basically it is the same gravity it is fundemental to matter and the laws of physics which is QM.

This is my dislike of some of Big Bang theory we have given above it makes perfect sense from conventional physics (the world of gravity) but it is completely ridiculous from QM point of view.

QM had to arise at some point either right at formation or some point after. At that point certain things have to be in place it's not possible for them not to be.

There is alot of ridicule in QM circles about some who only see gravity world and big bang only involves gravity. In that world Stephen Hawkings is a funny little man in a wheelchair, as Sascha Vongehr commented, who wants to shoot schrodinger's cat.

The theory of big bang from QM perspective is yet to be written and I suspect there are a few nasty shocks coming.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39386 - 08/09/11 03:54 AM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I suspect this will develop into a more detailed discussion and not sure how to progress it so lets start with QM shock one from the above.

Remember GR and Einstein to make gravity "work" so he could explain the force and energy he had to join time and space into a foam so matter distorted space and time all good so far right the story works and we have tested GR over and over.

Now we have a problem from the above we have a fundemental attraction repulsion thing which Bill correctly identified as magnetic potential. It is acting across time and space or our spacetime loaf and it isn't related to its mass????? but related somehow to it's electron spin.

Something should be screaming in your head about now :-)

Edit: Even yesterday I saw a cute explaination of GR and the magic force of gravity that just comes into being (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-photons-view.html) do you see the problem with the above and this!



Edited by Orac (08/09/11 04:14 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39387 - 08/09/11 06:06 AM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
So this leads us to shock 2.

You can't unify QM into GR as we want to I will leave the background to some wiki reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)

The GR an QM unifications section has a telling quote

Quote:

Many prominent physicists, including Stephen Hawking, have labored in the attempt to discover a theory underlying everything, combining not only different models of subatomic physics, but also deriving the universe's four forces —the strong force, electromagnetism, weak force, and gravity— from a single force or phenomenon. While Stephen Hawking was initially a believer in the Theory of Everything, after considering Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable, and stated such publicly in his lecture, "Gödel and the end of physics" in 2002.[37] One of the leaders in this field is Edward Witten, a theoretical physicist who formulated the groundbreaking M-theory, which is an attempt at describing the supersymmetrical based string theory.


Now you probably understand why QM researchers view of Hawking.

Finally now the argument may have been settled by the LHC as super symmetry (SUSY) is read it death rites (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3864)
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmic...he-higgs-boson/)


So where does that lead us lets pick that up on shock 3?


Edited by Orac (08/09/11 08:27 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39388 - 08/09/11 06:16 AM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Shock 3 is the big one the reason it seems you can't unify GR and QM is the same as for GR and Newtonian physics ... one is a subset of the other no unification is neccessary one completely describes the other.

And the big shock is GR appears to be a subset of QM. That pesky thing that was an annoyance at small size may be very very important.

Enter Quantum electrodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics)

And lets kick forward to the unification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unified_theory)

Now you see my problem with big bang theory or some versions like the gravity driven version.

If GR is a subset of QM and it appears to be it is ridiculous to think it wasn't around at the start of any big bang.

And as a final parting thought:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction)

Quote:

Electromagnetism is infinite-ranged like gravity, but vastly stronger, and therefore describes almost all macroscopic phenomena of everyday experience, ranging from the impenetrability of solids, friction, rainbows, lightning, and all human-made devices using electric current, such as television, lasers, and computers. Electromagnetism fundamentally determines all macroscopic, and many atomic level, properties of the chemical elements, including all chemical bonding.

In a four litre jug (approx 1 gallon) jug there are 4000g of H20 who hold a force of 4.1E26 Newtons of force

This is larger than what the planet Earth would weigh if weighed on another Earth

The nuclei in one jug also repel those in the other with the same force. However, these repulsive forces are cancelled by the attraction of the electrons in jug A with the nuclei in jug B and the attraction of the nuclei in jug A with the electrons in jug B, resulting in no net force. The conclusion is clear: Electromagnetic forces are tremendously stronger than gravity but conspire to cancel out so perfectly that for large bodies gravity can dominate.





Edited by Orac (08/09/11 07:20 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39389 - 08/09/11 08:06 AM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
So how is GR tamed by QM with the modern QM?

Well Sascha Vonhger has a magnificient teaching series to show you the basics.

This stuff is not about complicated mathematics its about simple understanding and should be able to be followed by any high school student.

First trick is to show there is no local realism this is the heart of Einstein's problem with QM and Bell's inequality
(http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/disproving_local_realism-79216)

That leads to the many worlds interpretations, SUSY and string theory which were all the rage but had basic problems
(http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/many_world_interpretation_splitting_wiener_sausage-80042)

Finally we end up at the nice situation of a toy world in which Einstein and QM can co-exist in new QM world
(http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/eins...l_realism-81490)


It's a simple toy world example but finally GR and QM can co-exist which is something Einstein, Hawkings etc could not.

Now lets extend it out to what they are really saying a real world example
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21...ace.html?page=1)

There is no way to say yet whether this particular model is correct but by now you should get the modern QM idea.


Edited by Orac (08/09/11 08:38 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39395 - 08/09/11 07:55 PM Re: Energy [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
One thing that everybody agrees on is that QM (Quantum Mechanics) and GR (General Relativity) are incompatible. They both work extremely well in their spheres, but when you try to move gracefully from the GR area (large masses) to the QM area (small masses) there are a lot of hiccups along the way. I'm not sure where you get the idea that GR is a subset of QM. Now I will fully agree that there is some other explanation out there, but both GR and QM will be subsets of whatever that explanation is. I am certainly not going to accept that QM already contains GR, based on the speculations of 1 or 2 physicists. I'm certainly not accepting, for example, that String Theory is right. And that is the speculation of a great many physicists.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39399 - 08/10/11 02:33 AM Re: Energy [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
QM and GR have to merge otherwise you have a boundary condition and why and what is causing that boundary condition?

The problem has been originally QM was considered to be only at very small distances the current records are massive by comparison to the original view of atom like scale. We have entagled 1500+ atom structures that is about the size of the insuline molecule and even made quantum resonators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_machine).

They used to have spheres they don't anymore so they have to merge because which you need to use is a bit arbitrary at the moment.

We have now spent almost 100 years trying to merge QM into GR and have been unable to do so. This was based around a backdrop that GR covered the larger area of size and so it just needed adjustment at very small scales.

On the reverse side QM which has exploded in the last 5-10 years and the small size it was supposedly restricted to grows upwards relentlessly. The laws and mathematics has also rigorously been refined and solidified.

What GR has failed to do in 100 years QM can now do trivially there are infact multiple ways to bridge GR into QM as opposed to exactly zero being the reverse because in reverse they always fail Bells Inequality and EPR. The merge does not need to change the laws of GR at all which itself is fascinating.

Like you Bill I am always skeptical and hence I don't say it is proven but given the problems with GR incorporating QM I therefore also do not except Big Bang or at least the gravity dominated view of big bang which is where this conversation started.

Whether any of these merges represent our real world is a completely different question the jury is still out on that one.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.