with due respect, Energy is the ability to accomplish work. it works, it is not only an accounting technique nor just numbers. imho. and observations. It must have had a pre-BB, creation form.
Humbled by Hubble
- Thread starter beil
- Start date
right, so where does this "stuff" idea fit into the present topic, the Hubble --velocity versus stretching of space-- question ? please.
P.S. on the other hand "stuff" is of course a form of energy. Perhaps "ability" is a bad word choice ; how about 'potential'
Last edited:
Well, you wrote this:
As far as I can tell, you seem to be asserting that:
1. Energy has to have a "carrier". This would imply that energy is something that can be "carried".
2. Energy is a "condition of matter". I'm not sure what that means, exactly.
3. Energy is eternal. I don't know what that means, either, but it sounds like you don't agree that it's a number we use to calculate things.
4. Energy exists in "Energytime". I'm not familiar with that term.
So, with that in mind, I told you that energy is not "stuff". I gave you a new idea to consider. I'm very happy to discuss this with you further, naturally.
Matter is not a form of energy, if that's what you're asserting.
And potential is not a form of matter.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This is a common mistake. E=mc² does not say matter is energy. It says mass (m = mass) is equivalent to energy.
Mass is not matter. Mass is one property of matter. And so is energy.
Both are simply properties of systems, not entities in their own right.
so let me get this right: Quarks, neutrons, Protons, electrons, atoms, elements, molecules, plants, animals, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters are not entities in their own right? not fashiond out of energy?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
That is exactly wrong. All the items you mention are entities in their own right. None of them is "fashioned out of energy."
I repeat: energy is a property of entities. It is not "stuff", out of which things can be made.
Energy is like momentum. Nobody would be so silly as to claim things can be fashioned out of momentum, would they? Well, nor can they be made of energy.
These things have energy, of various kinds. To say they are energy, or made of energy, is wrong.
well, since all of them, in some form had a beginning, and it takes energy to make them, how then do you explain their existence? too bad the Hubble data show, that this old era's light, space is drawn out too long into the red to see those details.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
The process by which particles came to be, and therefore everything else, is well documented.
Big Bang - Wikipedia
There is a limit to how far back cosmologists can go regarding the BB and this is nothing to do with the limits HST, this started with GR, Hubble's observations, Lemaitre, then Gamov in the famous alpha, beta gamma paper, then Dicke and Penzias and Wilson with the CMBR detection.
Cosmologists look at Hydrogen in galaxies, CMBR, BAO amongst other things.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Nobody knows how the cosmos and its contents initially came to be. There are no observations we can make that tell us that. The Big Bang model suggests that matter condensed out of a plasma of radiation and fundamental particles. These are things that existed which had energy as one of their properties.
Fun fact: there is a conjecture that the total energy of the universe is, and has always been, zero, the +ve energy of matter and radiation being counterbalanced by the -ve energy of gravitational potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Last edited:
I can agree with all that. Energy in whatever form or a property of whatever must have been channeled, used to make and set up the current universe.
There is energy present on both side of the scale balance. Anti matter/ matter balance is also a reccepy for energy release.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Just so long as you keep in mind nothing, is or ever was, made of energy. Physical systems or entities have energy and can give energy to, or receive it from, other physical systems or entities. Just as they can with momentum.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
They have a good idea a fraction of a second after the big bang, the predicted ratios of the elements detected from pristine Hydrogen clouds align accurately IIRC.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
They have a good idea what the initial conditions were given where we are now.
No idea what you mean by this, what does this have to do with the BB?
No idea what you mean by this either.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes but nothing about what the initial state was, since the laws of physics break down in that regime. As far as I can see they suggest a mix of radiation, quarks and gluons, but it's all just hand-waving. And nothing to say where the radiation or the particles came from of course.
But the wooly pop-sci notion of it all somehow coming from energy makes no sense, because to have energy there has to be a physical system of some kind to possess that energy. So you need the physical system right from the start.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes just pointing out the physics they have from that state where they can talk with some confidence, is orders of magnitude away from T=0 BUT that is still around 10^-32 seconds after. The first three minutes, as Weinberg suggested, falls in with observation, minus that little bit which it not known.
Agree though it was not "pure energy," it was particles and radiation, jiggling with energy.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Matter and anti matter are not balanced it is just the opposite. If it were we would have no mass in the universe.
The reason why we have such an abundance of matter is one of the big problems in physics.
beil:
Nothing can be made out of energy. Energy isn't stuff that things can be made from.
A lot of stuff came into existence with the Big Bang. Well, everything in our current universe did, actually.
Nope. Numbers aren't the kinds of things that can be "channelled", and energy is just numbers.
When matter annihilates with anti-matter, it creates photons, not energy. Energy is a property of the photons, along with other things, but photons aren't made of energy or anything like that.
Numbers ( of Joules for example) are not the realty or (" Die Wirk lichkeit" Einstein said, from "work") That what came into existence by the use of energy to power the creating,- aka work. so,
yes, by all means get your numbers through your measurements, but remember it is the reality that matters, not a number to fit into an equation, Matter "came into existence" through working energetically , even originally. at the beginning
Just because you think Energy is just numbers does not make it so. imho.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
It is difficult to know what you mean by any of this as your are using and mixing up terms that can be used in a technical and non technical way.
Energy, work, matter, power.
What do you mean by any of those words?
Last edited: