Humbled by Hubble

[Pinball1970]

That what came into existence by the use of energy to power the creating,- aka work. so

No, as has been pointed out now several times by exchemist and James R "Energy is the ability to do work."

What is work?

I'll use the wiki definition so I don't mess it up.

"the amount of energy transferred to or from an object when a force moves it over a distance."

Then you need to think about Forces.

I think you need to go back to the beginning.

 

[beil]

No, as has been pointed out now several times by exchemist and James R "Energy is the ability to do work."

What is work?

I'll use the wiki definition so I don't mess it up.

"the amount of energy transferred to or from an object when a force moves it over a distance."

Then you need to think about Forces.

I think you need to go back to the beginning.

Yes, in the beginning, to start with, you have to work at making the objects that move -and thus show up in the Hubble data-. discussed here. and
since energy can not be created, that "ability to do work" must have always existed. so
the question here is, was energy, the ability to do work, used to stretch space or accelerate the matter created?

 

[Pinball1970]

Yes, in the beginning, to start with, you have to work at making the objects that move -and thus show up in the Hubble data-. discussed here. and
since energy can not be created, that "ability to do work" must have always existed. so
the question here is, was energy, the ability to do work, used to stretch space or accelerate the matter created?

That's not what I meant. You are asking questions about the BB, this is involved physics. You have to know the basics first.
What energy is, types of energy, pressure, work, forces, what heat is.

 

[James R]

beil:

Numbers ( of Joules for example) are not the realty ...

I don't know what you're trying to say. If you're agreeing with me that energy is not "stuff", then you can just say that and we can move on.

That what came into existence by the use of energy to power the creating,- aka work.

Numbers can't power creating. Since energy is a number, it can't create anything and it can't empower creating anything.

yes, by all means get your numbers through your measurements ...

Just so you know: energy can't be measured directly, either. It can, in many circumstances, be calculated from quantities that can actually be measured. Like I said, it's part of an accounting system, essentially.

... but remember it is the reality that matters...

Okay. But do you agree with me that energy isn't stuff that can create other stuff? And that you can't put energy in a bottle, and that kind of thing, or not?

If you agree, then we can move on. If you disagree, then maybe you ought to explain what you think energy is, and what gave you that particular conceptualisation.

Matter "came into existence" through working energetically , even originally. at the beginning

Not as far as I am aware.

Are you using the standard physical definition of "working", or your own definition? Do you know the definition of "work" that is used by physicists?

Just because you think Energy is just numbers does not make it so. imho.

I agree. That fact that energy is just number is the reason that I think it is just a number. See, the causation goes the opposite way to way you suggested. I try to use how the world is to determine what I think about it. I don't assume that what I think determines how the world is. Get it?

What do you think energy is, exactly? Do you think we can capture it? Do you think we can see it? Do you think we can measure it directly? Can we use it to make things out of nothing now, or do you think that only happened "in the beginning"?

Explain.

Yes, in the beginning, to start with, you have to work at making the objects that move...

Who is "you", in this scenario? Who, or what, did the "work"?

since energy can not be created, that "ability to do work" must have always existed.

You're thinking of an isolated system. The total energy of an isolated system is a constant number. So, we figuratively say that in such a system energy can't be created or destroyed.

If you're thinking about creating an isolated universe out of something else, though, all bets are off. Maybe energy can be created in that case. Or maybe the universe is just a small (!) part of a larger system, such that energy was transferred to it from elsewhere. That's assuming, of course, that the same laws of physics apply outside the universe as apply inside it, which we don't know.

On the other hand, it's worth considering that the total energy of our universe could plausibly be zero. If that's the case, then there's no need to have a pre-existing non-zero energy. There was zero energy at the start, and there's zero energy now, once you add up the energies of everything in the universe, so no problem! Nothing to see here.

Caveat: in these kinds of discussions, it is very important that we clearly define the system that we're measuring the energy of, and that we clearly define just how we're going about calculating the total energy, since that calculation necessarily has some degrees of freedom. In fact, there's no practical difference between saying the total energy of the universe is constantly zero and saying that it is constantly -156,798 Joules, say. The only physically-important point is that it's constant (as far as we can tell).

the question here is, was energy, the ability to do work, used to stretch space or accelerate the matter created?

As I understand it, it is very difficult to define things like gravitational potential energy consistently in a general relativistic picture of spacetime. Hence, it can be difficult to track exactly what energy transfers are happening where.

Perhaps you know how to explain what is doing work to cause the accelerating expansion of the universe? I don't. If you know, perhaps you can explain it to me, and give me a few references to relevant peer-reviewed papers that I can read to find out more about it.

Thanks, beil!

 

[beil]

Okay. But do you agree with me that energy isn't stuff that can create other stuff? And that you can't put energy in a bottle, and that kind of thing, or not?

Energy is not stuff aka matter. Of course it matters, because our parents 'made' us. The Energy thermos has not been invented yet, but,
Energy can be stored, The cars in your other illustration are powered by stored solar energy, either the organic compounds in gasoline (petrol) from oil with its natural origin. or,
If they are Teslas, driven by juice coming form electricity perhaps generated with water from reservoirs filled by solar-lifted precipitation. so
3 cheers for solar Energy stored in organic compounds. Even the literally bottled variety, whiskey, beer, wine.

 

[James R]

Energy can be stored, The cars in your other illustration are powered by stored solar energy, either the organic compounds in gasoline (petrol) from oil with its natural origin. .... Energy stored in organic compounds.

A car that runs on petrol (gas) is not powered by a magical substance called "energy". It is powered by little explosions created when the petrol is lit up in an enclosed space. It is powered by chemical reactions involving actual "stuff" - in this case those hydrocarbon and oxygen molecules combining to push the pistons in the engine.

Energy is just a number we can use to keep track of how much work a given volume of petrol could do in the car. So, for example, we could work out how far we might expect to be able to drive on a full tank of fuel.

To emphasise: the fuel doesn't contain a magical substance called "energy" that is somehow converted magically into motion of the car. You can't extract the energy from the fuel and look at just the energy "substance", because there's no substance that can be looked at other than those hydrocarbon molecules in the fuel. The energy is an abstraction.

 

[beil]

1)A car that runs on petrol (gas) is not powered by a magical substance called "energy". It is powered by little explosions created when the petrol is lit up in an enclosed space. It is powered by chemical reactions involving actual "stuff" - in this case those hydrocarbon and oxygen molecules combining to push the pistons in the engine.

Energy is just a number we can use to keep track of how much work a given volume of petrol could do in the car. So, for example, we could work out how far we might expect to be able to drive on a full tank of fuel.

To emphasise: the fuel doesn't contain a magical substance called "energy" that is somehow converted magically into motion of the car. You can't extract the energy from the fuel and look at just the energy "substance", because there's no substance that can be looked at other than those hydrocarbon molecules in the fuel. The energy is an abstraction.

1) The burning of fuel releases the solar energy (for want of a better word) that through photosynthesis broke apart a chemical bond,-- that the burning recombines. (spare us the details) No magical substance was exchanged, and
2) I mentioned the potential energy of dammed high water that drove the turbines to power the electric car, or could have carved the valley some more.
No magical substance in that reservoir either, but packing a wallop when released. Energy is not just an abstraction.
It might turn out to be be the ultimate reality we face. As I approach my 97th year, I feel it waning. Without Energy, the Universe would not exist.
It might give you comfort to imagine that it is just a number in our measurements, equations, that we can control, manipulate. and you said,

" kinetic energy is dependent on the observer"???. ( Schroedinger's cat on a cosmic scale?

 

[exchemist]

1) The burning of fuel releases the solar energy (for want of a better word) that through photosynthesis broke apart a chemical bond,-- that the burning recombines. (spare us the details) No magical substance was exchanged, and
2) I mentioned the potential energy of dammed high water that drove the turbines to power the electric car, or could have carved the valley some more.
No magical substance in that reservoir either, but packing a wallop when released. Energy is not just an abstraction.
It might turn out to be be the ultimate reality we face. As I approach my 97th year, I feel it waning. Without Energy, the Universe would not exist.
It might give you comfort to imagine that it is just a number in our measurements, equations, that we can control, manipulate. and you said,

" kinetic energy is dependent on the observer"???. ( Schroedinger's cat on a cosmic scale?

Of course it must be. Velocity is relative to a frame of reference, so it follows that kinetic energy has to be as well.

 

[beil]

Of course it must be. Velocity is relative to a frame of reference, so it follows that kinetic energy has to be as well.

what I meant is that energy exist as a cosmic reality, it is there whether we observe it or not. Different entities have different energy levels, (in kinetics, including direction) and if out of control can cause consequences.
Vivre la difference!

 

[Pinball1970]

what I meant is that energy exist as a cosmic reality, it is there whether we observe it or not. Different entities have different energy levels, (in kinetics, including direction) and if out of control can cause consequences.
Vivre la difference!

That started out as ambiguous, progressed to flaky then wrong then advanced down hill.

 

[TheVat]

Vivre la difference!

That's the infinitive form of the verb. The popular phrase uses "vive" which is the present subjunctive. I am only here to ensure that you are not chased by mobs of angry Frenchmen if you should ever find yourself in their nation and feel like speaking that phrase. I was nearly butchered by a French cheese merchant (with a cheese knife, of course) when I asked about "la fromage." "LE FROMAGE!" he screamed, and drove the cheese knife about three inches into his counter. I was chased for several blocks before being apprehended by a gendarme who slapped me into protective custody once he understood the issue.

 

[beil]

That's the infinitive form of the verb. The popular phrase uses "vive" which is the present subjunctive. I am only here to ensure that you are not chased by mobs of angry Frenchmen if you should ever find yourself in their nation and feel like speaking that phrase. I was nearly butchered by a French cheese merchant (with a cheese knife, of course) when I asked about "la fromage." "LE FROMAGE!" he screamed, and drove the cheese knife about three inches into his counter. I was chased for several blocks before being apprehended by a gendarme who slapped me into protective custody once he understood the issue.

I am using De Gaull's version , , who said :" -Vivre le Quebec libre! -" So, my French ,(fluent), is fast and loose, just like my Physics. In my experience, most French people are very approving of foreigners attempting to learn the lingo, prefer that over the arrogant that speak with a 'Parisian' accent.
So, this thread has gone from " L'ancienne, Lumiere rouge ralonge' " to quivveling over verbs ?
Speaking of genders, the French do it differently, even in the cosmos, their sun is masculine, the Moon -- a lady.

 

[TheVat]

Twas just a joke. The French are helpful when one learns their tongue, but they do stress the importance of proper conjugation. (Heh heh)

 

[exchemist]

what I meant is that energy exist as a cosmic reality, it is there whether we observe it or not. Different entities have different energy levels, (in kinetics, including direction) and if out of control can cause consequences.
Vivre la difference!

The colour blue also exists as a "cosmic reality".

Energy is a cosmic reality only in the same sense as momentum is, or the colour blue. It is just a property of a system. It is the system that has to exist, before one can assign a momentum and an energy to it, or determine its colour. Neither energy nor momentum - nor the colour blue - has any kind of independent existence.

 

[beil]

The colour blue also exists as a "cosmic reality".

Energy is a cosmic reality only in the same sense as momentum is, or the colour blue. It is just a property of a system. It is the system that has to exist, before one can assign a momentum and an energy to it, or determine its colour. Neither energy nor momentum - nor the colour blue - has any kind of independent existence.

Well yes, if energy is uncreated, and it needs a "system" to exist in, there must have absolutely been a pre-Big Bang sytem. take your pick.
There was a humorous moment in the Alma thread, when I pointed out that the sketch of the expanding universe was drawn on lined paper, agreeing with that proposition.

 

[beil]

The rate of expansion of the universe appears to be speeding up over time. It's important to distinguish between the velocities of objects in space from the velocities due to the expansion of space. bold added.

and has, as a 3rd reddening factor, the scattering from the -direct line of sight- of the shorter wavelength light, by all that intervening matter during the 3.8 billion travel through all that dust/gas journey been considered? ? Scattering , as happens in our beautiful sun downs? blue sky?
After all the 'soup' once was so thick no light came out, or travelled within.

 

[exchemist]

and has, as a 3rd reddening factor, the scattering from the -direct line of sight- of the shorter wavelength light, by all that intervening matter during the 3.8 billion through all that dust journey been considered? ? As happens in our beautiful sun downs? blue sky?
After all the 'soup' once was so thick no light came out, or travelled within.

Nope. Any light scattering mechanism would cause the appearance of distant objects to be blurred. This is not observed.

See the long-discredited "Tired Light Hypothesis".

 

[beil]

blurred

good point because the sun when setting on the ocean, from our 3d floor window, is also "blurred", taking on funny shapes even . red and blurred. Even just a last green flash once in a while. Lessons here?

 

[James R]

beil:

1) The burning of fuel releases the solar energy (for want of a better word) that through photosynthesis broke apart a chemical bond,-- that the burning recombines. (spare us the details)

That "solar energy" you mention is just another number. The number assigned to the sun decreases as it radiates light, and then you assign part of the decrease in that number to increasing another number which you associate with breaking a chemical bond in a chlorophyl molecule, or whatever. But no energy "substance" moved from the Sun to the photosynthesising plant. You just moved the number in your calculation from one column in a ledger to a different column, so to speak.

2) I mentioned the potential energy of dammed high water that drove the turbines to power the electric car, or could have carved the valley some more.
No magical substance in that reservoir either, but packing a wallop when released. Energy is not just an abstraction.

Interestingly, the potential energy of a mass, m, lifted to height h near the surface of the Earth is given by the formula U=mgh, where g is the acceleration due to gravity.

So, that water in your reservoir has a lot of potential energy due to a combination of its mass and its height.

But wait a minute!

Where is h=0, exactly?

Aren't we free to set h=0 anywhere we like? I think we can. So, if we set h=0 at the water level in the reservoir behind the dam, how much potential energy does all that water have now? Answer: Zero.

Where did the energy go?

Without Energy, the Universe would not exist.

I think it was doing just fine before somebody came along and invented the idea of energy. And that only happened very recently, in the grand scheme of things.

It might give you comfort to imagine that it is just a number in our measurements, equations, that we can control, manipulate. and you said,

" kinetic energy is dependent on the observer"???. ( Schroedinger's cat on a cosmic scale?

I noticed that you failed completely to engage with my question to you about the formula K=(1/2)mv^2. Since v is relative, I said, that makes K relative, too. I even gave you an example involving cars driving along a road.

It seems to me that you have no rebuttal of the point I made.

Do you concede that I am correct about energy just being a number, then? Please let me know.

If you have an actual counter-argument that you believe refutes something I've put to you, by all means please post it. So far, there's been only silence and attempts to change the topic from you.

Can you do better? Can you engage honestly in the discussion, without trying to change the subject or avoiding addressing points that you find inconvenient for your position? Or is that too hard for you?

what I meant is that energy exist as a cosmic reality, it is there whether we observe it or not.

Have you got a bottle of energy stashed away somewhere that you can open and show me the energy?

and has, as a 3rd reddening factor, the scattering from the -direct line of sight- of the shorter wavelength light, by all that intervening matter during the 3.8 billion travel through all that dust/gas journey been considered? ? Scattering , as happens in our beautiful sun downs? blue sky?

Of course. That's one of the first things astronomers considered. It's completely accounted for.

After all the 'soup' once was so thick no light came out, or travelled within.

That was certainly true for the first 380,000 years or so after the big bang, when the universe was a lot more dense than it is these days. But the universe has expanded a lot since those days.

 

[beil]

beil:

That "solar energy" you mention is just another number. The number assigned to the sun decreases as it radiates light, and then you assign part of the decrease in that number to increasing another number which you associate with breaking a chemical bond in a chlorophyl molecule, or whatever. But no energy "substance" moved from the Sun to the photosynthesising plant. You just moved the number in your calculation from one column in a ledger to a different column, so to speak.

Interestingly, the potential energy of a mass, m, lifted to height h near the surface of the Earth is given by the formula U=mgh, where g is the acceleration due to gravity.

So, that water in your reservoir has a lot of potential energy due to a combination of its mass and its height.

But wait a minute!

Where is h=0, exactly?

Aren't we free to set h=0 anywhere we like? I think we can. So, if we set h=0 at the water level in the reservoir behind the dam, how much potential energy does all that water have now? Answer: Zero.

Where did the energy go?

I think it was doing just fine before somebody came along and invented the idea of energy. And that only happened very recently, in the grand scheme of things.

I noticed that you failed completely to engage with my question to you about the formula K=(1/2)mv^2. Since v is relative, I said, that makes K relative, too. I even gave you an example involving cars driving along a road.

It seems to me that you have no rebuttal of the point I made.

Do you concede that I am correct about energy just being a number, then? Please let me know.

If you have an actual counter-argument that you believe refutes something I've put to you, by all means please post it. So far, there's been only silence and attempts to change the topic from you.

Can you do better? Can you engage honestly in the discussion, without trying to change the subject or avoiding addressing points that you find inconvenient for your position? Or is that too hard for you?


Have you got a bottle of energy stashed away somewhere that you can open and show me the energy?

Of course. That's one of the first things astronomers considered. It's completely accounted for.

That was certainly true for the first 380,000 years or so after the big bang, when the universe was a lot more dense than it is these days. But the universe has expanded a lot since those days.

well perhaps there are no errors in your accounting exercises, so I concede, that Your numbers are valid for that effort , praise you for that, but clearly
the universe the cosmos, it's matter, dynamics was not formed, created but only described by a number in our equations on our puny but
for us- grandiose planet home.-- imho
PS: You can fiddle around with any of these numbers and the universe will just keep humming along, just. fine