Energy into matter becomes...?

[Baby Astronaut]

Would it be accurate to say the entire universe -- minus the known forces -- is all energy?

[proton]

Would it be accurate to say the entire universe -- minus the known forces -- is all energy?

No. That would be like saying "This apple is energy." The apple is not energy. It merely has energy.

 

Why the comment about minus the known forces? Forces give rise to potential energy.

[Baby Astronaut]

No. That would be like saying "This apple is energy." The apple is not energy. It merely has energy.

You're correct, thanks.

 

rephrase: Would this be more accurate: every single thing in the universe -- minus the known forces -- has energy?

 

Why the comment about minus the known forces? Forces give rise to potential energy.

Is giving rise the same as having?

[insane_alien]

no, cause != possesion.

[Baby Astronaut]

no, cause != possesion.

 

Ok then, minus the forces.

[proton]

Ok then, minus the forces.

It should be noted here that at present, energy can't be properly defined when gravity is present. It should also be noted that there is positive energy from things like rest energy and negative energy from the negative gravitational potential energy. It's possible that the total energy could be zero.

 

Paul Davies expresses this as follows. From God & the New Physics, page 31 (Don't let the title of this book fool you. The author is what I'd refer to as an authority in the field of astrophysics. His homepage is http://cosmos.asu.edu/)

There is still a more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational fields or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up mass of the newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity and electromagnetism.

...

Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy.

...

Matters are further complicated by the fact that energy is not even properly defined when gravity is present.

[iNow]

Paul Davies expresses this as follows. From God & the New Physics, page 31 (Don't let the title of this book fool you. The author is what I'd refer to as an authority in the field of astrophysics.

 

Yeah, except that, as a scientist, especially a proclaimed "authority," Paul Davies should know without a shadow of a doubt that "God" plays no role in science. The god concept has about as much to do with science as does the tooth fairy. Davies, being an advocate of creationism, loses a great deal of credibility.

 

 

 

My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

-- J.B.S. Haldane

"Fact and Faith" (1934)

[Severian]

I do agree with everything Haldane said, except for the last sentence, which is pretty stupid. I am sure he also assumed that Joan of Arc didn't interfere with his experiments, but didn't then feel the need (for the sake of intellectual honesty) to claim that she never existed.

[iNow]

I am sure he also assumed that Joan of Arc didn't interfere with his experiments, but didn't then feel the need (for the sake of intellectual honesty) to claim that she never existed.

 

That would be rather silly, since evidence of her existence is readily available. In short, you've presented a false comparison, my good man.