Solve Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) How to Create/Make energy ? Edited January 29, 2011 by Solve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 you can't. you can only change it from oneform to another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Create a new universe without conservation laws! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solve Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) you can't. you can only change it from oneform to another. If energy can't be created then how it came into existence ? Create a new universe without conservation laws! Please tell me what "Conservation Law" ? Edited January 29, 2011 by Solve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Can't you collide particles like two protons so that some of the particles that make it up get converted into energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Please tell me what "Conservation Law" ? Energy is associated with invariance of physics under time translations. Have a look for Noether's theorem on the web. Can't you collide particles like two protons so that some of the particles that make it up get converted into energy? Energy is really a property of things. For example matter + anti-matter -> Energy, is not really correct. The energy is carried off by photons. This is the closest thing to "pure energy" I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solve Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 Can't you collide particles like two protons so that some of the particles that make it up get converted into energy? Topic is about "How to Create energy ?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If energy can't be created then how it came into existence ? What basis do you have for assuming that it came into existence in the first place except for a philosophical assumption that things have to have origins and an absence that preceded their advent? Big bang theory postulates the beginning of space and time. That means there was no time before the big bang. That means the big bang did not come into existence in the sense that things begin in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solve Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) What basis do you have for assuming that it came into existence in the first place except for a philosophical assumption that things have to have origins and an absence that preceded their advent? Big bang theory postulates the beginning of space and time. That means there was no time before the big bang. That means the big bang did not come into existence in the sense that things begin in time. Whats ur definition of time ? According to me "Time" is just a Human "Notion". In reality There is no such phenomenon called "Time". For me "Bib Bang" is a "Big Joke". If a chef makes a fantastic Cuisine then definitely people would love to know how he made it, but instead if that Chef says "That cuisine can neither be created nor be destroyed " then people will laugh and say "Seriously buddy please tell us How u made it ? ". The only difference is "Energy" is made by a Chef called "Nature", and I wanna know how it made it. Edited February 4, 2011 by Solve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Whats ur definition of time ? According to me "Time" just Human "Notion". In reality There is no such phenomenon called "Time". For me "Bib Bang" is a "Big Joke". Imo, the big bang theory sort of undermines the concept of time as you say, but not just by calling it a "human notion." It is saying that time exists in the motions of the universe, not outside of them. I.e. without a universe there exists no time. Personally, I think that time is just a projection of the law-like-ness of physical occurrences. I.e. distinct physical occurrences occur with relative consistency, which makes them comparable to one another. E.g. the rotation of the Earth can be compared to the emptying of an hourglass because both processes involve fixed relations between objects and the forces that govern them. If forces fluctuated irregularly, time would not seem fixed but variable according to what two processes (clocks) you were comparing in what kind(s) of situation(s). If a chef makes a fantastic Cuisine then definitely people would love to know how he made it, but instead if that Chef says "That cuisine can neither be created nor be destroyed " then people will laugh and say "Seriously buddy please tell us How u made it ? ". Is that supposed to be a philosophical analogy for some kind of reasonable logic? The only difference is "Energy" is made by a Chef called "Nature", and I wanna know how it made it. Yes, but it might be a human/subjective assumption that it has a beginning that transcended a prior absence. Prior to developing a concept of object-permanence, babies simply assume that existence is sporadic and unregulated. They don't assume anything has to come from anything/anywhere else. Adults obviously recognize patterns of transitions and transformations that make it seem like origination has a universal logic, but things like "the universe," "space," "time," "matter," and "energy" are special cases because they are fundamental concepts that are supposed to explain continuity despite transformation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The only difference is "Energy" is made by a Chef called "Nature", and I wanna know how it made it. So I know just what you are talking about, can you please give an example of the energy that "Nature" made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 If energy can't be created then how it came into existence ? How do you know the universe's net energy is greater than zero? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 How to Create/Make energy ? Easy, just find a way to break the First Law of Thermodynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamsterPower Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) i know rite? What i think is that before bigbang happened, there was potential energy then when it blast opened with huge amount energy, part of it is still used for expanding the universe and rest changed to mechanical energy where different stars and planet collide and explode and that energy is sent somewhere else and so on and so forth I believe in creation so,,, i don't wish to argue but i think god created the potential energy and the rest, boom the science explains Edited February 4, 2011 by HamsterPower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 i know rite? What i think is that before bigbang happened, there was potential energy Can potential energy exist in the absence of space and time (i.e. motion and energy)? I can see how it would, if all force-fields were unified in a single powerful field that didn't move in relation to itself or anything else. But, if so, what would cause it to begin moving and/or fragmenting? Do you literally think there was a (conscious) being, God, that produced the force and set it into motion? If so, what did God make the force out of? How did God set it into motion and division? Interesting, maybe theology will provide a deus ex machina for big bang theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonstar57 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) i know rite? What i think is that before bigbang happened, you assume that there was a before. you have no excuse to have worse grammar than me "rite"...? Edited February 5, 2011 by dragonstar57 -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 you have no excuse to have worse grammar than me "rite"...? Even if he had said, "I know, right?" would that be good grammar? Is it logical to agree with someone and then ask if you're right? You would either say, "I know," or "right." "I know, right?" questions your own statement of agreement. Is it because you're not sure that you really understand what you agreed with so you're checking? If so, how are they supposed to know that you don't really know what they meant when you said you did? I guess the fact that you added the question, "right?" after "I know" suggests that you didn't really know, in which case they could answer with, "no, you don't know because you had to ask." Then they could add, "right?" to that statement because they wouldn't know whether you really understood and agreed and then just put "right?" afterword to sound diplomatic. After all, you might have thought that if you just arrogantly said, "I know," they would argue that you didn't really know just because they didn't like that you would be so arrogant to assume you know without asking. So maybe it is really wise to ask, "right?" after stating, "I know." That way you can agree without sounding too assertive, which could be bad. I overanalyzed this . . . I know, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 ! Moderator Note Grammar/spelling quibbles (short of text-speak and ALLCAPS issues) really have no place in the discussion; English is not everyone's first language. So please stick to the topic. I believe in creation so,,, i don't wish to argue but i think god created the potential energyand the rest, boomthe science explains Can potential energy exist in the absence of space and time (i.e. motion and energy)? I can see how it would, if all force-fields were unified in a single powerful field that didn't move in relation to itself or anything else. But, if so, what would cause it to begin moving and/or fragmenting? Do you literally think there was a (conscious) being, God, that produced the force and set it into motion? If so, what did God make the force out of? How did God set it into motion and division? Interesting, maybe theology will provide a deus ex machina for big bang theory. ! Moderator Note Responses should be appropriate to the topic. This is (at the moment) in physics. Discussions should be limited to accepted physics topics. "Alternative" science explanations should be discussed in Speculations, and Religion should be discussed in the Religion forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 How do you know the universe's net energy is greater than zero? In order to get zero net energy, you need cancelation of positive energy with negative. Where is negative energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rktpro Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 In science we ask for visual explanation of everything. But we term all those stuff we can't explain as Nature! As far as creating energy is concerned, you can only convert it from one form to another. And time do exist. You can't break the theory of relativity by just posting a thread. Space and time are inter-related. So do mass and energy! Can you create mass? No, you can't create something from nothing. So, you can;t create energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 No, you can't create something from nothing. So, you can;t create energy. And is there any physical reason to assume that the universe was preceded by its absence? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 And is there any physical reason to assume that the universe was preceded by its absence? I think it must be possible to show that the absence of anything is a physically impossible situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 In order to get zero net energy, you need cancelation of positive energy with negative. Where is negative energy? Depends on how you keep the books. Gravitational potential energy is negative. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I think it must be possible to show that the absence of anything is a physically impossible situation. I agree that absence is only possible conceptually in that it requires a concept of what is not present. Empirically/physically, what is present is present and that's it. However, in the case of big bang theory, there is a pretty strong basis for assuming that there was a physical state of the universe in which spacetime dimensionality was not yet applicable to the existence of force and energy, right? Or was dimensionality always present, even within the most condensed primordial material? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rktpro Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 And is there any physical reason to assume that the universe was preceded by its absence? Do you think it was a big ball of energy and from this energy was changed into mass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now