Energy, from where?

Guest

Where did all the energy in the universe come from?

please, no-one say "god"

Stark

please, no-one say "god"

I wouldn't dream of it.

God is spelt with a capital "G". It's as good an explanation as you're going to get for the foreseeable future. At the moment we can only trace back as far as the Big Bang.

nesf

Stark wrote:

God is spelt with a capital "G". It's as good an explanation as you're going to get for the foreseeable future. At the moment we can only trace back as far as the Big Bang.

You're assuming the Big Bang happened, bad boy! Atm it's only a rough educated guess at best


All the energy in the universe. Hmmm. How do you mean? It's a fairly broad question. Are you assuming that the universe had a beginning?

Guest

the question i'm asking is how did energy come to be in the first place in spite of conservation laws precluding any creation of energy.

the_syco

Some random god. Think about it. If some god didn't, where else did it come from? Everything starts somewhere.

Son Goku

p&#959 wrote: »

the question i'm asking is how did energy come to be in the first place in spite of conservation laws precluding any creation of energy.

The problem is defining energy in a universal manner.
How would we define the sum total of all energy in the universe.

In General Relativity energy is a very ambigous concept.

Crucifix

It's always existed in some form maybe?

dudara

Check out something called the Casimir Effect. Essentially, even in vacuum, at absolute zero, energy exists (Zero-point energy).

If before the big bang, there was nothing, surely by the Casimir Effect, there would still have been energy.

You've got to love these physical philosophical ramblings. I propose one next on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM

nesf

dudara wrote:

You've got to love these physical philosophical ramblings. I propose one next on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM

Yup

I enjoy discussing the "grey" areas. Usually quite interesting, although sometimes very tedious if people decide to not be open minded.



The Cashmere effect is interesting alright although I think the problem here is more about people's misconception of what energy is than it is about spontaneaous energy creation.

As Son Goku hinted at: Energy is not merely equal to the work done. That's the "answer for children". Classical thermodynamics does not apply well when one is looking at things from a very large (like here) or very small scale.

Sapien

the_syco wrote:

Some random god. Think about it. If some god didn't, where else did it come from? Everything starts somewhere.

Then where did your random god come from?

nesf

Ahem. Polmiki was trolling, this could still turn into an interesting thread though so I decided to leave it open.


However, and this is not being applied retroactively. Leave God/gods/llamas out of this please. Otherwise I'll have to get out the banning stick


(This is more to pre-empt any "creationist-esque" arguments being started here. I personally like my physics religion free.)

Altheus

I don't think we can really contemplate where it came from until we can even understand it's nature currently, and permutations it may take, or may have taken in the past.

zonemelt

the_syco wrote:

Some random god. Think about it. If some god didn't, where else did it come from? Everything starts somewhere.

This concept is logical to us because our perception of time is linear and inflexible, however it is only our perception. If you consider this problem from a broader perspective then many other ideas become equally or more plausible.

causal

dudara wrote:

Check out something called the Casimir Effect. Essentially, even in vacuum, at absolute zero, energy exists (Zero-point energy).

If before the big bang, there was nothing, surely by the Casimir Effect, there would still have been energy.

But then wouldn't the big bang have required two giant mirrors facing each other?

As I understand the article - The Casimir Effect is based on partial vacuums i.e. there is actually matter in there - the mirrors, atoms etc.

But if there was 'nothing' / an ideal vacuum / a null, then the Casimir Effect wouldn't apply.

causal

causal

polmk&#1110 wrote:

Where did all the energy in the universe come from?

On a philosophical level:
Energy doesn't exist other than as a 'concept' in the human brain.
To wit, the energy came from the human brain

On a physical level:
The last I checked the Law of Conservation of Energy was busted by E=mc^2
As I see it - matter and energy are mutually inclusive/interchangeable - you can't have one without the other.
To wit, the energy comes with the matter, and the matter comes with the energy.
But if that is the case then all it's done is require the question to be rephrased as 'Where did all the mattergy* come from?'

This gives rise to another question: "Did mattergy always exist - or did it come into existence at some point?"**
If mattergy came into existence at some point then - previous to that there was originally a null.
- the problem with this is how did mattergy arise from null?
otoh If mattergy always existed then - there was no beginning.
- the problem with this is it seems counterintuitive (but that doesn't mean it's wrong).

I'll leave it at that for the mo' as I'm sure it's enough for some/everybody to disagree with me some/everywhere

causal

*mattergy= matter&energy
**oscillatory universe peeps will probably say Yes and Yes

_Dubh_

According to modern physics, matter and energy are interchangeable
however, technology to manipulate or even demonstrate this doesn't exist (as far as I know and I'm talking transporters ala star- trek however I do recall reading about some guys that did actually transport something using lasers) but this is moving away from the question. To complement causal's post, the question does arise: Is matter a consequence of energy or vice-versa? Probably.

The problem with the initial question: "Where did all the energy come from?"
is well, you might aswell be asking where did the universe,us,them, matter,energy,everything come from...

Dunno!

Son Goku

_Dubh_ wrote:

According to modern physics, matter and energy are interchangeable
however, technology to manipulate or even demonstrate this doesn't exist

The technology exists in Nuclear Reactors, although the conversion factor isn't near 100%.

To complement causal's post, the question does arise: Is matter a consequence of energy or vice-versa? Probably.

Matter and Energy aren't consequences of eachother, they are the same thing, the only difference is the density.
Expanding on this mass-energy is only the temporal component of momenergy.
An even further unified concept.

nesf

I found it much easier to just forget about the common concepts of mass and energy and create a new one that could represent itself as either but wasn't limited to being either one solely.

It's a problem with scientific terms when they enter common usage. It's hard to get the public to rethink them.

nobodythere

And where did the energy to create this God come from? Endless cycle...

The truth is nobody has any idea. The energy is just here and eventually you'll give up trying to figure out the unfigurable questions and get on with things:)

It's interesting if you consider everything as being a form of energy, including mass. And that we are just one giant ball of energy moving at different frequencies... Everything you see, touch, hear and feel is not necessarily an illusion as such, but just an easy perception for our consciousness to determine.

You also have to wonder about the Law of Conservation of Energy when it comes down to consciousness. Where does our consciousness exist? Where is this big viewscreen that we can see the world through? We don't really SEE through our eyes, they really just give us information about the external world. Where do we perceive it? Where is the cathode ray tube in our TV (so to speak)?

nobodythere

_Dubh_ wrote:

According to modern physics, matter and energy are interchangeable
however, technology to manipulate or even demonstrate this doesn't exist

Radioactive isotopes?

causal

grasshopa wrote:

The truth is nobody has any idea. The energy is just here and eventually you'll give up trying to figure out the unfigurable questions and get on with things:)

If we were all to think like that then humans would still be in caves being sh1t upon by bats :eek:

causal

_Dubh_

Okay, agreed on the radioisotopes....

I should have been more clear. I was talking about fission and fusion which is also naturally occurring alright under certain circumstances but needs a bit of a push in our reactors for us to urge on the reaction.

What I'm talking about is an economical technology that can easily demonstrate and manipulate these reactions to whatever means necessary.
Backyard reactors...household stuff.

I like the point nesf made that we do have to re-think our ideas on the two...mass and energy...

I kinda think the psychology behindd it is kinda like the particle/wave duality of light ..... head-bending stuff

Gurgle

polmk&#1110 wrote:

Where did all the energy in the universe come from?

Energy is a form of matter.

Current big bang theory doesn't relate to the creation of the universe, its just part of the expansion-contraction cycle. When the universe contracts enough to form a critical mass of compressed matter, the whole thing explodes again -> Big bang every several billion years.

As far as we can tell we're expanding at the moment.

Within this cycle vast amounts of matter (as in mass) get converted to energy and back.

Nobody has the slightest clue how the cycle got started, or where the matter/energy came from.
Theres no evidence left that we can detect (yet).

That doesn't stop many people from trying to explain it anyway.

SparkyLarks

your taking about a beginning. where did the energy come from.
so are you talking about the beginning of the universe?? but what about 1 second earlier?? what was ther then

My own theory is something like this. If you travel far enough in a single direction you will return to you origional starting point( in convention 3 dimensional space) but at a different point in the 4th dimension.

Similarly if you could travel in time and you traveld long enough you would return to the same point in space and time but in a different point in the 5th dimension.( parallel owld maybe but who knows)

Everything becomes a series of endless loops. and if we could percieve more dimesnions we would be able to see more.

Ther is no begining or end of timer or space. There ore like mobius strips.

Doesn't answer how anything ourselves included got here though

Gurgle

SparkyLarks wrote:

My own theory is something like this. If you travel far enough in a single direction you will return to you origional starting point.

Does your theory have any basis or parallel in physics ?

SparkyLarks

Gurgle wrote:

Does your theory have any basis or parallel in physics ?

Don't know. I did a little relativity in college so that would have influenced my theory, but as for any more than that it ust a theory.

I just came up with it to stop my head hurting when I though about how can the universe have an end if you travel far enough, but if it does end what is next.

similarly
If I was to go back in time to the beginning of time, why can't I go 1 second further back. If there's a beginning there must be an end.

the only infinite thing I can think of is travelling alon a really big sphere. It looks flat but if you keep travelling you come back to the same spot.

my point was , which I forgot to make, before we say where did the energy come from at the beginning we must ask was there a beginning.

p.s. if my idea does have any parallels in physics ans some on boards gets a nobel prize out of it, I'll settle for a mention in the accepetan e speach( and a any unit of measurement named after me)

Son Goku

When talking about the Big Bang you shouldn't think too much about the terms beginning or cause.

Where did the energy come from?

All that can be said is that 10^-12 seconds after the Big Bang the stuff our theories discuss, such as energy (or rather its generalisation) existed.

Before this the forces (aside from gravity) and energy can't really be understood because of the appearance of the electronuclear force, a force which we don't have a consistent theory of, yet.

Gravity can be followed back to 10^-37s however since mass-energy was different back then it is hard to say exactly how gravity operated, due to uncertainties in the mass generating it.

Before 10^-37s gravity becomes quantum gravity and around 10^-43s quantum gravity merges with the electronuclear force.
And then the words "previous" and "before" loses all meaning, or they might have lost meaning around 10^-37.

oneofakind32

Where do I begin?...
Sparky Larks I think your theory makes sence. Time and space can have no begining and end.

I think people presume there was energy before mass because they saw all the mass around them. They though how did it all get hear? Because energy is not so vissabil in everyday life we dont realise that it is all around us perhaps evenmore abundent then matter.

If u think about it how can nul exist anywhere? If u suck the air out of a carton do the walls not compress? IMO the same must apply with energy/matter anywhere in the universe. There must be energy/matter every where. If u take the energy out more will rush into the viod. ''sting theory'' claims that energy exists on different levels, that humans cant see. So even if you think you have an absolute vacume there is always somthing there.

Another thing is a subject called TheoPhysics. This claims that religion and physics are basically trying to answer the same questions. The main one being ''where did we come from?'' If a sourse of energy created the big bang then many theophysicists believe this energy to be a higher power.

causal

oneofakind32 wrote:

If u think about it how can nul exist anywhere? If u suck the air out of a carton do the walls not compress?

Yes they would, but I think the analogy is inaccurate. Because, a null is nothingness - there is nothing 'to get sucked in'.
The idea of 'creating a vacuum' presupposes the existence of matter/energy - in a null this is not the case.
So to use your carton analogy - there is no air to suck out - there is no carton - there is nothing.

IMO the same must apply with energy/matter anywhere in the universe. There must be energy/matter every where. If u take the energy out more will rush into the viod.

To apply what I said above - if there is a null, then - there is no matter - there is no energy - there is nothing.

Another thing is a subject called TheoPhysics. This claims that religion and physics are basically trying to answer the same questions. The main one being ''where did we come from?'' If a sourse of energy created the big bang then many theophysicists believe this energy to be a higher power.

I'll preface this by saying that imho theology is a branch of human psychology, nothing more.

Scientific research has two symbiotic elements: Experimental and Theoretical.
Basically it works like this: the theoretical element put forward a theory - this must then be either proven, disproven or remain unproven by experimental observation. It can work the other way around: an experimentalist observes and records data on some phenomenon - theorists then try to explain the observations with a model that fits the data.
This system is not perfect - nothing is for certain - just because theory and observation agree does not mean they are correct and vice-versa. We must always keep an open mind - and reading published works you will notice the very careful wording to avoid stating something as absolute fact.

However, religion (or my understanding of it from exposure to certain types) is concerned with dogma and faith; which are completely and utterly different from theory and proof. Theory is replaced by dogma, and proof is replaced by faith. Thoroughly unscientific, totally different.

So to say religion and science are trying to answer the same questions is imho inaccurate:
- physics trys to understand how things work - putting forward theories supported by observation and vice-versa.
- religion simply dictates dogma and demands acceptance through faith.

causal

SparkyLarks

causal wrote:

So to say religion and science are trying to answer the same questions is imho inaccurate:
- physics trys to understand how things work - putting forward theories supported by observation and vice-versa.
- religion simply dictates dogma and demands acceptance through faith.

causal

But you r taking religion to be an established religion. I believe that the religion that oneofakind32 was talking about was a more general sence of religion.

Just because we can't prove tha God exists doesn't mean he isn't there. we just don;t know how to measure him or his effects. If a multidimensional being exists then we will not be able to perviece it. only the reuslts of it's action on our dimensions. Christianity ties into this by the Meterton, a being which speaks for God because humans can't.

Remember People belive God exists because because they were told that by people they trust. Similarly I belive that time slows down; when I travel at close to light speeds. I've done the calculatins. That said I've never seen it happen. Am I not taking it on faith?

But we digress massively. If we going to continue thi discussion should we start a new thread??

nesf

SparkyLarks wrote:

But we digress massively. If we going to continue thi discussion should we start a new thread??

Darn tooting

Cheers for keeping the religious discussion civil guys, but I don't feel it has much place here.

This is a physics board, and not a board for speculation on religion. I know it's not easy to resist sometimes, physics and spirituality butt heads occasionally, and some physics is grey enough to allow a "prime mover" idea to be included.

But keep this thread on topic. If you want to discuss the existance of God/god/whatever, this isn't the place to do it. I'll turn a blind eye so long as it stays civil, but the moment anyone acts the muppet regarding religion on here I'll be locking/moving threads.

This isn't a board for peddling personal religious beliefs.

Son Goku

SparkyLarks wrote:

Remember People belive God exists because because they were told that by people they trust. Similarly I belive that time slows down; when I travel at close to light speeds. I've done the calculatins. That said I've never seen it happen. Am I not taking it on faith?

Not really I'd say.
There has been experimental verification of the mathematical model, where as there has been no experimental verification of God.*


*That isn't to say one shouldn't believe in God, just that time dilation and God aren't comparable leaps of faith.

SparkyLarks

Cheers Nesf.

Son Goku wrote:

Not really I'd say.
There has been experimental verification of the mathematical model, where as there has been no experimental verification of God.*


*That isn't to say one shouldn't believe in God, just that time dilation and God aren't comparable leaps of faith.

I have never seen the experimental verificatin time dialation.
I have never seen experimental verification of God either.

Other people claim to have both.
Thousands of people claim to have talked to God.
There was a paper published by Messers Mathew ,Mark Luke et al that documented lots of experimental evidance . There were earlier papers documenting the effect of God on Enviromental factors including locusts :eek: .

i'm not saying that becaue Time dialation exists god exists.

My point is that many people say well I've never seen proof that God exists so therfore he doesn't. Yet a lot of these people take it on faith that time dialation does. A lot of people take science on blind faith. They don't verify the results themselves. Science Told us that the Colean**th%$ec , wierd fish ,was extinct.

I know that g=9.8m/s2 I say that in my physics labs. I never saw an atomic clock lose time.

God is by definition a multi demensioinal being. Being everywhere and every when at the same time.

Back to the topic
To discuss the beginning of time we must discuss multidimensions.
There is no beginning or end of the three dimensions x,y,z. Why would time have a beginning or and end, it's just another dimension. We have trouble with it as we can only percieve it and not travel in it like the other 3.

Therfore the question is where did all the mass and energy come from??
ASAIK there is no proof of any theory. So I'm going with 2 options
1) god did it
2) WE don;t exist we'll all the dream of a giant.

Hope it's the first one

Sapien

The same logic and evidence that has convinced the great minds who have convinced you of the reality of time dilation is freely available to you, should you have the desire to come to know it. The same cannot be said of those who have conversed with God, who have been in some way privileged.

The scientists don't ask you to take their word as truth. The prophets do.

Son Goku

SparkyLarks wrote:

I have never seen the experimental verificatin time dialation.
Other people claim to have both.

I doubt anybody has claimed to have experimentally verified God through a repeatable process.
I'm not saying God doesn't exist or that the idea of God is lessened by the fact that he is not measurable, but I don't think you can compare belief in God and belief in Time dilation as similar leaps of faith.

I've never seen the Eiffel Tower, but I don't think believing in it is as big a leap of faith as believing in God would be.


My take on the whole thing is that mass-energy came from the Big Bang.
What is the Big Bang? We don't know.

A pretty boring opinion, but outside that I think you'd just be speculating.
The answer to the big bang lies with whatever theory will supersede General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory and who knows what it'll have to say about the universe.

nesf

Sapien wrote:

The scientists don't ask you to take their word as truth. The prophets do.

Well said.

Don't confuse theory with dogma SparkyLarks.

As for your query, here are some answers to the question of proof for time dilation: Linkage. I wouldn't call it authorative, but worth taking a look at.

From: Wikipedia article on the subject (Read this btw, it might help you get a better grasp of what is meant by time dilation)

Gravitational time dilation has been experimentally measured using atomic clocks on airplanes. The clocks that traveled aboard the airplanes upon return were slightly fast with respect to clocks on the ground. The effect is significant enough that the Global Positioning System needs to correct for its effect on clocks aboard artificial satellites, providing a further experimental confirmation of the effect.

Now you've seen some proof. I'm sure the graphs are available somewhere too if you want to see them.

If you are talking about watching the instruments, then your lack of faith in science worrys me.

SparkyLarks, rememeber what I said about peddling religious beliefs? Consider this a minor warning.

causal

SparkyLarks wrote:

My point is that many people say well I've never seen proof that God exists so therfore he doesn't.

That is not the correct logical conclusion, it is certainly not the result of a scientific approach. The logical conclusion is that the existence of god remains unproven.

Proof of god does not stand up to scientific standards, curiously nor does it stand up to legal standards, imho:
If you were to take a case to prove the existence of god to a civil court of law, where the burden of proof is on a preponderance of the evidence or the balance of probabilities, then I would expect that the case would be dismissed by the judge.
On the other hand, imho the judge would rule favourably on the vast majority of science.

A lot of people take science on blind faith. They don't verify the results themselves.

I think 'faith' and 'science' are mutually exclusive.
Using the wikipedia definition of 'faith' it states that "the faithful subject's faith is in an aspect of the object that cannot be rationally proven or objectively known."
But science is based upon rational proof and knowledge, therefore it is not possible to have 'faith' in 'science'.

Recall my earlier comparison of science and religion, briefly:
Science = Theory + Proof
Religion = Dogma + Faith

causal

SparkyLarks

nesf wrote:

If you are talking about watching the instruments, then your lack of faith in science worrys me.

SparkyLarks, rememeber what I said about peddling religious beliefs? Consider this a minor warning.

Not trying to Peddle anyhting. Just to clarify. I do accept the theory of Time dialiation. I'm not sure about God. I studied Special relativaty in college and have done the calculation about how long a penguin gets on a train ect, relative to an ovserver oon the platform of course. To the penguin the platform gets shorter( or does it get longer I can't remember). And I am glad of the theory's effects on air safety

But I am talking about watching instruments.
That Wikipedia say it can't be taken as absolute proof of anything. That is not scientific.As someone said, verifing informatins doesn;t mean finding it on two websites
My trust in the scientific process and the scientific community allows me to accept time dialiation.

Causal wrote:

That is not the correct logical conclusion, it is certainly not the result of a scientific approach. The logical conclusion is that the existence of god remains unproven.

my point exactly.

Causal wrote:

Using the wikipedia definition of 'faith' it states that "the faithful subject's faith is in an aspect of the object that cannot be rationally proven or objectively known."
But science is based upon rational proof and knowledge, therefore it is not possible to have 'faith' in 'science'.

more wikipedia definitions, They have centered around the religious aspect of the word but that is not it's only use. I have faith in the scientific commnity.
People can have faith in the government, in the ability of teammates to support them.

I use the term faith meaning,(from dictionary.com)
1 Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. ( ther are other uses listed concening religion)

Remember the scientific community told us that light was composed of particles and not waves and had experiments to prove it. The theory was accepted for so long because Newton said it.

Is a theory not accepted until proven wrong. ala Evolution.( we've seen guppy's evolve to become more drap with more predators but have we seen a guppy evolve into a different species.

We are really digressing fro the point of this thread, though I am enjoying the exchange of views .

Gurgle

SparkyLarks wrote:

I do accept the theory of Time dialiation.

Not so sure about that one, but maybe I misunderstood the experiment.

AFAIR, they built 2 nuclear clocks, synchronised them then flew one around the world @ high speed. When they checked them they were out of sync by a couple of picoseconds.

Time dilation QED.

But:
- Wouldn't the acceleration & deceleration of the plane, the altitude, reduction in gravity, reduction in pressure have an affect on the precision of the nuclear clock ?

We're talking picoseconds lost over hours here.

SparkyLarks

Gurgle wrote:

Not so sure about that one, but maybe I misunderstood the experiment.
QUOTE]

The penguins thing is from a worked example in my physics textbook in college. A penguine on a really fast train appears longer to the observer on a platform than he would to a observer moving at the same velocity.

I though that about clocks too. are atomic clocks that robust that they can stay accurate with lots of acelleration and develeration. Was a control model where they loaded an atomic clock onto a truck and drove round a track considered? Was a second atomic clock taken on the same plane cos both clocks should show the same time as each other when they land according to special relativity

It is more convincing that when air traffic controllers started factoring in the effects of relativity the number of crashes was dramatically reduced.Along with GPs and the other places where relativity has dramatically imporved the performance.

causal

SparkyLarks wrote:

My trust in the scientific process and the scientific community allows me to accept time dialiation.
<snip>
more wikipedia definitions, They have centered around the religious aspect of the word but that is not it's only use. I have faith in the scientific commnity.
People can have faith in the government, in the ability of teammates to support them.

I use the term faith meaning,(from dictionary.com)
1 Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. ( ther are other uses listed concening religion)

So throughout this when you said 'faith' you meant the above definition of it?
Or did you mean the other definition of 'faith' when talking about religion?

Remember the scientific community told us that light was composed of particles and not waves and had experiments to prove it. The theory was accepted for so long because Newton said it.

Recall what I said earlier after I described the scientific process:
"This system is not perfect - nothing is for certain - just because theory and observation agree does not mean they are correct and vice-versa. We must always keep an open mind - and reading published works you will notice the very careful wording to avoid stating something as absolute fact."

Is a theory not accepted until proven wrong.

I accept nothing, even when there is an apparent proof. Science can give us working models. Science can put forward theories and back them up with empiracal evidence. Whether or not any of it is correct or incorrect ultimately becomes a philosophical debate about epistemology.

causal

Gurgle

causal wrote:

Science can put forward theories and back them up with empiracal evidence. Whether or not any of it is correct or incorrect ultimately becomes a philosophical debate about epistemology.

Science doesn't do 'correct' and 'incorrect'.
The closest thing to a scientific absolute is:
'As far as we can tell from the most accurate and precise measurements and calculations we can do at the moment, this theory appears to more closely match what actually happens than any of the other theories on the subject'

But it would make the science textbooks twice the size if they put that in everywhere it was appropiate, and they're big enough as it is.

Son Goku

I can understand what you mean by "science progresses through increasingly accurate models", but I'd have to say I don't prescribe to that view in full.

For instance lets take Newtonian Theory and General Relativity.

In Newtonian Theory we have momentum
In General Relativity what was considered momentum is actually a very special case of Stress-Energy-Mass-momentum or "Stremomenrgy" (to coin a cumbersome term).
However this doesn't mean that in the context of General Relativity there is no momentum, it just means that it is a very special case of a much larger concept.

In essence, I'd be of the belief that we are continously generalising, rather than making more accurate models.
For instance I believe that General Relativity is true "when spacetime is smooth and Lorentzian".
Newtonain Theory is true when "spacetime isn't very curved, velocities are low and objects are massive".

Increasingly accurate models is a very numerical way of looking at the subject.
F = ma is numerically slightly out, but conceptually (within the Newtonian realm), I would say it is "true".

(Bare in mind, I'm very much an idealistic realist when it comes to physics.
What you guys have said is much more appropriate when talking about physics or science in general from a pragmatic point of view)

causal

Gurgle wrote:

Science doesn't do 'correct' and 'incorrect'.

That was my point. If you're agreeing with me then fine, if not then read my post again and you'll find you are agreeing
Note my caveats when I referred to the scientific process.
Note I used 'correct' and 'incorrect', not in relation to science, but in relation to philosophy and epistemology.

causal

causal

SparkyLarks wrote:

The penguins thing is from a worked example in my physics textbook in college. A penguine on a really fast train appears longer to the observer on a platform than he would to a observer moving at the same velocity.

Do you know what happened to the penguin when he was returned to 'normal time' after the relativity experiments?
Below is a link to a video of the colony of penguins he was returned to - see if you can spot him amongst the crowd:

Click here to see the Special Relativity Penguin

[NOTE: contains sound and humour]

causal

Gurgle

causal wrote:

Note I used 'correct' and 'incorrect', not in relation to science, but in relation to philosophy and epistemology.

I was partly agreeing with you and partly wondering what epistemology meant.
So I looked it up:

The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

nesf

SparkyLarks wrote:

Gurgle wrote:

Not so sure about that one, but maybe I misunderstood the experiment.
QUOTE]

The penguins thing is from a worked example in my physics textbook in college. A penguine on a really fast train appears longer to the observer on a platform than he would to a observer moving at the same velocity.

I though that about clocks too. are atomic clocks that robust that they can stay accurate with lots of acelleration and develeration. Was a control model where they loaded an atomic clock onto a truck and drove round a track considered? Was a second atomic clock taken on the same plane cos both clocks should show the same time as each other when they land according to special relativity

It is more convincing that when air traffic controllers started factoring in the effects of relativity the number of crashes was dramatically reduced.Along with GPs and the other places where relativity has dramatically imporved the performance.

Personally I like the validation in the need for GPS systems to account for time dilation in order to retain accuracy.


Plus time dilation is expanded in General Relativity, it's not just about acceleration.

As for all the wiki links... It's more legal than if I scan parts of my physics books and post them up here

nesf

causal wrote:

Note I used 'correct' and 'incorrect', not in relation to science, but in relation to philosophy and epistemology.

causal

In fairness mate, you should explicitly state that you are speaking from an epistemological perspective when making such statements on this particular forum. Just to make things clear to those who haven't a taste for philosophy or just who haven't been exposed to much of it.

Philosophy definitely has a place in discussion here, just make it clearer when you are stepping outside of the standard scientific definitions of words. Just to reduce confusion and such. What might be an obvious indirect reference to a philosophical definition of a word to you might not be obvious to another person reading your posts.

It was correct, in my eyes, for Gurgle to question your post since it should be obvious that on a physics board, words will carry their physical/scientific definition unless otherwise specified.

Not a critisism, just a request mate.

causal

I agree with the the strict use of language and I have no problem with anyone questioning the content, context, or meaning of my posts.

tbh I explicitly included 'philosophy' and 'epistemology' in the sentence where I mentioned 'correct' and 'incorrect':

causal wrote:

Whether or not any of it is correct or incorrect ultimately becomes a philosophical debate about epistemology.

In any event, the normal scientific meanings of the words apply equally to what I said, I can rephrase as:
"Whether or not any of it [science] is correct or incorrect (in the scientific sense of the words) ultimately becomes a philosophical debate about epistemology".

causal

Λυκειος

*back to the OP's topic*

i read about this idea that the total amount of energy in the universe was zero. according to the idea, the gravitational field of matter and energy could be considered to have negative energy. do the sums, and the positive and negative energy in the universe cancel leaving a big fat zero.

Zillah

Well, space and time didn't exist as we know them until after the big bang, maybe laws such as conservation of energy had yet to be? Thereby allowing energy to spring into existence...