It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Can Energy actually be created?
Can Energy actually be destroyed?
Wouldnt that make Albert Einstein and Newton's energy theories wrong?
I sure hope not. Recently I've found some comfort in this as a way to explain the "afterlife".
Originally posted by qazyman To date, no one has been able to reconcile classical and quantum physics into a unified theory. String theory is as close as anyone has come.
What qazyman said, they are essentially two different, mutually exclusive models. A lot of things can (theoretically) happen under quantum physics that could never happen under Einsteinian relativistic rules.
Now with 57.3% more flames!
Originally posted by pyrofreak Originally posted by qazyman To date, no one has been able to reconcile classical and quantum physics into a unified theory. String theory is as close as anyone has come.
But is it possible for Energy to be created?
Actually Membrane Theory comes even closer but it still isn't a truly 'Unified Theory of Everything'. M Theory is very similar to String Theory with 11 Dimensions instead of 10. Also Steven Hawking has been working on this for a very long time. The Hawking Paradox is basically if no information can be lost from our Universe than what happens to Matter/Energy when it falls past the Event Horizon of a Black Hole?
Originally posted by MMOExposed Can Energy actually be created? Can Energy actually be destroyed? If so Wouldnt that make Albert Einstein and Newton's energy theories wrong?
First 2 questions i am not sure o n but i suspect the first one is a yes. Same goes for the second.
As for Einsteins energy theorys i say they are still right. Reason being is that those theorys deal with the laws of a Physical world. However when you get to the Quantum level those laws break down so dont apply as a new set of Quantum level laws apply.
What we need is to work out what those laws are.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
This is the reason why it is called a "Scientific Theory" and not "a fact"!
A Theory can be modified when new discoverys are made. And we sure dont know everything yet : )
you...you mean all those times when my physics teacher reiterated "you can't make it, you can't break it, you can only recycle it"...he...he was wrong?
My whole being...my whole life...it just came crashing down at my very feet.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
We've had alot of cool physics threads lately. I think it's great, but at the same time physics is not my strong point. I try following along and notice blood leaking out of my nose. The same thing happens when I try to do Calculus too much.
Originally posted by Sawtooth We've had alot of cool physics threads lately. I think it's great, but at the same time physics is not my strong point. I try following along and notice blood leaking out of my nose. The same thing happens when I try to do Calculus too much.
Quantum Physics is every nerds dream subject : )
Pararell universes, time travel, faster then the speed of light and the creation of new dímensions! It is sci-fi in real life.
I think the jury is still out on this one.
Hawking says energy, or rather information, but in this case the same thing, can indeed be destroyed in a black hole.
Or at least he used, have not really followed hsa later work, I heard somewere he had withdrawn that theory, not sure on that one though.
Wich put him at ends with people like Leonard Susskin, who found the idea repulsive, to say the least.
I think the deeper we fall into quantum mechanics we will find that most of what we know is wrong, what is energy really, in relation to everything else, does it exist at all?
There is some really weird science out there, and not "underground lair" kind of science, but rather stuff researched at the top universities on the world.
Besides, if the universe is expanding, the potential energy of the universe is increasing in relation to the increased distances between objects.
The growing, and even acceleration of the universe is not actually stuff moving in between, but rather that space is actually increasing, so matter gets increased internal distance without actually moving.
Wich means that they get increased distance betweeen them without actually expending any energy.
And so, more energy the farther stuff gets from ech other.
Now that is my very own theory, but I have still to find an explanation to why I would be wrong.
Would love one though, or hate, I am not sure..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe expanding means that the universe's potential energy is increasing? I don't see how that is the conclusion you draw from that...if anything, wouldn't it be decreasing? (assuming you're starting from a big bang esque perspective.)
As a scientific concept, the existence of zero point energy is not controversial although the ability to harness it is. In particular, perpetual motion machines and other power generating devices supposedly based on zero point energy are highly controversial and, in many cases, in violation of some of the fundamental laws of physics. No device claimed to operate using zero point energy has been demonstrated to operate as claimed. No plausible description of a device drawing useful power from a source of zero point energy has been given. Thus, current claims to zero point energy-based power generation systems currently have the status of pseudoscience.
The discovery of zero point energy did not alter the implausibility of perpetual motion machines. Much attention has been given to reputable science suggesting that zero point energy is infinite, but zero point energy is a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go, thus none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero point energy. The calculation that underlies the Casimir experiment, a calculation based on the formula predicting infinite vacuum energy, shows the zero point energy of a system consisting of a vacuum between two plates will decrease at a finite rate as the two plates are drawn together. The vacuum energies are predicted to be infinite, but the changes are predicted to be finite. Casimir combined the projected rate of change in zero point energy with the principle of conservation of energy to predict a force on the plates. The predicted force, which is very small and was experimentally measured to be within 5% of its predicted value, is finite. Even though the zero point energy might be infinite, there is no theoretical basis or practical evidence to suggest that infinite amounts of zero point energy are available for use, that zero point energy can be withdrawn for free, or that zero point energy can be used in violation of conservation of energy.
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
Zero point energy might be described the energy in a vacuum. Even where is nothing there is still energy. Weird stuff.