Question for those scientifically minded

[engineereeyore]

So an instructor at my university is working on reusing energy in electronics. Such ideas include using the heat generated by a microprocessor and converting it back into power so as to make things more efficient and less power hungry. This got me thinking about the law of the conservation of energy.

As I understand it, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one state to another. So where did the energy that exist throughout the universe today come from? Logic would say it had to have been created at some point in time, but the whole law of conservation would be destroyed if it was. Is there an answer for this?

 

[imported_Tick]

All energy and matter in the universe is the afterglow of the big bang. You could say that it's like the blast wave of a hand grenade going off. Everything that exists is left over from that.

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
So an instructor at my university is working on reusing energy in electronics. Such ideas include using the heat generated by a microprocessor and converting it back into power so as to make things more efficient and less power hungry. This got me thinking about the law of the conservation of energy.

As I understand it, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one state to another. So where did the energy that exist throughout the universe today come from? Logic would say it had to have been created at some point in time, but the whole law of conservation would be destroyed if it was. Is there an answer for this?

That what has no beginning, knows no end. That what knows no end, has no beginning.

 

[sniperruff]

nobody knows.

 

[JohnCU]

the laws of physics as we know them do not apply to the first 10^-43 seconds of the life of the universe.

 

[azazyel]

Just be a good Christian and say 'god did it' and be done w/ it.

/move along now

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Obviously, no matter how you view the universe as being created, there was a point where energy had to be created... Which, in physics, defies itself, but yeah. Big bang, God's creation - whatever you believe, it had to be made at one point or another. Just NOW we don't get any extra

 

[JohnCU]

kind of a cool idea though, i mean the harnessing of the heat but i don't know how efficient that will be.

i had a similiar idea from electronics by using the thermal voltage across resistors to do something but it's so small it's useless (yes, you can measure a distinct voltage with the right kind of oscilloscope if you just place the leads across a resistor). there is a power here, related by the voltage squared divided by the resistance.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
kind of a cool idea though, i mean the harnessing of the heat but i don't know how efficient that will be.

i had a similiar idea from electronics by using the thermal voltage across resistors to do something but it's so small it's useless (yes, you can measure a distinct voltage with the right kind of oscilloscope if you just place the leads across a resistor). there is a power here, related by the voltage squared divided by the resistance.

Yeah, I think he's been able to reduce necessary voltage on several items, such as cell phone, quite a bit. He's taken a prototype of a cell phone and given a standard battery with 3-hours of talk time and increased it to 8-hours. Don't know the specifics, just know the results.

Were you serious though about the 10^-43 seconds though? I'm guessing you were, give or take 10^-5 seconds. So would it be safe then to assume that the law of science, or at least this one, are not eternal in nature? They're only based upon the conditions of the universe at this time. If you have any papers or links for that, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: JohnCU
kind of a cool idea though, i mean the harnessing of the heat but i don't know how efficient that will be.

i had a similiar idea from electronics by using the thermal voltage across resistors to do something but it's so small it's useless (yes, you can measure a distinct voltage with the right kind of oscilloscope if you just place the leads across a resistor). there is a power here, related by the voltage squared divided by the resistance.

Yeah, I think he's been able to reduce necessary voltage on several items, such as cell phone, quite a bit. He's taken a prototype of a cell phone and given a standard battery with 3-hours of talk time and increased it to 8-hours. Don't know the specifics, just know the results.
Were you serious though about the 10^-43 seconds though? I'm guessing you were, give or take 10^-5 seconds. So would it be safe then to assume that the law of science, or at least this one, are not eternal in nature? They're only based upon the conditions of the universe at this time. If you have any papers or links for that, I'd greatly appreciate it.

look up planck time (on wikipedia), i was off by one magnitude i believe it's 10^-44. but i mean to know everything but that tiny bit is incredible already. but no one knows what happened so no one can say that the laws of physics apply there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch

 

[randay]

There are theories, but noone can prove anything and never will be able to. Unless God appears and admits to it. Better to just not think about it.

As for being able to recycle the heat from processors into electricity, its not practical, possible, but you'd probably just use more electricity then save.

 

[thesurge]

The law of conservation of energy can be violated in quantum mechanics (some part of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Einstein's mass-energy relation). [Not saying that the time given to "borrow" this energy is great enough to create this much energy or anything.]

You'll probably get much better answers on a physics/chemistry forum (or the Highly Technical section).

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: thesurge
The law of conservation of energy can be violated in quantum mechanics (some part of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Einstein's mass-energy relation). [Not saying that the time given to "borrow" this energy is great enough to create this much energy or anything.]

You'll probably get much better answers on a physics/chemistry forum (or the Highly Technical section).

I'll give it a try there to then. It's just that I've posted on that section before and it was about 1 1/2 days before I got a response, so I thought this section might be better for an actual quick answer.

So during this Planck time, were pretty much all scientific laws invalid, or actually created?

 

[ruffilb]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
the laws of physics as we know them do not apply to the first 10^-43 seconds of the life of the universe.

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: thesurge
The law of conservation of energy can be violated in quantum mechanics (some part of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Einstein's mass-energy relation). [Not saying that the time given to "borrow" this energy is great enough to create this much energy or anything.]

You'll probably get much better answers on a physics/chemistry forum (or the Highly Technical section).

I'll give it a try there to then. It's just that I've posted on that section before and it was about 1 1/2 days before I got a response, so I thought this section might be better for an actual quick answer.

So during this Planck time, were pretty much all scientific laws invalid, or actually created?

i guess you could say both. i mean, we can't use quantum physics, relativity, or newtonian physics to describe ANYTHING in those minute seconds... we have no idea what happened, we can only postulate.

there is plenty to read on google or wikipedia. you can spend hours looking up stuff about quantum physics and the big bang and dark matter and relativity (general and special). i only know about electricity and magnetism in detail but cheers. :beer:

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: JohnCU

i guess you could say both. i mean, we can't use quantum physics, relativity, or newtonian physics to describe ANYTHING in those minute seconds... we have no idea what happened, we can only postulate.

Thanks for the info. That's what I was wondering about.

Feel free to continue discussing though.

 

[JohnCU]

seems like where the physics breaks down... the religion pops up. i'm not religious so i hold firm to physics but maybe one day we will know... it's mind blowing to think about it though. there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on the earth. must've started out big, huh?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: thesurge
The law of conservation of energy can be violated in quantum mechanics (some part of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Einstein's mass-energy relation). [Not saying that the time given to "borrow" this energy is great enough to create this much energy or anything.]

You'll probably get much better answers on a physics/chemistry forum (or the Highly Technical section).

I'll give it a try there to then. It's just that I've posted on that section before and it was about 1 1/2 days before I got a response, so I thought this section might be better for an actual quick answer.

So during this Planck time, were pretty much all scientific laws invalid, or actually created?

The planck distance is the smallest distance that makes any physical sense (it's much smaller than say, a proton), and the planck time is the time it takes for light to cross this distance. So shorter distances don't mean anything physically because they are the same place... kinda.

Doing physics at smaller distance scales is like trying to do sociology at the nanometer level. There aren't any nano-people to study, so it just doesn't make sense.

 

[thelanx]

The conservation of energy is a simplification I think of the conservation of energy and mass. (ex. e=mc^2 actually tells you matter and energy can be converted into each other, as in a nuclear reaction) However for most everyday circumstances the law of conservation of energy and mass simplifies to the conservation of energy.

Edit: As to your question, I don't know the answer, but maybe the universe started off with a very small and very dense mass that exploded during the Big Bang which converted some of that mass into energy.

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: thelanx
The conservation of energy is a simplification I think of the conservation of energy and mass. (ex. e=mc^2 actually tells you matter and energy can be converted into each other, as in a nuclear reaction) However for most everyday circumstances the law of conservation of energy and mass simplifies to the conservation of energy.

Edit: As to your question, I don't know the answer, but maybe the universe started off with a very small and very dense mass that exploded during the Big Bang which converted some of that mass into energy.

doesn't have to be nuclear, can be chemical as well or others.

 

[johnjbruin]

E = mc^2

m = mass --> that is where it all came from.

 

[Cattlegod]

Do not believe that you can light the candle. Believe that Oma can.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: johnjbruin
E = mc^2

m = mass --> that is where it all came from.

Where did the mass come from?



I have a really hard time believing that we know what happened down the to .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001th of a second (yea, I just held 0 for awhile). How does the scientific method work here? You are piling unverified theory on top of unverified theory on top of unverified theory to come up with a theory that is verified by the previous unverified theories. How can we prove any of this stuff? We can write equations all day, but it's not going to tell us the truth.

It would be better to say that scientists THINK they know what happened .00000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big bang. And if anyone asks how sure those scientists are, the answer should be that they are simply making educated guesses.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
So an instructor at my university is working on reusing energy in electronics. Such ideas include using the heat generated by a microprocessor and converting it back into power so as to make things more efficient and less power hungry. This got me thinking about the law of the conservation of energy.

As I understand it, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one state to another. So where did the energy that exist throughout the universe today come from? Logic would say it had to have been created at some point in time, but the whole law of conservation would be destroyed if it was. Is there an answer for this?

e=mc^2. Stars convert mass to energy through fusion.

Where those stars got their mass from is another story though.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: johnjbruin
E = mc^2

m = mass --> that is where it all came from.

Where did the mass come from?



I have a really hard time believing that we know what happened down the to .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001th of a second (yea, I just held 0 for awhile). How does the scientific method work here? You are piling unverified theory on top of unverified theory on top of unverified theory to come up with a theory that is verified by the previous unverified theories. How can we prove any of this stuff? We can write equations all day, but it's not going to tell us the truth.

It would be better to say that scientists THINK they know what happened .00000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big bang. And if anyone asks how sure those scientists are, the answer should be that they are simply making educated guesses.

That is exactly what they do say, although hypothesis with confirming evidence is a bit stronger than "educated guess".