Astronomy

What explains the existence of energy/matter if it cannot be created or destroyed?

What explains the existence of energy/matter if it cannot be created or destroyed?



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

If the energy/matter that was contained in the singularity before the Big Bang had always existed, and if it's true that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, then what explains its existence?


That's a very complicated question!

First, let's remember that Moses didn't bring the Law of Conservation of Energy down from Sinai on stone tablets -- it's something that we've observed to be true of the universe today, and which our theories use to make very accurate predictions. But this doesn't mean that it was always true, and particularly that it was true early enough in the Big Bang that our current theories don't apply. We know that our current theories fail during the Planck Era, for example.

Second, Noether's Theorem says that energy conservation exists because the Lagrangians of mass-energy are time-symmetric. Time symmetry is a very good symmetry today in regionals of space small compared with the entire universe, but there may well have been eras in which it wasn't.

In fact, there probably were such eras, just as time-symmetry is not a good symmetry even today at very large scales. (The universe is expanding, and on the face of it, this causes a non-conservation of energy.)

Thirdly, if you try to save the law of conservation of energy by calculating the total energy of the entire universe including the gravitational energy, one reasonable set of arguments (energy calculations in General Relativity can be very difficult, since gravitational energy tends to be non-local) yields a total energy of zero! The mass-energy in the universe is exactly balanced by the gravitational potential energy. If this is correct, the total energy has always been zero.

But this is all speculative! Remember, that real physics is an experimental science and if you can't test a theory it may be interesting, but it isn't physics.


The simplest answer might be that mass/energy have always existed. For field-based inflation, their past eternality is prohibited by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, but, as that theorem only prohibits it in a universe that is expanding "on average", they appear compatible with some of the bouncing cosmologies developed more recently, of which the simplest that's compatible with CMB data may be Poplawski's entirely relativistic version (using the fermions of the Einstein-Cartan version of GR, which have spatial extent) of the "baby universe" scenario, in which the gravitational collapse of any large rotating star includes tidal effects which initially separate the particles and antiparticles of virtual pairs, that are subsequently blown outward by energy until then tied up in particulate spin, when the collapsing star's fermions lock up against each other at extremely high densities. The "parenting" universe (which is on vastly larger scales of space and time) is analogous to the 3-D skin of a basketball, and is causally separated by the inertia of its own continuing expansion, as it would've begun in an earlier (and larger-scaled) version of the same process. Poplawski feels this cosmology to require a prevalent direction of rotation, so it is falsifiable and consequently scientific, however marginal that prevalence may be. (My reading of physics notation is very limited, so I've relied on his English verbiage for some of the inferences I've made here.)


Energy cannot be created. Then where did it all come from?

Well let the citizen be a good citizen, but it has nothing to do with the science. And making such statements can be counter productive as you make these people feel defensive instead of educating them and helping them understand that science isn't out to destroy their faith. If you make an active effort to do so (thinking that is the problem), you will only push them away. I know, I taught science at a parochial school, and I am no longer employed there for that very reason even though I was sympathetic to many of their views. However, I am a hard liner when it comes to "just let the science speak for itself", and they didn't take too kindly to the that approach. Their having a very wooden/literalist view of the bible, and siding with/politicising and the christian right band wagon is the problem. A theological worldview isn't going to stand in the way of good science and good stewardship of our planet, but a further divide and a culture war will.

Well the article I posted can generally be considered a public article. it contains some good elements because it contains extracts from the papers he reviewed and that was the only reason I got the power to send it in here.
In general I am not a US citizen so I didn't mean to try and show "that way" over the other.

I think I wasn't clear in the section that you quoted from in the last post. I agree -- that one needs to know science to be a good citizen. I am a science teacher after all. I am just saying -- don't do science with an agenda. It may color the interpretation of your results. This is true on both sides of the isle. I will end it here. Sorry for hijacking the post.

Someone asked me this question: If energy cannot be created then where did the Universe come from?
Are there any websites, papers or documents concerning this question, answer?
The first law of thermodynamics which is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

I have researched all thermodynamic processes to no avail.

This is a theory, not necessarily fact. Energy cannot be created in this universe, but the laws of physics may not be relevant to another "universe" or "dimension" for example, one universe creates energy and it could be "teleported" through the universes and dimensions to our universe using the quantum theory(a substance being in two places at once). The universe in which energy may be created would technically not exist, but it may exist since our laws of physics in this universe does not correspond to that particular dimension.
As for the universe being created, one point of view would be that energy had seeped through a barrier of some sort (keeping both dimensions apart) As Michael (Vsauce) said at the end of one of his videos, He explained that no one knows what would happen if you reached the "middle of the black hole", and that the particles would simply "disappear" in violation of all laws of physics, which could be how energy came to our universe, along with matter, anti-matter, dark matter, etc. Michael suggesting that they would disappear could be how those substances came, through a "break" in space-time due the immense gravity and an entrance to another dimension, where all our laws of physics and thermodynamics would fail to work this theory needs work to explain how that break in space-time was formed, since a black hole needs matter to create itself. Many problems, but still intriguing.

This is as far as I got. I hope I spread some light on this "matter" (get it? matter? bad pun) Thanks!


Move to 6:00 mins and watch on from there. It's very interesting.

Quantum theory doesn't say this. When people talk about "quantum teleportation", they only mean "teleporting" a quantum state no actual energy or matter is teleported.

I don't think physicists actually believe this rather, they believe that GR, as a theory, must break down before the singularity at the center of the black hole is reached. The prevailing opinion seems to be that we will understand better what happens then when we have a workable theory of quantum gravity.

Sort of there is a speculative hypothesis that baby universes could be created at the centers of black holes, and that this would be what prevents an actual singularity from forming there (instead of disappearing, the matter and energy that would fall into the singularity goes into the baby universe). Our own universe, according to this speculation, could have been formed the same way, as a baby universe spawned from a black hole in some other universe.

However, it is not really correct to call this a "break in spacetime" spacetime itself would be continuous through the whole process. Nor is it really correct to call the baby universe "another dimension" it would still be part of an overall 4-d spacetime that contained our universe and all the other universes that had been spawned. (It's perfectly possible for the universes to not be able to communicate with each other and still be part of a single overall 4-d spacetime a 4-d spacetime can be very big and can have any number, even an infinite number, of causal boundaries.) Whether or not the laws of physics could change through the process depends on whose speculations you are looking at. In any case, all of this is purely speculative we have no way of testing any of it now or in the foreseeable future.

I read a scientific report from a respected institution concerning the creation of the universe. The report focused on a quasar output jet as the beginning. It seems more rational than some big bang theory or Alan Guth’s cosmic inflation theory (faster than light?). I like the idea of the Quasar the largest structure in the Universe as the very beginning. If we have to write programs inside of programs we have to start somewhere (computer generated simulation).

I think Doug Huffman, The Quantum Physicist is right. Believe nothing read or heard without verifying it for yourself.

Can you link to the report you read? The popular article link you provided is unrelated (concerns pair creation).

Another view is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe


I like this one better, but it's not my personal view.


This viewpoint is even better . but it's still not my personal view.

But could, perhaps, lead to this. which would suck big time. lol

This is who clams responsibly for. Energy cannot be created. Then where did it all come from?

It's my personal view.

Why cant energy be created?

As I have alluded to the reason is Noethers theorem - but that doesn't apply when the symmetries of inertial frames is broken. When that happens there is no reason for it to be conserved.

I believe it is - but that means diddly squat.

Why cant energy be created?

Lol, Bill. You're not a Star Trek fan. ?

Sloppy posting on my part. I'll change the wording a bit.

This is who clams responsibly for. energy can be created, and I created it ! !

Q created the Universe, Bill. I'm sure of it. well, kinda. . lol

In the simplest model, where the baby universe is spawned in place of the singularity at the center of an eternal black hole in the previous universe, yes, it should in principle be possible for matter from the previous universe to continue falling into the black hole forever (with respect to the previous universe--see below), and thereby coming through into our universe.

However, that does not mean the matter would continuously "appear" in our universe. From the standpoint of our universe, anything that falls into the black hole in the prior universe, no matter what time in the prior universe that happens, would appear in the Big Bang of our universe. "Time" is not the same in the two universes.

As the second article Bandersnatch linked to says, it depends on how you define "energy" and how you define "conserved". These terms aren't as simple as you and the article you have linked to appear to believe.

I strongly recommend reading both of Bandersnatch's links, but the basic error the article you linked to makes is to assume that "gravitational potential energy" is a well-defined term for the universe as a whole. It isn't it is only well-defined in a stationary spacetime, and the universe is not stationary because it is expanding. (The first article Bandersnatch linked to goes into this in some detail.) So the analogy the article makes between analyzing the orbits of satellites around the Earth, and analyzing the universe as a whole, is not really valid.

It turns out that, for a closed universe, you can finesse this point by coming up with a way to define "gravitational potential energy" that works similarly enough to the orbiting satellite scenario to make the analogy valid. However, note that I said "a closed universe" the article you linked to says this too. According to our best current model, our actual universe is not closed, so this way out doesn't work.

Btw, I should emphasize that I am in sympathy with the desire of the writer of the article you linked to, to not give religious people an excuse to say that the Big Bang theory requires something to be created out of nothing. But there is a much simpler way of doing that, which the article doesn't mention: point out that the law of conservation of energy is really a local law, not a global law: it says that energy can't be created or destroyed in any small volume of spacetime. Our current theories obey this law: in General Relativity it shows up as an identity, the Bianchi identity, which is obeyed by the Einstein Field Equation.

"I'll say this: if the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn't expanding into anything instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being "stretched", but the overall size of the universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe's size doesn't change, and therefore it doesn't expand into anything. If, on the other hand, the universe has a finite size, then it may be legitimate to claim that there is something "outside of the universe" that the universe is expanding into. However, because we are, by definition, stuck within the space that makes up our universe and have no way to observe anything outside of it, this ceases to be a question that can be answered scientifically. So the answer in that case is that we really don't know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into. Well. We have 2 "scenario" according to data. 1 is extremely flat and the other is (very) slightly curved -- sphere, Depending on the shape. It can be finite or infinite.

Thankyou Peter, for your gracious response.

We appear to be trying to grasp what's inherently incomprehensible to our current thought processes.

Not for an instant do I pretend to understand what's going on, however I have come to feel that we are not seeing space as it really is and then interpreting it aright.

I believe that there is no such "thing" as matter in any form, anywhere, or that there ever was any.

So where to from here? I just don't know.

Quantum theory doesn't say this. When people talk about "quantum teleportation", they only mean "teleporting" a quantum state no actual energy or matter is teleported.

I don't think physicists actually believe this rather, they believe that GR, as a theory, must break down before the singularity at the center of the black hole is reached. The prevailing opinion seems to be that we will understand better what happens then when we have a workable theory of quantum gravity.

Sort of there is a speculative hypothesis that baby universes could be created at the centers of black holes, and that this would be what prevents an actual singularity from forming there (instead of disappearing, the matter and energy that would fall into the singularity goes into the baby universe). Our own universe, according to this speculation, could have been formed the same way, as a baby universe spawned from a black hole in some other universe.

However, it is not really correct to call this a "break in spacetime" spacetime itself would be continuous through the whole process. Nor is it really correct to call the baby universe "another dimension" it would still be part of an overall 4-d spacetime that contained our universe and all the other universes that had been spawned. (It's perfectly possible for the universes to not be able to communicate with each other and still be part of a single overall 4-d spacetime a 4-d spacetime can be very big and can have any number, even an infinite number, of causal boundaries.) Whether or not the laws of physics could change through the process depends on whose speculations you are looking at. In any case, all of this is purely speculative we have no way of testing any of it now or in the foreseeable future.

You are completely correct. As you said, this is entirely speculative and I have no real proof of this theory, but it is something interesting to think about. Then again, with the amount of space the universe, and how it's enlarging, with the universe at googolplex metres across would make even the impossible certain as the amount of planets etc would reduce the possibility ratio down to such a level that it would become 1:1. (What a mouthful!) E.g. Pretend that a chance of having a planet EXACTLY as it is when you're reading this was 1:10000000*10, and each planet in the universe is worth one unit, if you had 1000000*10 planets, then it was impossible to not have an exact Earth out there but of course we wouldn't live that long to know if there was or not because the sun would explode. :D So technically as time goes on and the universe grows, the possibility of having a black hole which has a big enough "hole" that can be entered and tested would be certain. Again, this is all extremely speculative, so this isn't necessarily "fact"

But, it's still really interesting to think about!
Thanks Peter for your contribution.


What explains the existence of energy/matter if it cannot be created or destroyed? - Astronomy

A chemical reaction does not create or destroy matter, it simply moves electrons from one atom to another, but does not change the nucleus of the atoms. The total mass of the matter remains a constant in any chemical change. The total mass of the matter can change during a nuclear reaction, the mass loss can convert into energy, which is called the nuclear power. So we can say that a nuclear reaction creates/destroys matter, if we define matter only as its mass.

If we define matter as mass plus energy, then even a nuclear reaction does change matter at all: the sum of mass and energy together remain a constant during a nuclear reaction. Actually, the most general definition of matter, should include mass, energy, and also information. The only possible way to permanently annihilate the most general form of matter as defined above, is to throw matter into a black hole, and after the black hole "evaporates" (black holes do evaporate, which was first studied by Stephen Hawking), these matter may disappear from our universe. But this is not a fully understood subject, scientists are still working hard to understand the relation between black hole and information.

Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc 2 , is often interpreted as meaning that mass can be converted directly to energy. However, a better interpretation is that mass is a form of energy – unless that mass energy is converted into a new form (like thermal energy), then it must be conserved, just like the rest of the energy in the system.

By definition, mass is conserved during a chemical change – no matter is created or destroyed but the matter is rearranged into new structures with different properties. Energy is stored in the bonds between atoms, however, so energy can be released or converted during a chemical change. For example, burning wood is a chemical reaction of hydrocarbons with oxygen that creates carbon dioxide, water and lots of heat energy. Other reactions require heat energy to form new bonds, like calcium carbonate (chalk) can be heated to become calcium oxide and carbon dioxide. For both types of reactions, the mass of the starting materials and the end products is the same. -11 Joules of energy. If you scale this up per mole of uranium, the process releases 1.811 x 10 10 kJ/mol of U-235 as heat – which is one hundred million times greater than a typical chemical reaction, like burning hydrogen (4.84 x 10 2 kJ/mol).

Thankfully, that scale of mass-energy conversion is rare and unlikely to happen without extreme conditions, like those in a nuclear reactor or within a star.

Note from ScienceLine:
The joule, symbol J, is a derived unit of energy in the International System of Units.

Sort of. Energy and mass are equivalent entities as governed by the laws of special relativity. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any means, chemical or otherwise however, it can be transformed from one state (e.g. matter) into another (e.g. heat). So, for example, if you burn hydrogen and oxygen together to make water and heat, the water will have very slightly less mass than the reactants you burned to get it.

This change in mass in chemical reactions, however, is so small that it's difficult to measure. Really only nuclear reactions can be measured in terms of the reactants weighing more than the products (which is why nuclear reactions are so powerful).

Matter cannot be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction it is rearranged. The number of each different elements remains the same. Yet, after the reaction, an element may link to one element that is different from the one it links to before the reaction. That is, during the process of chemical reaction, some old bonds are broken and some new bonds are created. A chemical reaction creates compounds different from reactants.


Atheism Hits a Brick Wall: The First Law of Thermodynamics

The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. 1 One of the logical outcomes of this law is that there is no new matter or energy appearing anywhere in the universe, nor is there any matter being annihilated. All matter and energy in the universe is conserved. Consequently, this law is often referred to as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Although matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can be converted from one state to another, i.e. from a liquid to a gas, liquid to solid, solid to gas. The overwhelming experience of experimental physics confirms this First Law to be a fact. As we shall see, this law has enormous implications regarding the origin of matter in our universe.


Proton Decay

Protons are positively charged particles which reside in the nucleus of every atom. Each proton consists of a least three quarks. For decades it was assumed that protons were eternally stable. However, physicists now believe that quarks decay into antiquarks, pions and positive electrons, and electromagnetic radiation. 2 This decay process occurs at a rate of only once per proton per 10 32 years. Consequently, since this process is irreversible, all the atoms in the universe will eventually decay into irretrievable matter. Even though this process of decay will take an enormously long period of time, it is not infinite.


Evolution and the First Law

Skeptics often scoff at the biblical creation account because it invokes a supernatural event for the origin of time, space, and matter. Yet, if we search the field of cosmology in the last one hundred years we find that the theories on the "natural" (as opposed to supernatural) origin of matter are few and far between. There are only two options for the origin of matter: it is either eternal or it appeared at a finite point in the past. With the elucidation of the First Law of Thermodynamics the implications of this debate, as we will see, have been clearly defined.

Faced with the evidence of a finite, expanding universe, cosmologists began to look for a way to salvage the existence of an eternal universe. In the 1940's Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle proposed a mechanism that would allow the expanding universe to still be infinitely old 3,4 This model for the universe, called the "Steady State Model," asserts that as the universe expands, hydrogen atoms arise spontaneously from nothing in the deep recesses of space. The result is that the universe appears about the same (in a "steady state") in all ages.

In the last forty years this model for the universe has been discredited by a number of scientific discoveries. The first of these has to do with the age of the galaxies. If the universe is infinitely old then we should expect to find galaxies of all ages. However decades of observations reveal that all the visible galaxies in our universe are "middle aged." Secondly, there is no physical (natural) mechanism for the spontaneous origin of hydrogen atoms. In fact, hydrogen atoms have never been observed to appear spontaneously anywhere in the universe. 5 Thirdly, Isaac Newton's Law of Inertia declares that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. In the Steady State Model there is no mechanism to explain the motion of the galaxies.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is called a "law" because within the bounds of scientific observation it has been proven true beyond all reasonable doubt. In effect, the First Law states that you and I can neither create nor destroy matter. Therefore, it follows that if something which exists (you and I) cannot create matter, then something which doesn't exist cannot create it either!

Matter cannot create itself and, in the real world, cannot arise from nothing. Within the bounds of natural law all effects must have a cause. 6 Because of this fact, the spontaneous appearance of hydrogen atoms out of nothing (ex nihilo creation) is a definite breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter, under natural circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, since it is not a natural event, it is by definition a supernatural event-a miracle! This is, we believe, a rather weak starting point for a materialistic scenario to begin.

To avoid this conclusion, a number of physicists have proposed that the laws of physics are different elsewhere in the universe. 7 However, this assertion is not supported by even a shred of scientific evidence. Such appeals reveal the lengths that some will go to avoid a finite beginning for the universe.

Since matter is not eternal, we are left with only one option- it arose out of nothing at a finite point in the past! Ironically, the scientific materialist who argues that all matter in the universe arose out of nothing is in agreement with the biblical creationist. However, biblical creationists readily admit that the appearance of matter out of nothing was a miracle, performed by a "First Cause" that transcends the physical universe. The scientific materialist, who believes, as Carl Sagan does, that "the Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be," is forced to conclude that the Cosmic egg arose from nothingness apart from any causal agent.

The atheist immediately protests, "If God made the universe then who made God?" The Bible indicates that God is an eternal, transcendent Spirit. 8 Consequently, because time is itself a physical property of the universe which God created, then questions about God's origin are meaningless. This is because God existed before time and He is, therefore, not subject to time-bound concepts such as birth and death. He is outside of time!

Furthermore, because God always existed prior to the creation of the universe and the laws by which it is governed, He is not subject to them either. This means that God was never "young" nor is He aging as dictated by the Second Law. He is outside of our space-time domain and outside of the aging effects altogether.

At the beginning of the atheist's scenario, there is an equally difficult question. "Who or what made that ball of matter that exploded in the Big Bang?" The answer is that the Cosmic Egg made itself, which is impossible on the basis of natural law.

So at the beginning of each model of origins we have unanswerable questions. Atheists may then argue that they are equal starting points. But are they?

The creationist's model begins with an infinitely intelligent, omnipotent, transcendent Creator who used intelligent design, expertise or know-how to create everything from the sub-atomic particles to giant redwood trees. Was it a miracle? Absolutely!

Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)."

The atheist's model begins with an even more impressive miracle - the appearance of all matter in the universe from nothing, by no one, and for no reason. A supernatural event. A miracle! However, the atheist does not believe in the outside or transcendent "First Cause" we call God. Therefore, the atheist has no "natural explanation" nor "supernatural explanation" for the origin of space-time and matter. Consequently, the atheistic scenario on the origin of the universe leaves us hanging in a totally dissatisfying position. He begins his model with a supernatural event. This supernatural event, however, is accomplished without a supernatural agent to perform it.
References

Missler, Chuck, Eastman, Mark, M.D. "The Creator Beyond Time and Space", The Word for Today 1996, p.12-17

Chuck Missler and Mark Eastman M.D. references:

-1. As opposed to supernatural circumstances

-2. James S. Treifel, "The Moment of Creation", Scribner's and Son. p 141-142

-3. H. Bondi and T. Gold, "The Steady State Theory of the Expanding Universe," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108:252-270 (1948).

4. Fred Hoyle, "A New Model for the Expanding Universe," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108:372-382 (1948).

-5. For a detailed discussion see Gerald Schroder, "Genesis and the Big Bang, Chapter 4. Bantam Books, 1990.

-6. In the realm of quantum mechanics some particles have apparently arisen spontaneously as a result of a "quantum fluctuation." However, they quickly annihilate themselves.

-7. Fred Hoyle proposed that the continuous creation of matter be considered a natural law itself. He included a creation constant in Einstein's theory of relativity.


Science Proves The Existence Of God

None of us have physically seen God, nor have we seen Him interact with this world in a way that can be scientifically verified. So then how can we use science to prove that a Supreme Being or God exists whose powers are unimaginable and whose existence transcends time, and space?

Modern society has produced Secular Christians who generally walk the path of life with little more than “blind faith.” They are led to this belief system that Christianity is based entirely on feeling, and the concept of God has mere existence in the mystical realm of faith and has no basis in facts.

But if this is the case, then how are we as Christians supposed to convince Atheists and unbelievers to the reality that God exists?

Atheists and the contemporary scientific community would have you think that God and science are polar opposites. But nothing could be further from the truth. God has not left us in doubt concerning His existence. On the contrary, He has provided us with more than enough evidence that the position of Atheists looks untenable.

In this article, we will have a brief look at some scientific facts which strongly imply the existence of God. It will also become evident that Atheism is unscientific and illogical.

God and Science

Contrary to popular belief, God and Science are not irreconcilable diametric opposites, but rather, they are in perfect harmony because a truly scientific study of this topic will lead to the evidence that proves the existence of God.

And now read Romans 1:20 to see the proof that God gives of His existence.

Can you see the similarity between the definition of science and the approach that God wants us to use to determine His existence?

God is telling us that the best way to know about Him is through the scientific study of His creation!

Now, this is excellent advice from God because the best way to understand the origin of the universe is to study it scientifically.

God and The Laws Of Thermodynamics

The Laws of Thermodynamics are the most fundamental laws of physics. They have been tested numerous times and have always proved to be valid.

Thermodynamics (from two Greek words meaning ‘heat power’) is the science dealing with the conversion of heat and other forms of energy into work. The Laws of Thermodynamics explain the fundamental behavior of matter and energy and are essential to understanding why the universe works the way it does.

In other words, the very fabric of the universe is governed by these laws!

The First Law of Thermodynamics

Also known as The Principle of Conservation of Energy, the law states that in a closed system, “Energy or Matter can neither be created nor be destroyed but rather can only be transformed from one form to another.”

This law is one of the most fundamental laws of Physics and all, physical, biological, and chemical processes in the universe are subject to this law.

E.g., If you burn a piece of wood to generate heat, it may appear that the matter in the wood has been destroyed. This is not true, the atoms that made up the wood are still there. They were merely transformed into ash, soot, smoke, and heat.

If we were to weigh all the remnants and by-products produced as a result of burning the wood, we would find that the weight would be the same as the original piece of wood. You might think that maybe by burning the wood, we created new heat energy, but this is also not true. It already had chemical potential energy preexisting within it, which just got converted into heat energy.

Therefore by burning the wood, no new energy was created or lost from the universe, it was just transformed from one form to another.

Implications of the First Law of Thermodynamics

The implications of this law are far-reaching. Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity repeatedly under a multitude of different conditions and the results have always agreed. Therefore this law is unquestionably accepted as a universal fact by all scientists.

From this law, the following conclusions can be drawn:

  • The total amount of energy and matter in this universe is constant.
  • Natural processes cannot create themselves nor arise from nothing.

So where did all the matter and energy come from?

Contemporary scientists and atheists claim that the universe was created by the Big Bang. According to the Big Bang theory, all matter including stars, planets, galaxies, etc. and all energy such as heat, nuclear, and chemical energy came into existence at the Big Bang. And according to the same scientists, there was no matter or energy in before the big bang.

This violates all the known laws of physics, including the first law of thermodynamics. Remember, energy and matter cannot be created, so the “scientific” theory of the Big Bang contradicts the most fundamental law of Physics.

The universe has a seemingly infinite quantity of energy and matter. But where did all of this come from in the first place?

Scientists today admit that they don’t have an answer. But I would like to suggest that the only logical and plausible explanation is that this energy and matter were introduced into this universe from an external source or entity. This entity has to be very large, powerful, and capable to provide almost unimaginable energy and matter to bring the universe into existence.

Therefore science and the first law of thermodynamics require and prove the existence of God.

The First Law of Thermodynamics mentioned in the Bible

Yes, you read that right, it is not a typo. All the laws of nature were created by God. So it should come as no surprise that you can find many of the laws of nature mentioned in the Bible thousands of years before man discovered them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

In essence, it states that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing as time passes, i.e., entropy or disorder in the universe is increasing with time.

The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws of nature, having profound implications because it predicts that the universe has a bleak future. One day the universe is going to end up in a “heat death.”

Note: Entropy is a measure of the energy not available for useful work.

Let us understand this from an example. Right now, as I am typing away sitting in a cozy room, I have a very hot cup of coffee sat next to me. If I wait for another 10 minutes, what is going to happen to it? Will it become warmer or colder?

The answer is it is going to become colder. And why is that? This is because my coffee is going to transfer its heat to the colder air in my room. The total energy in the room has not been lost (This is because of the first law of thermodynamics) but simply has escaped into the air, slightly warming it up in the process. But this heat energy of the coffee has been lost and is no longer usable. That is for all intents and purposes, there has been a “heat death” in the room.

Now imagine this on the enormous scale of the universe. Imagine stars to be hot cups of coffee and the universe to be a closed system like the room. Heat energy from these stars is slowly but surely being lost and is being converted into unusable energy. In other words, our universe is slowly winding down like a clock.

But if the universe is winding down like a clock, then it cannot have been eternally existing (even the big bang theory admits a beginning for the cosmos), and more importantly, someone has to have wound up the universe to cause it to come into existence.

Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics demands that the universe had a beginning. And since entropy increases with time, the universe should have started out in the most perfectly ordered state or, in other words, close to zero entropy.

Because energy is required to maintain low entropy, and we know from the first law of thermodynamics that this energy cannot have come from within the universe.

Well known physicist, Sir Roger Penrose calculated that the probability of our universe starting out at very low entropy just by pure chance is :

to one. It means ten raised to an exponent of:

It is hard even to imagine how big this number is. It’s 10 followed by 43 zeros times larger than the entire atoms in the universe!

We know that our universe started out at very low entropy and scientists admit that the possibility of this happening out of natural means is almost zero!

Folks we are left with only one other option, the universe was created by someone.

Therefore science and the second law of thermodynamics prove the existence of God who created this universe in its most stable and perfectly unchaotic state.


All matter is essentially condensed energy and all energy “has mass” when bound to a system.

Even though they are equivalent and able to “convert” into each other without losing or gaining total mass-energy, energy and mass aren’t exactly the “same”. You can think about it like this, energy is the fundamental building block of everything in the universe and all energy “has mass” when bound to a system.

That said, this is semi-laymen speak, science differentiates between mass and energy in a number of complex and subtle ways. Given the technical aspect you should not try to divide mass and energy, rather you should be like Einstein and simply say “mass-energy” to talk about both properties as a whole.


What is the second law of thermodynamics?

T hermodynamics is the study of heat and energy. At its heart are laws that describe how energy moves around within a system, whether an atom, a hurricane or a black hole. The first law describes how energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transformed from one kind to another. The second law, however, is probably better known and even more profound because it describes the limits of what the universe can do. This law is about inefficiency, degeneration and decay. It tells us all we do is inherently wasteful and that there are irreversible processes in the universe. It gives us an arrow for time and tells us that our universe has a inescapably bleak, desolate fate.

Despite these somewhat deflating ideas, the ideas of thermodynamics were formulated in a time of great technological optimism – the Industrial Revolution. In the mid-19th century, physicists and engineers were building steam engines to mechanise work and transport and were trying to work out how to make them more powerful and efficient.

Many scientists and engineers – including Rudolf Clausius, James Joule and Lord Kelvin – contributed to the development of thermodynamics, but the father of the discipline was the French physicist Sadi Carnot. In 1824 he published Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, which laid down the basic principles, gleaned from observations of how energy moved around engines and how wasted heat and useful work were related.

The second law can be expressed in several ways, the simplest being that heat will naturally flow from a hotter to a colder body. At its heart is a property of thermodynamic systems called entropy – in the equations above it is represented by "S" – in loose terms, a measure of the amount of disorder within a system. This can be represented in many ways, for example in the arrangement of the molecules – water molecules in an ice cube are more ordered than the same molecules after they have been heated into a gas. Whereas the water molecules were in a well-defined lattice in the ice cube, they float unpredictably in the gas. The entropy of the ice cube is, therefore, lower than that of the gas. Similarly, the entropy of a plate is higher when it is in pieces on the floor compared with when it is in one piece in the sink.

A more formal definition for entropy as heat moves around a system is given in the first of the equations. The infinitesimal change in entropy of a system (dS) is calculated by measuring how much heat has entered a closed system (δQ) divided by the common temperature (T) at the point where the heat transfer took place.

The second equation is a way to express the second law of thermodynamics in terms of entropy. The formula says that the entropy of an isolated natural system will always tend to stay the same or increase – in other words, the energy in the universe is gradually moving towards disorder. Our original statement of the second law emerges from this equation: heat cannot spontaneously flow from a cold object (low entropy) to a hot object (high entropy) in a closed system because it would violate the equation. (Refrigerators seemingly break this rule since they can freeze things to much lower temperatures than the air around them. But they don't violate the second law because they are not isolated systems, requiring a continual input of electrical energy to pump heat out of their interior. The fridge heats up the room around it and, if unplugged, would naturally return to thermal equilibrium with the room.)

This formula also imposes a direction on to time whereas every other physical law we know of would work the same whether time was going forwards or backwards, this is not true for the second law of thermodynamics. However long you leave it, a boiling pan of water is unlikely to ever become a block of ice. A smashed plate could never reassemble itself, as this would reduce the entropy of the system in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics. Some processes, Carnot observed, are irreversible.

Carnot examined steam engines, which work by burning fuel to heat up a cylinder containing steam, which expands and pushes on a piston to then do something useful. The portion of the fuel's energy that is extracted and made to do something useful is called work, while the remainder is the wasted (and disordered) energy we call heat. Carnot showed that you could predict the theoretical maximum efficiency of a steam engine by measuring the difference in temperatures of the steam inside the cylinder and that of the air around it, known in thermodynamic terms as the hot and cold reservoirs of a system respectively.

Heat engines work because heat naturally flows from hot to cold places. If there was no cold reservoir towards which it could move there would be no heat flow and the engine would not work. Because the cold reservoir is always above absolute zero, no heat engine can be 100% efficient.

The best-designed engines, therefore, heat up steam (or other gas) to the highest possible temperature then release the exhaust at the lowest possible temperature. The most modern steam engines can get to around 60% efficiency and diesel engines in cars can get to around 50% efficient. Petrol-based internal combustion engines are much more wasteful of their fuel's energy.

The inefficiencies are built into any system using energy and can be described thermodynamically. This wasted energy means that the overall disorder of the universe – its entropy – will increase over time but at some point reach a maximum. At this moment in some unimaginably distant future, the energy in the universe will be evenly distributed and so, for all macroscopic purposes, will be useless. Cosmologists call this the "heat death" of the universe, an inevitable consequence of the unstoppable march of entropy.


Do scientists know how matter and energy came into existence yet

As we piece together the past from the evidence we have, we see very strong evidence that all matter in the universe was packed tightly together once. We absolutely cannot determine anything about what happened before that point in time, because it is an absolute destruction of evidence. All "fingerprints" of any past that were in the form of shapes of matter or energy would have been completely and utterly destroyed by such an event. So by looking at it, for all we know, it came from the collapse of a universe like ours, or maybe the invisible pink unicorn shot the universe out of its invisible pink horn. We have no idea.

Now, modern theoretical physicists are working to understand the way our universe works beyond conventional methods, so that they can perhaps unfold new evidence that wouldn't have been destroyed by such a great compacting.

As for the infinitality of particles, it's simply that they have such a simple form that they can remain completely unchanged until great forces act upon them. The theoretical component particle (which might be the string) is the smallest particle that all matter and energy is made up of, and as it has no component parts, it cannot be altered or destroyed. These particles, if they exist (and they probably do) are infinite. They may have been created once, or they may have always existed. There is no way for us to know. And maybe someday they will be destroyed by a process that is beyond our understanding. But no catastrophe within our understanding could ever destroy or even change these particles in the slightest. As far as we can tell, they are all here to stay, forever.

"I don't believe matter can be eternal. It just doesn't make sense!"

The fact that you cannot make sense of it says nothing about its likelihood of being true. This is called the "Argument from Incredulity" and is a logical fallacy to be avoided.


History

Scientists in the late 18th and early 19th centuries adhered to caloric theory, first proposed by Antoine Lavoisier in 1783, and further bolstered by the work of Sadi Carnot in 1824, according to the American Physical Society. Caloric theory treated heat as a kind of fluid that naturally flowed from hot to cold regions, much as water flows from high to low places. When this caloric fluid flowed from a hot to a cold region, it could be converted to kinetic energy and made to do work much as falling water could drive a water wheel. It wasn&rsquot until Rudolph Clausius published "The Mechanical Theory of Heat" in 1879 that caloric theory was finally put to rest.


What explains the existence of energy/matter if it cannot be created or destroyed? - Astronomy

Although the ancient astronomers could determine the positions and brightness of stars, they had no understanding of what stars were. This is because they lacked a framework of physics in which to understand how stars worked. They lacked what we call today modern physics. Physics includes a wide variety of fields that are used to understand the origin and evolution of stars, mechanics, thermodynamics, light, matter, energy and the forces of Nature. The first physical laws dealt with motion, which we call classical mechanics.

In the center of the `School of Athens' by Raphael are Aristotle and Plato, Aristotle's hand level to the Earth symbolizing his realism view of Nature Plato's hand pointed towards the heaven symbolizing the mystical nature to his view of the Universe. This image symbols the sharp change in the meaning of how `natural philosophy' or physics will be done for the 2,200 years.

Aristotle stands in the Greek philosophical tradition which asserts that nature is understandable. This tradition, opposed to the idea that nature is under the control of capricious deities which are to be appeased rather than understood, is one of the roots of science.

Aristotle constructed his view of the Universe based on a intuitive felling of holistic harmony. Central to this philosophy was the concept of teleology or final causation. He supposed that individual objects (e.g. a falling rock) and systems (e.g. the motion of the planets) subordinate their behavior to an overall plan or destiny. This was especially apparent in living systems where the component parts function in a cooperative way to achieve a final purpose or end product.

Aristotle also provides a good example of the way in which what one knows or believes influences the way one understands new information. His theory of motion flows from his understanding of matter as constituted of four elements: air, earth, fire, and water. Each element exists in its own sphere around the Earth. Objects, being solid like earth, would tend to clump together with other solids (earth), so objects tend to fall to earth, their natural place. Thus, falling is a natural motion. Hot objects, like a hot air balloon, would rise towards its sphere of Fire.

The way Aristotle believed
objects to fall on the Earth
The way objects actually
fall to Earth

The difficulty comes in thinking about horizontal motion. Making an object move usually has a pretty obvious cause. What's difficult is explaining why something continues in motion.

The way Aristotle thought
projectiles moved
The way projectiles
"really" move

Think of a spear being thrown. At first, it is not in motion, but then the thrower's arm provides an impetus which accelerates it (our vocabulary, not Aristotle's). But then, what keeps it going after it leaves the thrower's hand? It should fall to earth immediately since there's nothing obvious pushing it!

Aristotle's answer was that as the spear flies through the air, it leaves a vacuum behind it. Air rushing in pushes the spear forward until its natural motion (falling) eventually brings it to earth.

Aristotle also thought about the causes which start things moving. In the spear scenario, it's easy to say that the thrower's arm moves the spear, but what moves the thrower's arm? Aristotle said that another motion moved the arm (muscle contraction?) but he also realized that some earlier motion must cause the muscle to contract and that earlier motion must also have its own initiator.

To avoid the idea that there is an infinite chain of causes, Aristotle argued that there must be an "unmoved mover," something which can initiate motion without itself being set in motion. This view was preserved by medieval Church during the Dark Ages and became the ruling paradigm.

Aside from his numerous inventions, Galileo also laid down the first accurate laws of motion for masses since the time of Aristotle. Galileo realized that all bodies accelerate at the same rate regardless of their size or mass. Everyday experience (as stated by Aristotle) tells you differently because a feather falls slower than a cannonball. Galileo's genius lay in spotting that the differences that occur in the everyday world are in incidental complication (in this case, air friction) and are irrelevant to the real underlying properties (that is, gravity). He was able to abstract from the complexity of real-life situations the simplicity of an idealized law of gravity.

Key among his investigations are:

  • developed the concept of motion in terms of velocity (speed and direction) through the use of inclined planes.
  • developed the idea of force, as a cause for motion.
  • determined that the natural state of an object is rest or uniform motion, i.e. objects always have a velocity, sometimes that velocity has a magnitude of zero = rest.
  • objects resist change in motion, which is called inertia.

The current understanding of the motion of objects, both macroscopic (such as stars and planets) and microscopic (such as atoms) was developed by Isaac Newton over 300 years ago. Newton defined the relationship of motion, called the laws of classical mechanics. In particular, he developed the following concepts:

    The three root quantities in mechanics are velocity, time and distance. The three are related by the formula distance = velocity x time

With respect to the energy of motion we follow Newton's formulation of the concept of momentum. A quantity that is used to describe the energy of motion and is expressed as the mass of an object times its velocity.

Newton also found that there is a law of the conservation of momentum that states the total momentum of a system is conserved. In other words, the sum of the momentum before must equal the sum of the momentums afterword. Conservation laws are extremely powerful in physics since they allow one to derive the future from the present conditions.

Energy is a concept that took over 150 years after Newton to develop. Energy can not be created or destroyed, only transfered from place to place. Energy is defined to be force times distance and is expressed in units of ergs (grams centimeter per second).

Huygens (1650's) was the first to develop the terminology, stating that:

  • energy is not like matter
  • energy does not have size, shape or occupy space
  • energy does not have inertia

The law of the conservation of energy means that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another.

Normally, we speak of the energy of motion, called kinetic energy, or stored energy, called potential energy. Potential energy as stored energy, for example as spring, also has a source from the gravitational field of a star or planet. A hammer held above the ground has the potential energy associated with its distance from the ground. This energy is released into kinetic energy when the hammer is dropped.

Energy also exists in chemical, nuclear, and electrical form. But these are mostly variations on kinetic and potential energies. For example, a chemical explosive is in potential form until the fuse is lite, then it converts to kinetic (the explosion). Electrical energy is the kinetic energy of the electrons in the wire.

Matter consists of atoms held together by electromagnetic forces. How tight these bonds are determines which of the four states: solid, liquid, gas and plasma, matter exists as. Plasmas are only found naturally in the coronae and cores of stars.

Notice that increasing the kinetic energy of the atoms weakens their bonds. Heating increases the motion of atoms and causes the matter to go from solid (ice) to liquid (water) to gas (vapor).

Atomic theory is the field of physics that describes the characteristics and properties of atoms that make up matter. The key point to note about atomic theory is the relationship between the macroscopic world (us) and the microscopic world of atoms. For example, the macroscopic world deals with concepts such as temperature and pressure to describe matter. The microscopic world of atomic theory deals with the kinetic motion of atoms to explain macroscopic quantities.

Macroscopic properties of matter are governed by the Ideal Gas Law of chemistry.

Temperature is explained in atomic theory as the motion of the atoms (faster = hotter). Pressure is explained as the momentum transfer of those moving atoms on the walls of the container (faster atoms = higher temperature = more momentum/hits = higher pressure).

For the ideal gas law, atoms appear to operate as tiny billiard balls, having no structure. Rutherford performed early experiments of shooting alpha particles (helium nuclei) at sheets of gold to show that atoms were, in fact, mostly empty space. Rutherford's model of an atom has a small nucleus containing protons (positive charged particles) and neutrons (particles with no electric charge) surrounded by electrons (small particles of negative charge).

This model basically looks like a little solar system, where the nucleus is the Sun and the electrons orbit the nucleus like the planets orbit the Sun. The solid behavior of atoms is due to the electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons in the outer orbits. When you strike your hand on a table, the solidness you feel is an illusion caused by the electrons pushing away from the atoms of the table and the atoms of your hand.

Bohr developed a different model of the atom to explain the absorption and emission line spectrum that could not be understood by the Rutherford atom model. The Bohr atom is similar to Rutherford atom, except the electrons can only move in fixed or quantized orbits.

The quantized orbits of the electrons allows for a simple explanation of the origin of photons, and the spectrum of light. Photons are produced by the transition of electrons downward in their orbits. A downward transition releases potential energy in the form of a light particle, a photon (as seen in an emission line). Likewise, photons could be absorbed by electrons (causing an absorption feature), and they move upward in their orbits.

The two properties of the Bohr atom led to the development of quantum physics and the detailed understanding of the emission and absorption nature of spectra.

Modern physics speaks of fundamental building blocks of Nature, where fundamental takes on a reductionist meaning of simple and structureless. Many of the particles we have discussed so far appear simple in their properties. All electrons have the exact same characteristics (mass, charge, etc.), so is an electron fundamental because they are all non-unique.

The search for the origin of matter means the understanding of elementary particles. The understanding of elementary particles requires an understanding of not only their characteristics, but how they interact and relate to other particles and forces of Nature, the field of physics called particle physics.

The study of particles begins with the search for the primary constituent. More than 200 subatomic particles have been discovered so far, however most are not fundamental, most are composed of other, simpler particles. For example, Rutherford showed that the atom was composed of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. Later physicists showed that the nucleus was composed of neutrons and protons. More recent work has shown that protons and neutrons are composed of quarks.

The two most fundamental types of particles are quarks and leptons, where each class is divided into 6 flavors corresponding to three generations of matter. Quarks (and antiquarks) have electric charges in units of 1/3 or 2/3's. Leptons have charges in units of 1 or 0.

Normal matter, everyday matter, is of the first generation, so we only concern ourselves with up and down quarks, the electron neutrino (often just called the neutrino), electrons, plus the four force carriers, the photon, the gluon, the W particle and the Z particle which we collectively call bosons. Force carriers are responsible for the four fundamental forces of Nature.

Note that for every quark or lepton there is an anti-particle, what is called anti-matter. For example, there is an up anti-quark, an anti-electron (called a positron) and an anti-neutrino. When matter and anti-matter make contact, then instantly annihilate each other to produce energy. Bosons do not have antiparticles since they are force carriers.

Quarks combine to form other types of matter, baryons and mesons. Baryons are made of three quarks and are found everywhere, they are the protons and neutrons of atomic nuclei (and also anti-protons and anti-neutrons). Mesons, made of quark pairs, are usually found in cosmic rays. Notice that a rule for quark combinations is that the sum of the charges must be an integer -1, 0, or +1. We do not see fractional charges in Nature, thus there are no free quarks, they are only found in pairs or triplets.

Thus, our current understanding of the structure of the atom is such that the atom contains a nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons bound to the nucleus by electromagnetic forces. The nucleus is composed of neutral neutrons and positively charged protons bound together by the strong nuclear force. The protons and neutrons are composed of up and down quarks whose fractional charges (2/3 and -1/3) which combine to produce the 0 or +1 charge of the proton and neutron.