The first law of thermodynamics - conservation of energy

originally posted by: Untun
a reply to: Brotherman

Only at the school of life at the moment.

Cool man gotcha, I'm a bit old for back to school but # it. In the future I will post more about some of the experiments and such I will be doing for my class you and others may like.

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: [post=26635267]Untun] how did energy occur?

Light... from the 5th dimension

No , that was a "beautiful balloon" that went up , up , and away .

(I still got it)

originally posted by: Untun
I have an example.

Can someone explain how the first law of thermodynamics applies to burning a log of wood?

Is it weird to ask, because I could be missing a point here.

Transformed to energy and carbon.
Done.
Next.

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: Gothmog

The (theoretical physicist) are glitching hardcore because we can't get to intergalactic space (the space between the galaxies) to scoop up a bottle of empty space and bring it back to the work bench to figure out what it is.

They're using their math to try to do that...

Experimental physicists are the real-deal, the theoreticians are just talking heads using a tool which if examined closely one discovers has its own set of problems.

The composition of galactic space (the galactic medium) is mostly hydrogen, what they're after resides outside the galaxy.

Don't be rude just try to ignore it and let em do what they do, someone is bound to make an educated guess but how that would be tested in our lifetimes who knows?

Proof ?
(And I am not being rude.)

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: Gothmog

The (theoretical physicist) are glitching hardcore because we can't get to intergalactic space (the space between the galaxies) to scoop up a bottle of empty space and bring it back to the work bench to figure out what it is.

They're using their math to try to do that...

Experimental physicists are the real-deal, the theoreticians are just talking heads using a tool which if examined closely one discovers has its own set of problems.

The composition of galactic space (the galactic medium) is mostly hydrogen, what they're after resides outside the galaxy.

Don't be rude just try to ignore it and let em do what they do, someone is bound to make an educated guess but how that would be tested in our lifetimes who knows?

Proof ?
(And I am not being rude.)

Proof of what?

This is science not a religious debate.

A little more specifics would help...

a reply to: Gothmog

Don't let that quantum physics business rot your brain, most of those talking heads are crossing over into the realm of spirituality and attempting to discern the nature of reality and all that trippy spooky mysticism stuff.

Head on over to metaphysics or pseudo-science section for all that lol.

Scientists aren't purveyors of truth, we are explorers in the natural world, the reality that we inhabit.

this quote from Matrix IV goes here...

if we don't know what's real we can't resist

And that's about the only "philosophy" you get from matrix 4 that's why it sucks so bad.

a reply to: Brotherman

I went back and finished my degree after age 50. Turns out I already knew a lot that was accurate, but also had what I call "holes" in my knowledge... little things that I didn't know but which also kept me from understanding fully the things I did know.

There's an advantage at that age... I was older than some of my professors! I felt I had nothing to prove to them, as I had already lived longer than they had, and that lack of ability to be intimidated turned out to be quite the advantage. I could ask questions without worrying about them being "silly" and drawing ire from the professors. The professors seemed to like that as well, as I challenged them intellectually and made them think; they are there to teach, after all. As a result, i learned more faster and better.

Some of my younger classmates told me later on that the same dynamic had helped them as well.

Bravo to you for going back.

TheRedneck

a reply to: iamthevirus

Don't let that quantum physics business rot your brain

Quantum physics is a unique field. On one hand, it does contain some actual hard science, albeit still in statistical form. On the other hand, it developed based on a complete misunderstanding of mathematics. I like to say that Heisenberg was a pessimist and Schrodinger was a mathematical illiterate.

I firmly believe as Einstein did: God does not play dice with the Universe. We simply do not yet fully understand the natural proclivities and forces underlying the statistical element of quantum physics. As a result, our present data looks as much like magic as it does math.

That will change. We will figure it out.

TheRedneck

It's interesting. I learned what they call energy is actually mass, like wood, stone, and anything made from nature. These things can go over into other types of energy like temperature, gas, other matter and nothing gets lost.

What is in the universe stays in the universe.

a reply to: Untun

Classical physics and General/Special Relativity is a solid foundation, too many glossing over it too fast and trying to bring everyone up to modern quantization of energy and they're just accepting it for what it is with no foundational roots.

You must also realize there are divisions in physics, we just normally do not war with each other over the same goal both sides are trying to achieve.

a reply to: TheRedneck

And Bohr's response is straight out of the left-field.

"Stop telling God what to do with his dice"

that's a classic and it speaks volumes... the Marxist response (I am my own god)

He was just jealous because Einsteins God smiled on him and a working class man such as himself changed the world forever (while he was still alive I might add)

originally posted by: Untun
It's interesting. I learned what they call energy is actually mass, like wood, stone, and anything made from nature. These things can go over into other types of energy like temperature, gas, other matter and nothing gets lost.

What is in the universe stays in the universe.

Well there is the mass energy equivalence equation saying which came out of Einstein's work, E=mc², but from my perspective, I think you have it backwards. I can say mass generally has energy, but I can't say energy generally has mass.

Take a proton for example which consists of 3 quarks, but those 3 quarks make up only about 1% of the mass of a proton. The rest of the mass of a proton comes from energy. That goes for neutrons too, and since protons and neutrons make up most of the matter we are familiar with, I would say that the mass is comprised of roughy 99% energy when we look inside the protons and neutrons.

I can't say energy is composed of mass, because much energy in the universe consists of photons, and photons are massless. But I can say most mass is composed of energy, as explained in this video, which has it right:

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson

... electrons derive their mass entirely from the Higgs interaction but protons and neutrons, made of quarks, do not. In fact the quark masses are so small that they only make up about 1% of the mass of the proton (and a similar fraction of the neutron).The rest of the mass comes from the energy in the gluon field. Gluons are massless, but there is so much energy in the field that by E=mc^2 there is a significant amount of mass there. This is where most of your mass comes from and the mass of virtually everything around you.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Bohr an Atheist and Marxist "philosopher" not a "physicist" gives us QT... no wonder why it's broken, for over 100 years now.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Take a proton for example which consists of 3 quarks, but those 3 quarks make up only about 1% of the mass of a proton. The rest of the mass of a proton comes from energy.

That is one prominent theory... possibly the prominent theory at this time.

I would present a different way of looking at the particle: that it is both mass and energy at the same time. When at relative rest, it is seen as a particle. When it moves at the speed of light, it is seen as a wave of energy. Protons do not typically move at the speed of light due to their high mass, but electrons can and sometimes do... and they appear as an energy wave, exhibiting refractive properties.

I see all particles as standing waves of energy trapped by the properties of space-time itself. If they are destroyed, they simply release their trapped energy at the rate of E=Mc^2. Quarks are a temporary exhibition of 1/3 energy harmonics that can form a particle when and if coherent.

I don't have time to dig into the entire theory I refer to, but that's the gist of it. Maybe when I get back tonight I can go into more detail if anyone wants.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Brotherman

I went back and finished my degree after age 50. Turns out I already knew a lot that was accurate, but also had what I call "holes" in my knowledge... little things that I didn't know but which also kept me from understanding fully the things I did know.

There's an advantage at that age... I was older than some of my professors! I felt I had nothing to prove to them, as I had already lived longer than they had, and that lack of ability to be intimidated turned out to be quite the advantage. I could ask questions without worrying about them being "silly" and drawing ire from the professors. The professors seemed to like that as well, as I challenged them intellectually and made them think; they are there to teach, after all. As a result, i learned more faster and better.

Some of my younger classmates told me later on that the same dynamic had helped them as well.

Bravo to you for going back.

TheRedneck

I don't much of a choice to go back to school or not. The situation is very complicated actually, I had very little thought into doing it and am not much prepared for it.
To make the situation simply said is something like this:

I got a notification that I am almost at the time limit to use my Chapter 33 Post 9-11 GI Bill. At the time of me EAS and SEPS/TAPS from the USMC, I was under the impression that my benefits THAT I PAID FOR ON MY 22 cent and hour combat role over the span of 6 years encompassing 4 combat deployments into some of the sh it tiest spots in the middle east where not only going to be there for me for life but also if I chose to I could give them to my kids or wife one day if I so chose to.
Well that was a fantasy apparently since I got out before 2013 I had 13 years to use my benefits or they will be re absorbed back into someone elses funds.
So I got out in 2009 active duty and have less then 2 years to use my stuff so I had to act fast. So now I have a full time job working 3rd shift as a welder and machinist and now a full time student with a house and 2 sick wimmins and 4 dogs.

Not my choice but use it or lose it apparently.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I don't have time to dig into the entire theory I refer to, but that's the gist of it. Maybe when I get back tonight I can go into more detail if anyone wants.

Whose theory is it? Milo Wolff's? Because according to a physicist on quora, Wolff's so-called "theory" isn't a theory because it doesn't allow the physicist to make predictions like the real theories used by physicists do.

How valid is Milo Wolff's Space Resonance/Wave Structure of Matter Theory?

Joseph Wang - Ph.D. Astrophysics
Originally Answered: How valid is Milo Wolff's Space Resonance/Wave Structure of Matter Theory?

Totally invalid. It's not even a theory.

OK. I take one electron and scatter it off another electron. With the standard model, I can calculate how the electrons scatter.

I can't tell how to do the calculation from his website. There are no numbers at all.

It's like asking "What is the capital of Illinois?" and answering "blue mermaids. What's for lunch?" This is not a valid answer. It's not even a wrong answer, because it doesn't answer the question. Answering "The capital of Illinois is Chicago." is incorrect, but it's an answer. A wrong answer. But an answer. That's better than no answer.

Particle physics is not philosophy. You take two pickup trucks and smash them together, and a theory of physics will tell you want happens to them. You want to do the same thing with two protons. I take two protons, smash them together, what should I see.

I can't see how I can *begin* to calculate this. Even a wrong answer is better than no answer, and this website has no answer.

Wolff seems to talk more about philosophy than how to do the calculations. Real physicists want to know how to do the calculations to make predictions of what is going to happen when they run an experiment.

If it's not Wolff's "theory", the important questions for another theory are:
-what predictions does the theory make that are different than the "mainstream" theory, and
-are those predictions testable in experiment, or have they been tested?

Some hypotheses have already been ruled out before they were even proposed, because the people proposing them are not aware of all the experimental evidence that already exists, some of which can already falsify many alternative theories. In fact the renowned theoretical physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed lamented the hardest part of his job as a theoretical physicist is coming up with ideas for alternative theories that have not already been ruled out by experiment, because he is a man who IS familiar with the experiments already performed, and he says they rule out most alternate theories he can think of, so it's really hard for him to come up with an alternate idea that hasn't already been ruled out by experiment.

It's much easier of course for people unfamiliar with the experiments, who don't even know their proposed idea has already been ruled out by experiment, to propose alternative ideas.

a reply to: Untun

what I want to know is that if energy cannot be created or destroyed then why does the universe suffer heat death and the age of black holes eating up everything until the universe is dark
does the last black hole eat up everything and then BANG another universe is born ?

I guess we wont be around to see it anyway

a reply to: Untun

Sorry if covered already…

For a closed system. Like a steam plant / Conventional power plant.

Doesn’t apply to nuclear physics for example. Fission and fusion.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Untun

what I want to know is that if energy cannot be created or destroyed then why does the universe suffer heat death and the age of black holes eating up everything until the universe is dark

The first law says energy is conserved, it doesn't say what happens to entropy. The second law says something about entropy increasing so generally it's not conserved.

So a hot cup of coffee cools down according to the second law, but the energy wasn't lost according to the first law, it was conserved and transferred to the environment around the coffee cup. That's sort of a "mini heat death" for the hot cup of coffee when it's not hot anymore. You can use that as an analogy for the heat death of the universe, though it's a lot more complicated in the details.

does the last black hole eat up everything and then BANG another universe is born ?

I guess we wont be around to see it anyway

There are lots of ideas, but I don't think anybody really knows for sure. We understand maybe 5% of the composition of the universe, so we need to get a handle on the other 95% to have more confidence in making predictions about such a distant future, and even then we still may never know for the reason you said.

a reply to: TheRedneck


How is your interpretation different from Einstein's energy equivalence? When the particle is moving at a certain speed, the total energy is approximately equal to the kinetic energy and increases in mass due to speed.
If the speed is zero, it's the rest mass. If the object is moving, it's relativistic kinetic energy and depends on the speed of the object. Whether it "appears" as a wave or some other structure isn't part of the calculation. It's the measurement of energy that's relevant. In nuclear fission and/or fusion, it's the energy transfer that's measured - i.e. the binding/bonding energy of the atoms. What they look like is irrelevant.

P.S. I wanted to upload a jpg of the equations but uploads is not working - any information on that? Thanks. Fixed.