Laws of Thermodynamics?

[JNXMN]

it's actually referring to energy, heat is just one form of energy.

[mgenius33]

So, can you think of anything that does not require the transfer of heat?

A form of energy that doesn't require the transfer of heat?
Potential Energy...

[mgenius33]

Suppose you're stationed by the railroad track and you're watching a train pass by. You have good info that the mass of the train is X kg, and you measure its speed at Y m/s. You calculate it's KE as

kg(m/s)^2 or XY^2isn't this the formula for Force=ma, KE= 1/2mv^2

which in this case turns out to be a rather large number. A passenger on the train however measures the speed of the train as exactly 0 m/s. He calculates that the KE of the train is zero. It has no kinetic energy from his frame of reference. It should be obvious then that the KE that you attributed to the train is not an intrinsic property of the train, but rather just a perception, like color, relating to your particular frame of reference.

Sounds like we are touching on Einstein's theory, and Socrate's statement noted in my signature...

[hvacrmedic]

Sounds like we are touching on Einstein's theory, and Socrate's statement noted in my signature...

I borrowed his train and referred to relavity of motion, but I wasn't necessarily referring to any of Einstien's original hypotheses, and don't in general subscribe to his version of relativity. The question here is whether energy can be created from nothing, and that's a question that's outside the realm of physics. It may even be a meaningless question.

[JBM1000]

To even measure absolute zero or below takes a transfer of energy be it a crossover of dimensions of the 4th kind or staying inside our tiny barely able to compute reality. "That is one of my better lines of pure B.S. I must admit"!

[Andy Schoen]

Maybe energy doesn't exist at all? That would resolve the paradox wouldn't it. If it never was, then it didn't have to be created.

Or perhaps more correctly, the total sum of energy in the universe is zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

No need to figure out where energy came from. And the First Law still applies.

[hvacrmedic]

Or perhaps more correctly, the total sum of energy in the universe is zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

No need to figure out where energy came from. And the First Law still applies.

Speculative. Energy is after all a mathematical concept, as are positive and negative. In any case, from where did the positive and negative energy originate? Suppose we invent a new physics term, "absolute energy", which is defined as the sum of the absolute values of the positive and negative energy components in the universe, or of some arbitrary closed system. What's to prevent us from doing this? So the question becomes, where did the absolute energy come from? (Note that this is just another way of asking the same question again).

[Andy Schoen]

Speculative.

Certainly, it is not a scientific hypothesis. But it does provide a nice explanation of where energy came from in the first place, if it cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, it didn't come from anywhere.

So the question becomes, where did the absolute energy come from? (Note that this is just another way of asking the same question again).

That you are. Energy is energy. What purpose does it make to redefine it? A waste of intellectual effort in my humble opinion. James Maxwell had it correct. And thermodynamic law remains the basis of all natural science (at least as long as I will live).

The only question here is if positive energy existed at T=0, where did it come from? Or if energy was zero at T=0 (the more elegant solution, IMHO), what created the positive/negative energy to begin with?

[timebuilder]

I borrowed his train and referred to relavity of motion, but I wasn't necessarily referring to any of Einstien's original hypotheses, and don't in general subscribe to his version of relativity. The question here is whether energy can be created from nothing, and that's a question that's outside the realm of physics. It may even be a meaningless question.

Or, it may be VERY meaningful, yet be beyond our comprehension.

We might hypothesize, that energy could not have come from what we conceive to be "nothing," but it is really nothing? Did God act as the source for this energy, and in fact, use his energy to create ALL matter and energy? Did he move energy from another dimension of reality?

At this point, we can stick safely with the understanding that we have here, and trust that there is a far greater understanding that we may never achieve....

[JNXMN]

Certainly, it is not a scientific hypothesis. But it does provide a nice explanation of where energy came from in the first place, if it cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, it didn't come from anywhere.



That you are. Energy is energy. What purpose does it make to redefine it? A waste of intellectual effort in my humble opinion. James Maxwell had it correct. And thermodynamic law remains the basis of all natural science (at least as long as I will live).

The only question here is if positive energy existed at T=0, where did it come from? Or if energy was zero at T=0 (the more elegant solution, IMHO), what created the positive/negative energy to begin with?

another point of view maybe? the first law defines the physic in OUR dimension and at the time concept we understand currently. maybe when the study of physic advance we'll discover more and see thing from different angle?