1st Law of Thermodynamics is wrong?

[Admin]

This is a physics question that occurred to me a few days ago and has been annoying me since. My google attempts have failed, but I'm convinced physics has already solved this question. I was hoping someone here is a physicist that can help me sleep better at night

We all know (or should know) that the 1st law of thermodynamics states "energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

So then why does the universe have energy?

I mean, its silly to say you can't create energy, and then say energy exists. So this leads me to believe that the first law of thermodynamics can be broken, albeit the exception(s) is probably still unknown to science.

My wild guess is that is has something to do with a big bang and anti-matter . . . perhaps there is this parallel anti-universe, that if it somehow collided with ours, everything will just cancel out into nothingness . . . yea, I'm mostly making that up

[amando96]

Good point, most of you human's theories, are based only on speculation, There is no proof of a ''big bang'' it's just finding an alternate belief to religion 

[TrickyNekro]

Actually, If I am not wrong the First Law says that the heat that a system has received is either used to produce work or it is used to increase the systems "in system energy" Self energy of the system??? Well I don't remember the term but I think you understood... (I learn physics in Greek not English sorry... :-P)

Also if you know there is Entropy (which has a key role in your understading).... entropy in a close system tends to increase or stay zero (well in perfect conditions that do not really exist), but can never be decreased...
So if the universe has limits... aka is a closed system then.... Someday... Everything is just going to be in the same state....
Of course this is not going to happen... Why??? We really don't know yet.... That's why CERN is build, to start understanding....

Now from then and on, there are theories... The universe may have limits, but they are long before certain, at some places they contract, at other places it expands... it's a f@@@ up thing... Also when thermodynamics laws were formed we didn't know that subatomic particles existed and many many other things...

So it's more than possible that there is some kinda "engine" in the universe that actually degrease the entropy of the universe... how??? we don't know... but actually these black holes may be doing something more than just sucking matter...

Also we haven't really had the opportunity to accelerate a system of many "things" near light speed to see what happens... Well that's where CERN kicks in again... So... well...

I can't really answer your question as a second year physicist but... who can??? We haven't found out yet :-P  

[Cristi_Neagu]

Here's a good one: where does all the energy developed by gravity come from?

[TrickyNekro]

Here's a good one: where does all the energy developed by gravity come from?

There is a some how explanation why this happens... But not clearly why gravitational fields exist...

When there is a difference, when there is dynamic energy... The difference is distance between the objects...
A systems tends to be more stable when it has less dynamic energy...
So gravity exists because the system would be more stable if all the mass was stored in a single point... but that doesn't
happen... so we have gravity...

But it isn't clear yet where it comes from...

Actually gravitation fields are the only known fields to bend light... And having heard of some theories about super magnets and super fluids that if a super fluid or any kind of mass is spinned very fast, near light speed the tend to great
very strong gravitational fields... of course this is a theory....... Nothing proved so far...

Still there should be a connection with gravitational fields and light...

[Finnik]

(according to wikipedia) the 1st law of thermodynamics indeed expresses the principle of conservation of energy, with the law specifically concerning heat.

Energy being impossible to create nor to destroy - according to the principle of conservation of energy - , you have just come across a fundamental question concerning the universe, the question where it all came from. A fundamental question that has not been, and is far from being, answered.

In essence, there are two options. The first; something was created out of nothing, energy/matter just appeared out of nothingness. The second; something has always been there, i.e. energy/matter have always been present in one form or another. The first option would mean that the principle of conservation of energy has exceptions, the second would follow from the principle.

Neither can be fully encompassed by the human mind, for we live in an impermanent world where everything has a beginning and an end, and things don't just appear out of nowhere.

[Admin]

errr but entropy has nothing to do with it, its just a measure of how organized or disorganized a system is.

Its like putting food in a blender, as it gets mixed up, entropy is increased. You can't decrease entropy simply because matter doesn't unmix itself.

(and no the world won't blow up with too much entropy, mixing something thats already mixed just gives you something mixed )

[arixrobotics]

The 1st law of chickendynamics states that chickens can only come from eggs, and eggs can only come from chickens. So where did the first chicken came from? Or should I ask where did the 1st egg comes from? But then there must be two eggs, one hatched a hen and the other hatched a rooster.   

[SmAsH]

The chicken came first, it evolved from bacteria

[richiereynolds]

Well, I think asking where all the energy came from is just the same as asking "where did the universe come from"? i.e. it's a property of the universe, as is time, hence there's no point in putting the word "before" in any questions regarding the origin of the universe as the concept of "before" is a property of the universe.

I guess all the kinetic energy we see must've been potential energy at some poin bound up in the mass that all the matter we see was created from.

Anyway, I think our brains are too weeny to comprehend!

[TrickyNekro]

errr but entropy has nothing to do with it, its just a measure of how organized or disorganized a system is.

Its like putting food in a blender, as it gets mixed up, entropy is increased. You can't decrease entropy simply because matter doesn't unmix itself.

(and no the world won't blow up with too much entropy, mixing something thats already mixed just gives you something mixed )

Eee sorry but entropy has a lot to do with it... The mathematical equivalent of the First Law is:

dQ = dU - W

where Q is the heat transfered, U is the internal energy of the system and W is work (where there are many ways to output work).
But this equation isn't a clear derivative, and that's problematic... So the "universal" thermodynamics equation comes to be:

dU = TdS - W (where work is the degrees of freedom that the system can produce work, for example W = integral(PdV))
But of course you don't use integrals in above equation

For example:
dU = TdS - PdV
And so on with more complicated examples...

Now... We know that work for an external Force is W = Fdl, where F is the external force and dl is the difference in the distance that is created over time when the force is applied...
But it's clear than gravitational forces tend to increase entropy... But as big planets etc etc etc run on elliptical paths...
And now there is of course something I don't know but should be critical....
In every of these big turns is work created, zero, or consumed??? based clearly on the distance of the planets....
I haven't read anything on this nor I know something...

Your question is a pretty much big question to be answered directly... And yet to know what energy is, so where is comes form, or how it was initially created is well... the cherry on the cream pie... really...

[Admin]

Gravity doesn't create energy, it transfers energy (in the form of momentum). When the apple fell to the Earth, the Earth also fell to the apple - the distance traveled is in proportion to the mass*velocity ratio of both objects. No one yet knows how gravity attracts objects, however.

[vinito]

That's just crazy talk. It's as plain as the nose on your face that gravity works by sucking.

Everything sucks by nature, i.e. Life Sucks. It is the individual efforts of live organisms to resist this suckage that makes life interesting for them. For example, trees grow the opposite direction of the gravity they experience, then like Lewis from Mad TV, they say "Look what I can do!".

The less independent the system becomes, the more it resembles nature's natural tendency toward sucking. This is why your pet iguana, your friends, Mom or Dad might be cool, but school administration, a department at your job or an angry mob sucks. The larger the system, the more it sucks, which is why corporate monopolies like Monsanto or Sony, governments, insurance companies and banks have achieved almost perfect, pure suckage.

The huge systems in the cosmos are continually trying to suck themselves together, but over time the suckage reaches a saturation point and then something happens to drive them back apart too, so once you get to that scale there is obviously another force that can counteract this sucking to repel things apart from time to time.

So it's elementary. The universe sucks, and occasionally it also blows.

[TrickyNekro]

Gravity doesn't create energy, it transfers energy (in the form of momentum). When the apple fell to the Earth, the Earth also fell to the apple - the distance traveled is in proportion to the mass*velocity ratio of both objects. No one yet knows how gravity attracts objects, however.

Just for a pointer.... I remember talking about Entropy not energy.... at that point... maybe my bad, I did review what I wrote... And also I did talked about energy but about work... it's not the same...
However I'll check my thoughts when I have a lesson and tell you more... :-D

[Soeren]

Hi,

[...] most of you human's theories, are based only on speculation,

Errrm, That's sort of what the word "theory" means to most people - to speculate. More precisely, in science we are refining this with an adjective, making it "deductive theory".

"Theory in modern English is a concept which originally derives from classical Greek philosophy, for example that of Plato, and is derived from ancient Greek θεωρία theoria, which originally meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", but in philosophy specifically came to refer to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action, [...]"

There is no proof of a ''big bang'' it's just finding an alternate belief to religion 

Or, the other way 'round.

Humanity in general have a hard time accepting not knowing it all. I have a sneaky idea that's what spurred the birth of the first primitive religions.
I picture a caveman that spots a stone rolling down a mountain. Since he is (vaguely) human, he has this strange need to have everything declared and since he cannot find anything that set the stone off (I have a feeling that he intuitively know that the sustained roll down doesn't need any "fuel"), he invents something that can give him an explanation and comes up with "Ahaa(*), there's a God inside the stone" and his understanding of his world is in check again.

* This is way before Archimedes, so he wouldn't know "Heureka" 

[Soeren]

Hi,

Its like putting food in a blender, as it gets mixed up, entropy is increased. You can't decrease entropy simply because matter doesn't unmix itself.

Ask your S.O. what happens if you put oil and water in the blender, blend it and leave it there for some time 

[...] mixing something thats already mixed just gives you something mixed )

Probability math defines a limit to mixing which, quite soon, reach a level where it actually un-mixes some of the "matter", while other "parts" are getting more mixed and this goes on from that point, assuming something thet don't eg. dissolves into each other (this relates in a small way to the above as well.

[Admin]

Its like putting food in a blender, as it gets mixed up, entropy is increased. You can't decrease entropy simply because matter doesn't unmix itself.

Ask your S.O. what happens if you put oil and water in the blender, blend it and leave it there for some time 

If you consider the individual atoms within each medium, it'll still be mixed.

[...] mixing something thats already mixed just gives you something mixed )

Probability math defines a limit to mixing which, quite soon, reach a level where it actually un-mixes some of the "matter", while other "parts" are getting more mixed and this goes on from that point, assuming something thet don't eg. dissolves into each other (this relates in a small way to the above as well.

How many atoms are in a blender? What is the probability that all atoms will go back into the exact same spot with the exact same rotation if you mix long enough?

To me its like air - you can mix the air as much as you want, its still going to be air. The increase in entropy just says the air is disorganized from the way it was before you mixed it.


It just bothered me that for the last 9 years I thought the first law of thermodynamics couldn't be broken, yet all around me was proof that it was wrong and I never realized it. If scientists ever figure out how to break the law, can you imagine the free energy machine that we can build from it?

And actually, when I googled it, I found several religious websites discussing it, and not a single physics website with a discussion about it.

[TrickyNekro]

There is in fact a theory saying that energy can be produced by some kinda of fields... (mostly magnetic fields)
But can't rembemer the name of either theory or these fields... But it exists...

What is funny though is that we are only aware about the 30% of matter that is supposed to be in the universe...
The 70% is quite a big percentance... And even more funnier is the fact that we don't really know this percentance on the earth...

Thermodynamic Law's proved to be some of the more "stable" Law that we have.... Thing of it...
Newton Laws? They were broken down...
Theories about the behavior of light.... broken down...
Thermodynamics only needed a correction with Zero Law needed to be added.... Cause First Law came first.... Yes... sounds funny... But even with this correction the other two Laws didn't change...

Physics is a speculation of reality... It discribes what is happening... It doesn't say what exactly is happening....

Yet thermodynamics proved to be some of the best discriptions in physics... So many years unaltered...
There are some discriptions that use less worlds than the 3 Laws (basically 4) but it's the same phenomeno after all... They don't say that something is different, there are only more cohesive....

Amen guys....

[praveen_khm]

Hi Admin,

Good topic to debate. The universe has energy. So where did this energy come from?

Billions of years ago, universe was created. How was it created? After the Big Bang. Theories say that big bang created space, time, matter, energy and gravity.

So, now we know where did the energy in the present universe come from, the big bang. How? There was lot of energy in the universe in the form of light and heat after the big bang. Then photons decayed into anti-photons, and then, it continued to form matter, energy....blah.. blah..

But the bigger question, how did this big bang happen. Out of nowhere? Where did the energy come from (and also mass) for the big bang to happen?

This is where your question is really valid. The answer is "No one knows". If you are convinced that the physists and Cosmologists have solved it, then the answer is "NO". Nobody knows how and where from the energy came for the Big bang. Some say there was a twin universe and then it ended, the bounced up version is the big bang and hence the universe is expanding now.

ie, the previous universe started contracting to the smallest possible size and then "BANG" it exploded.

Others consider a Dark energy, (something like your anti-universe) which always existed.

Lastly if we consider Einsten's "Universe always existed principle", then the answer is simple. Energy always existed.

Hope one fine day we get a solution to this. This is just my knowledge gained after I got a similar type of question in my mind "what was there before big-bang" and I never got an answer.

Oh yeah, if someone can do a bit of research on Curved space (the gravitational field of the cosmos), then it might throw some light to this discussion

Cheers,
Praveen

[blackbeard]

you need to realize that energy and matter are not so dissimilar. matter can be transformed into energy (i.e. fusion) and energy can be turned into matter (way more complicated). so basically before the universe existed there was a super particle that contained all the energy and matter in the universe in a form that wasn't even a complete atom as we comprehend them. now before the big bang physics of time and space didn't exist and the universe didn't exist because they relied on the expansion of said universe meaning nothing exists as we can comprehend existence before the big bang. in fact there wasn't technically a "before" or an "after" at all.

in short our laws of physics only exist in our universe meaning that energy nor matter is irrelevant without the presence of our universe. energy and matter are what the universe is and that's why it exists.

[vinito]

Throughout history, man has sought to fit his scrawny little existence into a nice little pigeonhole. First, the earth just was. Then it was flat, and the heavens revolved around it, for human entertainment I suppose. Then the earth was round and the idea that the earth just spun around started to make sense, but the sun was the center of the universe. Fast forward and of course they realize that doesn't hold up either and it seems we are much smaller and unimportant than that. Then they came up with the idea of the Big Bang, which was somewhat supported by the redshift phenomenon and folks decided that there was a starting moment for it all - a central point in space and time when it all "began".

Of course that idea is falling apart too, as they are discovering that not everything is moving away from a central point, as well as the idea that the universe is "universally expanding" (which isn't so linear either) and on top of that it appears to be accelerating in velocity. Turns out both these observations are tied to our perspective of this particular point in time and space  So even this idea will start unraveling soon enough.

So what's wrong with wrapping your head around the idea that we measly humans will never really know what the whole truth is? I have nothing wrong with settling on a theory that seems to make better sense than an older one. Without the willingness to do that, science would not exist. It's pretty basic to it. The problem is that humans never seem to learn from history. We repeat our mistakes, and that appears to be universally expanding these days as well.

The big bang idea was just one step up from the previous human-centric theory line. We keep wanting to come up with theories that rely on there being a central point in space or time or whatever. And we are eventually proven to be erroneous about it. Nature doesn't often display a nice, central anything. Even the nucleus of the atom seems to be not so central, not so "dot"-like, and even not so continuous as it appears to blink in and out of existence if you look close enough.

We need to start coming up with big ideas that rely on an ever-changing cloud of phenomena that simply appear to us to follow patterns. I know we kind of do this already, but it's still considered a bit on the "fringe" side. Which is funny since these ego-centric ideas continually fall apart while the chaotic ones still seem to display the same patterns today.

Anyway...

I'd first realize that even the 1st law of thermodynamics is probably flawed, like all the others. It still is a pretty strong pattern to go about your day with, but everything else we look at changes if we look at it close enough - why not this too. The human mind created the law, not the cosmos. If matter and gravity and quantum mechanics start to unravel if you look at them really, really closely or really, really far away, then why is it so difficult to believe that matter and energy "can" be created or destroyed on a scale that we humans just don't/can't perceive? Because of a math equation on paper? Oh come on. If the universe is so unfathomably large and old, then I don't really have trouble believing that even if the ether is created at a snail's pace (cosmologically speaking) there was plenty of time for it all to sprout up, however it does it. It doesn't mean that humans could ever make energy from nothingness so they can drive their car to the mall, but there are a few other things humans don't need to be able to do either.

The problem isn't the chicken and egg quandary. The problem only exists if you believe the first law of thermodynamics is absolutely true. I'm not positive (I'm only human after all) but I think history has proven there really are no absolutes.

Oh yea....
... always remember and never forget. The universe sucks, and occasionally it blows. That's one you can take to the bank.

[Admin]

As a scientist, I refuse to accept that anything cannot some day be explained by science.
(although I can accept that some things won't be explained in my life time)

Besides, whoever figures it out will be treated like the 'next Einstein'.

[vinito]

Oh piffle!
Actually that wasn't where I was going with that, but I can see why it would be taken that way upon a second reading.
Except you have to agree that the puny human mind can only grok so much. Just such a common thing as the size of the universe, while we can explain it kind of, in numbers & such on paper or whatever, based on information gathered by measurements we have taken, isn't really comprehended by any human. Some more than others, sure. But the vastness is so huge it gets over our raisin pretty early on. Sooo... etcetera.

Having said that, my main thrust was to say that a better path to the next big idea might be to resist the notion of believing anything we think we know is absolute, and go in a direction that mirrors nature more accurately (patterns within chaos I guess). In other words, if you feel like you're getting close to finding a point of origin or a hard & fast rule (law) or something, it might be smarter to stop there and find out where you went wrong. Once you think you know something, the truth will just step to the left when you're not looking anyway (remember the history thing?).

I'm just waxing of course. It just gets to me a little when I witness people discussing scientific and "scientific" things that are sometimes 50 or 100 year-old ideas that have been adjusted in more recent times. I'm sure you've experienced a group of people discussing something that is now somewhat obsolete and you can tell they believe in it with an almost religious fervor. Folks tend to hang on to things they learned in primary school without exploring the idea further in the interval between then and now, so even though they often get passed by, they are often in good company so old ideas can remain for much longer than they should. I'm not picking on anybody here of course, and I've never heard of the 1st law being dis-proven either, but so many scientific discoveries that seemed solid have been fuzzified under new light that it just seems a matter of time (no pun intended).

Here's a thought. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, but energy exists, then one of those two is false. It's obvious enough that energy exists (or does it? mwoohaahaaaaa) so the mystery, as I see it, is why somebody hasn't shouted from the rooftops that they've figured out where energy comes from. And if the figurative, general "you", who is no one specific, says "it comes from God", then I slap your general forehead and say "cop out!" and "lazy bastage!".

I suspect it may come from either chocolate or coffee.

[MikeK]

I can think of two possible explanations to the OP's proposition:

1) Just because there is energy doesn't imply energy was created.  It could have always been present.  And isn't it generally accepted that the Big Bang was a huge concentration of energy, not a lack of energy?
2) The system needs to be considered as a whole.  It's possible that there is an "offset" to the observable energy, thereby resulting in a zero sum.  But you would have to get outside the universe to make the measurement, no?

I would say that this one "exception" to the rule implies that we don't know enough to claim that it's an exception.

Like:
People can't rise from the dead.
But Jesus rose from the head, therefore people can rise from the dead.
But there are no verified examples, therefore it's more likely that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

-Mike
new user...Hi

[corrado33]

you need to realize that energy and matter are not so dissimilar. matter can be transformed into energy (i.e. fusion) and energy can be turned into matter (way more complicated).

Wait, wouldn't this mean we could teleport things?

Yes, that is my contribution to this thread... live with it. 

[Hawaii00000]

Wow Admin, what a post. I know I'm kind of the last cab off the rank with this post, but I thought I'd add my view to to the forum.

         First off, I'm a Creationist so this question doesn't really pose any threat to the begining of the universe. If matter and energy were created it stands to reason that so were the laws that govern the universe. Couldn't the Creator of the Universe create His laws after He created matter and energy or even make an execpetion to His own rules. In fact, the law of entropy was undoubtedly made after Creation and didn't come into play until after man sinned.

So either God created the 1st Law of Thermodynamics after matter and energy or He made an exception to a rule He Himself created.   

[vinito]

That's so fluffy it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

[MikeK]

I thought Spiderman created the universe.

[vinito]

It wasn't Particle Man was it?

Is he a dot, or is he a speck?
When he's underwater does he get wet?
Or does the water get him instead?

Hmmm. I must be punchy.

[totalis]

In answer to Admins initial question,

In-so-far-as I understand it:

The sum total of energy in the universe is 0

this includes all the matter converted to energy (E = mC^2) *
and all heat, light, e/m radiation etc.

This does raise the question: "Can you have negative energy?"

#####Speculation#####
To which i reply: The current popular theory involves matter with negative mass and negative energy. Or some variation there in.

Effectively, because energy is a scalar, it can be thought to have any zero-point.
#####/Speculation#####

I have also read about gravity being effectively a negative energy, ie Energy = Force x Distance, this would perhaps explain the total energy being 0.

Also, accepting Einstein's Law, all momentum is conserved, and so is angular momentum. this means the total spin of the universe is 0 aswell

* The full Einstein EQn is E^2 = m^2 C^4 + p^2 C^2

this can be approximated to E = m C^2 when the momentum of a particle is low (read 0)

Source: Im a Physics student at the University of Birmingham,