What is The initial origin of energy ?

Oh boy , how did something so simple turned into something so stupid ?

Just as a black hole (a singularity) destroys matter (concentrated energy) a expanding singularity (Big Bang) will create energy & matter . Thadaaa .

 

Not quite. The Sun uses fusion, not fission. The resulting energy release is actually less than the energy input (no such thing as cold fusion in nature) to bond the hydrogen into helium. This is why our nuclear power plants are fission reactors.

The laws of the universe as we understand them apply to the universe as it is now. That does not mean they applied prior to, or just during, any big bang that may have happened.

So, where did the energy come from? It could have come from a previous universe that collapsed into a singularity which in turn exploded into the big bang. However, while the expndind/contracting theory was one way to explain the existence of the universe, currently it looks less likely as there does not appear to be enough mass to cause a contraction. Of course, that could be the result of us being at the end of a limited expand/contract series (rather than a self perpetuating loop).

Perhaps the energy was always there. Our universe could be parts of infinite other universes that have expanded to nothing in the past and as some remnants of these other universes come together, our universe gathered enough energy to form a new universe.

Some experiments have shown that if you have a complete vacuum, energy appears spontanteously. Is it that it is created out of nothing, or is it that it was in a form we couldn't measure until it crossed a certain threshold.

Perhaps it existed, but not here. For example, some incident may have caused it to cross spacetime to get here. Or perhaps it was in another dimension and pulled here through a black hole like structure.

Not to turn this around too much, but in order to determine where energy came from, would you not first have to prove that it existed? Perhaps energy is nothing more than the perception of the mind in order to give understanding of the universe. The more you study physics, the more you come to realize that working with our current knowledge, matter really is nothing but bound energy and energy is nothing but spin. Spin, in turn, is used for politics, so this is the right forum.

 

If you think energy is a spin then go make a Tesla coil and be zapped by the spin .

 

The experiments that happening in CERN will give answer for this...I think so

 

Good answer Lax, This is one of my weaker fields of study, but If I do recall correctly the BGV theorum shows that all matter, energy and even the laws of physics must have a beginning point in which none of them ever existed, I believe it is very reasonable to assert that whatever was responsible for their creation had to be an immaterial entity.

I come and go on this forum so I might not be back in a while
Have a good one dude

 

Unfortunately mate, there is no one either alive or dead that could answer this for you.

There are three variables involved in the question.

First, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Clausius Law

Second, dark energy, an invisible, weightless and untraceable element that permeates over 70% of the universe, whose existence were only detected through unexplainable light bends and spectrum distortion of stars

Third, Singularity.

Essentially, the hypothesized Big Bang occurred in the billionth of a second moment of singularity, an act of creation that was reigned by the dark energy, and still do today.

Clausius Law tells us that energy is constant and eternal, but malleable. Which explains that all of creation originated from a single source of energy that existed prior to singularity - which essentially means, its an impossibility, as how does anything exist in before existence itself?

So, either the science is flawed, or there was a catalyst that existed prior to the singularity.

 

How is it an impossiblity. I did not understand your post. Can you elaborate.

 

The last sentence should clear things up. It's impossible under the present scientific principles.
Thus, either the science is wrong, or there exist a catalyst before the existence of time, space or matter.

 

I asked what is the proof that there was catalyst or matter before big bang. We term matter everything that surrounds us. There are still 1000's of things undiscovered.Perhaps there would have been some other thing. Anyway, you are going in the detail of How big bang hapenned. What hapenned before Big bang is not possible to know. Science is not wrong or flawed. It is currently very limited.

 

Errr...And I answered that there is no possible way for us to know that for certain.
I would suggest you reread my posts first mate. No point going in circles right?

 

You said science is Wrong.

 

Well, science stands for knowledge and the current knowledge about this area is limited so I would assume you are right.
However, since the knowledge is limited it might also be wrong and/or flawed. =)
The big bang is as mentioned before just a theory and should not be claimed as the ultimate truth.
And I would believe you could add some zeroes to "There are still 1000's of things undiscovered"

 

Sigh.
I said, either science is flawed, or there is a catalyst.

Edit: Let me spell it out.
Our current scientific principles cannot provide an answer to the question.
So, if our science is correct, that implies an external catalyst is needed to complete the picture. Meaning, there must be a factor that is outside of our realm of knowledge - implying the existence of God.
On the other hand, our current science may be flawed, or wrong, and once it is corrected and/or improved upon, a satisfactory conclusion could be attained - thus excluding the need of a God to answer the question.

 

from sun I think

 

It wouldn't imply anything of the sort.

 

Of course it would. Why wouldn't it?

 

I won't say science is wrong. Well, its a very complicated thing. Assuming a chemical reaction involving two or more products, science just gives us an idea of which product will be "Major product" which turns out to be a major product but the AMOUNT is something which is not determined. Major means more than 50% and scientifically when we use the same theory for different reactions but the yield can be 60% 70% or 90% but the exact value is not determined.We also see that things that have linear dependency do not stay linear for high values. The constants in science are also never constants. Gravity value which is approximately 10 m/s changes with height. So of course science gives a overall estimate and a RANGE of the correct answer. I agree that there shouild be more zero's in the undiscovered things. Thanks to Einstein who opened science to a new dimension that we know that there are many things still undiscovered, else everyone would have thought that science had explained everything.

I still don't understand what you are trying to say by CATALYST.
Anyway why are you saying that god and science are different. If god exists even then LOGIC is never going to dissapear.

 

There are only two possibilities here, and I am simply laying both of them out.

 

Why would it? Just because something isn't known it doesn't give you a license to crowbar god in and claim it's the logical explanation.

That scenario wouldn't imply a god any more than it would imply ANYTHING else.

 

I know you are a atheist but why do you get so angry when someone talks about god.

P.S Do not consider this an attack.