FAQ
It is currently Sat May 27, 2017 11:52 am


Author Message
openminded
Post  Post subject: Energy  |  Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:20 am

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:53 am
Posts: 4

Offline
Would I be correct in saying that energy cannot die and floats about space forever and if that's the case could that energy be harnessed and converted into television signals so that we could view the past, I know it's a crazy theory but every action consists of energy so maybe just maybe. Open-minded.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:51 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4779
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
not sure about television signals unless you can make something that will convert from other wavelengths
think how you would image the microwave signal from the big bang - not sure how much detail you'd get out of it
at least the big bang was a high-energy event, so not sure how common low energy events would be gathered + visualised

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:05 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
You are correct that energy cannot be destroyed, but it can be converted to different forms. That is the first law of thermodynamics. Energy is always being degraded. Hot things cool down and the energy is dispersed. In order to view the pst you would presumably have to collect all the energy associated with the event you want to observe, and extract information from it. I don't see how this would be possible.

The energy that was expended when Lee Harvey Oswald's bullets were fired is now in the form of chemical bonds in carbon dioxide molecules some of which might be in your body, and in the form of a minuscule increase in the global temperature. Some of it became heat in Oswald's shoulder as he absorbed recoil, and much of it went into the destruction of a human brain. While the energy still exists, it is in many different forms ad there is no way it could be restored to its original form.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:19 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4779
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
in addition, maybe we should be careful equating energy with information
whilst energy can be a carrier of a signal, and hence information, that doesn't have to be the case

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
openminded
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:17 am

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:53 am
Posts: 4

Offline
I don't think anything is impossible especially the way technology is progressing, who was it who said and I quote' (whatever man thinketh man can do).


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:37 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4779
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
there's a difference between not knowing what is impossible and stating that nothing is impossible

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Olinguito
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sat May 09, 2015 10:00 am
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:56 pm
Posts: 136

Offline
openminded wrote:
Would I be correct in saying that energy cannot die and floats about space forever and if that's the case could that energy be harnessed and converted into television signals so that we could view the past, I know it's a crazy theory but every action consists of energy so maybe just maybe. Open-minded.

According to special relativity energy can be converted to mass and vice-versa, via the equation E = mc². However if you regard energy and mass as equivalent, then, yes, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only converted from one form (including the form of “mass-energy”) to another.

Even so, this is only true at the macroscopic level. On the quantum scale, there is an uncertainty principle relating time and energy analogous to Heisenberg’s principle relating velocity and momentum. This leads to a phenomenon called called quantum fluctuation.

Quote:
…(E)energy and time can be related by the relation

    Image
That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only to allow the creation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs for exceedingly short period of time.

_________________
Blog


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 4:51 am

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
marnixR wrote:
there's a difference between not knowing what is impossible and stating that nothing is impossible


Is the difference just the degree of knowing?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 5:59 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4779
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
in science a lot can be expressed in terms of probabilities
there's a big difference between an unknown probability that may include zero probability and an unknown probability that specifically excludes it

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 6:17 am

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
marnixR wrote:
in science a lot can be expressed in terms of probabilities
there's a big difference between an unknown probability that may include zero probability and an unknown probability that specifically excludes it

Have you got a type of example of what you could be describing? The bit about "an unknown probability that specifically excludes it (zero)" throws me. For I think if it is unknown how can you exclude one particular value?


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 6:15 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 201
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
There's quite a few observations in science were there's a non-zero but otherwise unknown probability of an event. To use a local example for my community, about 20 years ago, there was the discovery of a fault line which caused a slide that created a new lake sometime in the past 10,000 years. Given earthquakes are almost always recurring, there was a good assumption of the next slip chance being non-zero, but no idea of the probability. Two decades of research later, based on more observations, they've identified several other past slips--but still not enough to derive a good probability-- perhaps in another decade or so they'll have a better answer.


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 6:42 pm

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
That was a good example but does it work? I was thinking since earthquakes are so spaced out in time a prediction of a recurrence would have a time bound.
E.g. What is the probability of another earthquake along this fault line in the next 30 years? One could never say it would be zero as it is based on a known fault line. But 30 years pass and no earthquake happens so zero should have been a possible outcome. Doesn't that mean zero was included and not excluded?

I'm getting a bit lost but rechecking "an unknown probability that specifically excludes it (zero)" So that expression is not exemplified by an earthquake on a known fault line!


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 7:36 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4779
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
think of Paleontology and the unlikelihood that something will get fossilised - all fossils are the result of some highly improbable process, which at the same time is not zero

we can't express that any individual casualty will fossilise, but we know that probability is greater than zero

on the other hand, we can take it as read that a unicorn does not exist, hence the likelihood of it being fossilised, whilst in essence unknown, has a high chance of containing the probability of zero

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sat May 28, 2016 8:03 pm

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
marnixR wrote:
think of Paleontology and the unlikelihood that something will get fossilised - all fossils are the result of some highly improbable process, which at the same time is not zero

we can't express that any individual casualty will fossilise, but we know that probability is greater than zero

on the other hand, we can take it as read that a unicorn does not exist, hence the likelihood of it being fossilised, whilst in essence unknown, has a high chance of containing the probability of zero

Sorry but I'm even more lost now.
Scenario: Unicorns don't exist (today) agreed. You find a fossil and you ask "what is the probability it is the long lost Unicorn?
Will you say "You can rule out unicorns, since they don't exist today"? That is zero probability it is a unicorn. 100% certain it won't be a unicorn skeleton.
Something with a non-zero probability?
I always thought sound fits that bill. If there is a sound there was always a physical cause so "Zero probability is excluded". Then I was told I had an hallucination. I had experienced a sound without a cause. (I know mind altering drugs and dreams can give the sensation of sound without there being a noise, but not something that can to be heard.) Reminds me of the saying if a tree falls and there is no one to hear it did it make a sound? But can you hear a tree falling when there are no trees?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 4:24 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4779
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
what I'm saying is : chance of finding any existing creature (past or present) as a fossil = Unknown + very low probability, but not including zero
chance of finding presumed mythical creature = unknown + very low probability, with zero probability included (if the working hypothesis that unicorns don't exist is correct)

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 7:13 am

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
@Marnix - I just don't know, sorry. Probability calculations always throw me.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Energy  |  Posted: Sun May 29, 2016 2:15 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4779
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
never mind - I'm probably not very good at explaining stuff
one of many reasons why I never contemplated becoming a teacher

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy