“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” - Albert Einstein
I found this quote some time ago, and it made me wanna do more research. He did have a vast knowledge, and I'm not saying I believe everyone knows everything, but he was an expert, and we all trust that experts know what they are talking about, or at least most consider what they have to say.
Now, considering this quote is true, if forms of energy are used to create forms of energy, didn't "It", "BigBang", or "Creation" actually all start with a little energy? Energy evolves/changes in all kind of ways into all kinda masses?
I dunno, but if ya go all the way back, wouldn't it stand to reason? Mass doesn't come from nowhere, it came to be......maybe from energy changing form in whatever manner it did.
I'm no expert on anything, it just makes sense to me. Maybe someday, something else I research about such, will make more sense about this kinda thing, and I'll try to explain why I no longer believe as I do now. I evolve/change too...LOL. I love to learn and often embrace change!
Originally Posted by MaxiMilyen
Max, your point is well taken. Mass and energy are ultimately convertible into each other, according to the general theory of relativity.
But then, that makes it difficult to explain the origin of all the mass that exists in the universe by saying that it was converted from (lots of) energy, because that energy, like the mass, has to exist as a result of some cause. The creation of anything
ex nihilo -- truly from nothing -- science doesn't know about.
I'm a (retired) scientist -- a physicist -- but I recognize that science is a human enterprise that has limits. In science, hypothesis becomes theory to the extent that it gives calculable predictions about the behavior of nature. But theory must then be tested by the only test science recognizes: does it (the theory) successfully predict the results of valid, controlled, reproducible experiments? In science, no theory is ever "proven." Theory is always and forever on trial. We accept it as long as it explains experimental results. But even if a piece of theory has been passing that test for hundreds of years, there's always the possibility that someone may do a new experiment tomorrow that contradicts the predictions of theory. And if that happens, a scientist will (or should) always accept that Nature is correct, and the theory needs to be reworked, or scrapped and replaced. So, I have to think that questions about ultimate origins can't really be answered in the context of science, strictly speaking, because you can't do reproducible experiments with the beginning of the universe (or even with the beginning of life on earth, as far as that goes).
You can think about those "first things" questions philosophically, as you're doing here. And philosophical conjectures can be informed by the results of science, as -- once again -- you've done here. But when we're finished, we can't go off and start a new universe, to see if we're right about how this one got started. Takes too much lab space.
I certainly would enjoy sitting down with you over a leisurely dinner and talking some things over. As I just commented in another thread, I loves me a smart woman! Obviously, I really need another Texas trip. Haven't seen Elisabeth Whispers in too long now, for that matter.