V
A BRIEF HISTORY OF ENERGY

The term “energy” is one of several words which have found their way from scientific jargon into everyday speech. It has fared better than words like “quasar,” after which an ordinary TV set was named, or “quantum,” a physics term which denotes the smallest possible amount of physical change. In contrast, the term energy is sometimes used correctly.

The concept of energy as used in the field of physics is essential to the ideas offered here. They cannot be understood without it. Already knowing that everything is made of energy is a head start, but there are three other energy-related concepts upon which these theories are built. Your understanding of them may be facilitated by a look at the history of the energy concept.

Matter and Motion

Modern physics began with Galileo Gallilei (1564-1642), the first to prove the absurdity of Aristotelian physics and the first to support his own ideas with experimental observation. Issac Newton (1642-1727) put these observations into mathematical terms after inventing calculus, a mathematical form capable of describing a change in the rate of motion. Newton stated three laws governing motion.

1. A body in motion remains in motion, in a straight line, unless acted upon by an outside force. A body at rest remains at rest until acted upon by an outside force.

   The behavior of balls on a pool table offers a good example of this law, especially the balls at rest. Balls set in motion follow a straight line unless given some spin, or “english,” when struck. They lose a little speed because of friction with the table surface and air; they also lose speed when they bounce off the table edge or strike another ball— all examples of Newton's outside forces.



2. The second law is a simple equation,
   F = m × a, defining the force mentioned in the first law as something equal to the mass m (a measurement of the amount of matter) and acceleration a (the change rate of velocity).

   Note that this equation defines force in an abstract manner. While we can observe matter and acceleration, we can only infer the existence of force: it is whatever makes matter move.

   In other words, you can directly observe everything happening on a pool table except the forces involved.



3. Newton's third law is an expression of balance: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

   Although this law has profound implications, you can observe it in action, along with the other two, in any dingy pool hall. The clearest example occurs when a cleanly struck cue ball hits a target ball precisely on center. If the balls are of the same mass (they are supposed to be) and the cue ball has no extra spin, it will stop dead, imparting its velocity and direction of motion to the struck ball.

Here are a few things worth noting about these laws:

1. The first law incorporates the principle that two things are required before something happens.


2. The second law is a mathematical description of force, something that you know how to exert but cannot observe.


3. Newton's third law is an early expression of what may be the most fundamental principle of physics: The law of conservation of energy.

   This law has nothing to do with fuel efficient cars. It is about energy itself, the substance from which the universe is formed.

   Actions and reactions had to be equal; otherwise energy would be either created or destroyed. Newton apparently understood this principle intuitively, well before the modern concept of energy appeared.

The power of Newton's laws comes from their mathematical forms of expression, which can be developed to reveal new information. The earliest understanding of energy came about in this manner, through the application of Newton's laws to mechanical problems. Energy made its first appearance under the name, “work.”

WORK

Consider a basic weight room scene: A barbell rests on the floor. A weight lifter raises it a certain distance. This requires him to exert a specific amount of force. The exact amount required depends upon the mass of the barbell and the strength of the gravitational field, but is independent of the distance through which the weight is raised— the same force is necessary to move the barbell one inch as to lift it overhead.

Yet it is intuitively obvious that raising a weight becomes more difficult as the lift height increases. The keen accuracy of this intuition has been experimentally verified by those of us who have dropped iron on a foot. So what is the physical factor which distinguishes a short lift from a longer one? It is the amount of work required.

The formula is simple: W = F × d. Work equals force multiplied by distance.

Thus, while the force necessary to lift a given weight is constant, the amount of work required to raise it one foot is twelve times greater than that needed to lift it one inch.

The formal definition of work is consistent with the human sense of it, provided that one remains objective. The net amount of work depends upon the end result. If the barbell is returned to the floor, no net work is done.

Your exam quiz: A prisoner sentenced to hard labor carries two tons of rock up a hill on Monday. Tuesday she is told to move the rock back where she found it. How much work has she accomplished? And will she agree with that? (Answers: none and no.)

KINETIC ENERGY

The example we used to explain work involved a mass, or weight, which was not going very far or very fast. We were not concerned with the speed at which the weight was raised. But consider an example in which a force acts on an object not simply to lift it, but to fling it like a baseball.

Newton's second law, Force = mass × acceleration, tells us that a force acting upon an object will cause that object to accelerate. This means that its velocity will increase. When the force is removed the velocity will remain steady, following Newton's first law.

A baseball pitcher uses these principles. He applies force to a ball, increasing its velocity as his arm comes forward. The accelerating force disappears when he releases the ball, which continues to move forward at a velocity which would be constant if not for the friction of the air through which it moves. It is eventually brought to earth by gravity, struck by a bat, or grabbed by the catcher.

A simple calculation (which would be included if this was a physics course) shows that the action of such a force, a force which accelerates something to a certain velocity, imparts a form of work to the thing moved, according to the formula,

          W = ½m × v² 

This property of matter set in motion has a different character than that of a chunk of matter slowly raised against the force of gravity. It did not make sense to call it work. At this point physics took the first of many steps into syntactic confusion by calling this property of matter kinetic energy, the energy inherent in motion. Kinetic energy is identical to the property called work, which is the energy required to cause a displacement of matter, except that it manifests in a different way.

Standard nomenclature employs the letter E to designate forms of energy other than work, so that the kinetic energy equation customarily reads,

          E = ½m × v² 

Newtonian mechanics includes the work-energy theorem which states that the work done on something is equal to the change in its kinetic energy. This simply means that work and kinetic energy are the same thing applied to different geometries.

POTENTIAL ENERGY

Potential energy is always a consequence of geometry. For example, energy in the form of work is required to lift a barbell from the floor of a gym to a slot in the squat rack five feet up. The barbell held in the slot has gravitational potential energy,

          E = m × g × h 

For especially heavy exercise, an empty bar might be placed in the slot and the weights added one-by-one. The total amount of work involved is the same as if the fully loaded barbell was raised at once.

If three stooges should happen by and bump the barbell from its rack, it will fall to the ground. As it falls, it loses potential energy but gains kinetic energy. At the moment it hits the floor, it will have acquired an amount of kinetic energy equal to the potential energy it had before Curly bumped it. Thus, energy is preserved.

HEAT

The first formally identified forms of energy were these three: work, kinetic, and potential. They were known by the late 18th century. The next development in the history of energy came with the understanding of heat.

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

The equivalence of heat and work was a difficult concept to come by. As is often the case, the credentialed scientists with university positions totally blew this one. They had fixated upon the notion of “caloric” to explain heat. Caloric was a mysterious substance which supposedly contained heat. Cold things had less caloric than hot things. Caloric could be transferred between things. The scientists wrote serious papers full of equations to describe this atrocious theory. Scientific journals published the papers. Once invested in caloric theory, the scientific community was slow to let loose of it.

No fewer than six men living in five different countries, (Thomson, Carnot, Mayer, Joule, Helmholtz, and Colding) were involved in the understanding of heat as a form of energy. None of them were scientists. Working independently, they each discovered the equivalence of heat and mechanical energy.

Helmholtz was the first to propose the broader generalization, that all forms of energy are equivalent, and that a given amount of one form cannot disappear without an equal amount appearing in other forms. His was the first direct expression of the law of conservation of energy, the first clue that energy is more than an abstract mathematical concept.

The equivalence of heat and work is also referred to as The First Law of Thermodynamics. Beon theory assumes the complete generalization of this law to all forms of energy, and states it thusly:

Energy is the substance of which the universe is composed, appearing in various forms, each a dynamic geometry. These geometries can be transformed from one to another, changing the form of energy but not its quantity. Energy itself cannot be created or destroyed.

The obvious contrary argument is that God created a fixed quantity of energy and the conservation law. It is a silly, irrelevant argument. What would stop Him from creating more energy in violation of his own arbitrary law? Or destroying some? A self-made law is no more binding than your last New Year's resolutions.

OTHER ENERGY FORMS

The forms of energy available for subsequent discovery proved many and diverse. Electricity is a form of energy, as is light and all other frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Magnetic fields contain energy. Different atoms are bound to one another with “chemical” energy to form molecules.

As an example of the wonderful diversity and interchangeability of energy forms, consider your automobile. Imagine pouring one gallon of gasoline into its previously empty fuel tank, then getting inside.

You are held in place by a seat bolted to the vehicle body. These apparently solid structures are formed of atoms which are mostly empty space, as are you. Energy bonds hold the atoms together, retaining them and yourself within the geometry of frame and structure.

You turn the ignition key, thus closing a switch which allows electrical energy to flow through wires. This energy comes from a battery, a box of lead plates immersed in sulphuric acid which stores chemical energy. When released into wires this energy manifests itself as electrical current. It flows through the wires of a small motor called the starter which transforms electrical energy into kinetic energy, mechanical motion. Coupled to the engine via a pair of gears, the rotating starter turns the motor, which draws a mixture of fuel and air into its combustion chambers.

At the same time, some electrical energy is diverted into a transformer which increases its voltage. A distributor directs this high voltage energy to a spark plug where it flashes across a gap, igniting the fuel-air mixture drawn into the combustion chambers. The mixture burns, releasing chemical energy within the gasoline as an explosive burst of heat. This energy pushes a piston, which turns a crank, which connects to the wheels of your car through a geometrical configuration of gears and axles. The car moves forward.

The running engine produces two forms of energy: heat, which is mostly wasted except in cold weather; and kinetic energy. Some of this is diverted to an alternator, a device which converts motion into electricity. Some of this electrical energy is converted back to chemical form within the battery to replace the energy expended when the car was started.

This electrical energy can also be used to run a heating or cooling fan. Some might operate a radio, converting low levels of electromagnetic energy collected from space into sound. Some might be diverted into the headlamps to produce light.

Eventually the gallon of fuel will be burned. Your car will come to a stop, slowed by friction with air and roadway, the gravitational force applied by an uphill slope, or by brakes which dissipate kinetic energy as heat.

While awaiting a tow truck you might ponder what happened to the energy in your original gallon of gasoline, remembering that according to the First Law of Thermodynamics it cannot be destroyed. At current fuel prices, you'd be happy to have it back. What happened to it?

It was converted to heat. Much of this heat was lost to the atmosphere which the car pushed aside, but some can be sensed. The engine and exhaust pipes will be too hot to touch. The battery, alternator, and tires will be warm. This energy will dissipate into space as you wait by the roadside. Contemplating this apparent waste, you will inevitably be led to the concept of entropy and…

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

The moving air left in your wake will not gather into a tailwind to push you forward. The heat in the tailpipe and engine block will not re-power the engine. The leftover exhaust gases will not reassemble into usable fuel.

The Second Law determines the direction of energy flow and declares that it will go from hot to cold, or from order to disorder, increasing the entropy of the entire energy-exchange system.

The term entropy is a Greek word meaning “disorder.” Its utilization in the Second Law came from an association of heat with disorder.

Heat is manifested in matter by the motion of atoms and molecules; more heat makes them move faster. Molecular motion is thought of as disorder, but the concept appears to have been misapplied.

One might expect that the faster the atoms move, the greater their disorder, and that no movement would mean no disorder. (Instead of atoms, think of the clothes in your closet.) Blowing off mere common sense, scientists declared hotter, higher energy states to be a manifestation of order, and lower energy states an example of comparative disorder. Go figure.

As a student I found entropy a particularly difficult concept. After compensating for the confusing definition of order, it became simple and obvious. Therefore, ignore the Greek meaning of entropy. Treat entropy as a newly-coined word for a unique and powerful concept which is related not only to energy exchange, but also to human consciousness.

The entropy concept defines the link between the mind and the universe. It is essential to this theory and to your understanding of it. But entropy is a concept from theoretical physics, unfamiliar and therefore as difficult for most people as it was for me in Physics 301. If you missed that class, read on, patiently. Reread as needed, and the necessary understanding of this simple concept will come.

Entropy is a negative word. The more entropy something has, the less capable it is of doing something useful. Think of entropy as the measure of lethargy in a physical system.

A theoretical example may help. Imagine a perfectly insulated box which, when closed, does not allow energy to enter or escape. Obtain a pair of clocks, one powered by a battery, the other by a wound-up spring, and place them in the box. When they've been there long enough to reach the same temperature as the air in the box, close its door.

The initial state of the energy forms within the box is thus set at entropy zero.

We cannot observe the experiment in action (that would require allowing some energy to escape) but we can easily predict its outcome: The clocks will keep time and eventually stop when the spring of one is unwound and the battery of the other is dead. The air in the box will be a tiny bit warmer, as will the bodies of each clock, the result of energy released from the spring and the battery.

The final state of the energy forms within the box has changed to entropy one— to maximum lethargy.

According to the first law of thermodynamics it is theoretically possible to transfer this heat energy back into at least one clock. Here is a way in which this might happen:

Although molecules of air normally move at the same average velocity and are evenly distributed throughout the box, the laws of probability allow the possibility that lots of molecules might suddenly concentrate at one point within the box.

Conceivably, molecules could gang up to concentrate their tiny kinetic forces on one corner of the clock spring, maintaining that pressure while winding it, while another gang of molecules simultaneously kept the clock body from rotating in the opposite direction while the spring is being wound. The odds against this happening are mathematically ridiculous.

Do not imagine for a second that this is impossible. After all, the identical style of thought and the embrace of more extreme improbabilities are fundamentals of Darwinian faith.

Although the clock spring might be rewound with a heavy spin from probability theory, there are no hypothetical procedures capable of recharging the electric clock's dead battery from residual heat. Perhaps Darwinists could invent one? It would do wonders for their crumbling ideology and earn them a fortune in solar energy royalties.

For all practical purposes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that our clocks will remain forever still. It declares that whenever energy is exchanged or changed in form so as to produce an action, the change is such that the same action is less likely to repeat.

Another expression of the Second Law is that energy will flow from concentrated states to diffused states, from hot to cold. This law was derived from a consideration of heat exchange but can be generalized to all forms of irreversible energy transfer.

Some energy exchange systems can be reversed. This requires that any exchange of energy within the system occurs without radiation of any energy outside the system. The entropy of such systems does not decrease. The nucleus of a stable atom is an example of such a system. With respect to reversible systems the Second Law is effectively neutral.

The Force is with Us

Energy forms will seek the highest possible entropy level — maximum lethargy. We will call this tendency entropic force.

Here are a few examples of entropic force in action:

• Hot water cools down to the temperature of its surroundings.


• Stones naturally roll downhill.


• The chemical energy stored in a battery will be released whenever an electrically conductive path exists between the terminals.


• Machines which are claimed by their inventor to produce more energy than that required to run them (free energy) are not granted a patent, even if they appear to work.

THE THIRD LAW

These concepts were first developed by Carnot, and expanded upon by Rudolph Clausius and William Thomson, who later became Lord Kelvin. (Another mystery of historical physics— why not Lord Thomson?) The scale of ultra-low temperatures was named for him. Absolute zero is 0 degrees Kelvin, or 0°K. This extremely cold temperature, equivalent to -273.16°C or -459.72°F, cannot be reached.

This is the Third Law of Thermodynamics: The temperature of absolute zero cannot be reached by any finite number of operations.

The Third Law can also be expressed in terms of entropy, which measures the ability of a physical system to do anything. A system which can no longer do anything has reached zero-point entropy, a state which occurs at absolute zero. The Third Law of Thermodynamics states that it is impossible to reduce the entropy of a system to that particular zero-point value.

Here, the entropy concept suffers from yet another confusing definition. The zero-point entropy is not the same as entropy zero— it is the exact opposite. Zero entropy represents the maximum ability to do something.

The cosmic micropea of the Big Bang theoretically had zero entropy. But when the energy of its explosion finally dissipates into the infinity of space, when all matter reaches the same ultra-low temperature, the universe will have neared its zero-point entropy.

What Have We Learned?

• Everything in the physical universe is composed of energy. Events consist of a change in the form of energy or movement through space, which requires a change in the geometry and therefore the energy state of a physical system.


• Energy forms tend to reach a state of maximum entropy, a state of lowest temperature and stable equilibrium. We've named this tendency entropic force.


• The temperature of 0°K (absolute zero) can be defined but not reached. A closed system at this temperature cannot change internally and therefore represents an absolutely stable energy state.

Assembling Ideas

This background allows us to examine the behavior of the universe in terms of energy and entropy, seeking clues about the origin of the universe.

Earlier we offered two examples of thermodynamic systems. The automobile example demonstrated the behavior of an open system, meaning that the residual heat energy was free to escape, at least into the atmosphere. From there it may eventually be radiated into space.

The effect of the Second Law is to bring all parts of a system into thermodynamic equilibrium, which simply means that everything in the system is at the same temperature. The Second Law tells us that the universe is trying to cool down and will continue to do so until everything reaches the same temperature.

This temperature is not absolute zero, which cannot be reached. It will at least be about 3°K, the temperature of the background radiation found when measuring instruments look into deep space.

Concepts designed to explain the origin of the universe customarily start things out at entropy zero, a state of maximum order and maximum ability to do work.

• The cosmic micropea of the big bang was presumably in its zero entropy state.


• Creationist theories employ God as the creator of energy and the origin of all low-entropy states.

Consider the idea of a natural state of being. For many this is a subjective notion, but it need not be if principles of physics are applied. Is not the most natural state of a physical system that which it tends to reach?

The natural state of a pot of tepid water is for its surface to be still, its contents steady, and its temperature equal to that of its surroundings. A pot of boiling water is in an unnatural state. When it's source of heat is removed it will cool down, becoming tepid.

By this standard, the most natural state of a complex physical system is that of highest entropy (maximum lethargy) and lowest temperature. The most natural state of the universe will be reached if none of its energy forms are capable of changing state. This can only happen if the universe cools down to absolute zero.

THE ORIGINAL STATE OF ENERGY

Everything in the universe appears to be a form of energy— position, motion, gravity, electric charge, electromagnetic waves, photons, and even matter. Each mathematical expression of an energy form includes space and time. Space defines a geometry, a juxtaposition of components. Time makes the geometry dynamic.

A Brief History of Dark Energy

Since its early inception, beon theory has hypothesized that energy is truly a substance, the “stuff” of which the universe is formed. Its primeval state is characterized by lack of form or structure and defined by the Laws of Thermodynamics. Until recently, this generalized concept of energy has been a hard sell.

Perhaps no longer. Dark energy has finally been discovered. As with other interesting physics concepts, the path thereto has been gradual and inferential.

Years back, the astronomer Edwin Hubble observed that the light from distant galaxies is “red shifted,” and that the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift. He interpreted these observations to mean that the universe is expanding. In time his idea became accepted and the rate of expansion was measured.

It was a small step to imagine the expansion as coming from some central point. Expansion implies that the universe is growing larger. This means that in the past, it must have been smaller. Extrapolating the expansion backwards in time leads to a moment at which the universe was the size of a golf ball, and before that, something even smaller— the classic cosmic micropea of Big Bang theory, recently re-dubbed a “singularity.” Whatever, this tiny thing containing all the matter and energy in the universe (in effect, containing the primeval universe) supposedly exploded and the rubble transformed itself into the complex structured universe we observe today.

The force of an explosion imparts a rapid acceleration to its components and any nearby surroundings, but when the bang stops, those components stop accelerating and can only continue to move at whatever velocity they managed to reach.

Remember our analogy of a baseball pitcher using force to accelerate a ball to a certain velocity? When he releases the ball, its velocity no longer increases, and would remain constant but for atmospheric drag and the pull of gravity. The same principles apply to matter blown into space by the Big Bang.

Cosmologists calculated the amount of matter in the universe and concluded that there was enough of it to draw everything back to its starting point. Although the Big Bang sent matter flying outward at great speed, gravity would inexorably reduce this speed. Therefore the galaxies zinging out from the center of the universe should be decelerating.

However, when cosmologists finally managed to measure the deceleration rate, they found that it was negative. The universe is expanding faster and faster!

To explain this, cosmologists have hypothesized the existence of dark energy, invisible stuff which permeates the space between galaxies and exerts a force which repels matter.

Dark energy has been mentioned by serious physicists as the greatest scientific mystery of the 21st century. Having hypothesized its existence about 40 years ago as the formless stuff from which components of the universe are made, we don't find it much of a mystery and are delighted at its formal discovery.

Hypothesis: The Primeval State of Energy

Our hypothesis is that the original state of our universe was an infinite expanse of dark energy at a temperature of 0°K. No portion of dark energy was structured.

This state of being is the exact opposite of the cosmic micropea. It can be mathematically defined, so is not a “singularity.” At entropy one, or maximum lethargy, it offers no potential for spontaneous explosion.

Of course this means that another force is required to transform dark energy from an unformed state into the universe we know. The same problem is faced by Big Bang cosmologists. Although they don't bother to speculate about the micropea's triggering force, we will happily describe the counterforce which makes dark energy into useful stuff.

Imagine the original form of dark energy as a substance permeating, perhaps defining, the entire space in which it exists. This material is totally homogeneous, lacking any form which might differentiate one part of it from another. Dark energy occupied a mathematically definable space, but within it, space as we understand it was undefined for lack of matter.

The dark energy at 0°K hypothesis offers significant advantages. Current notions about the pre-Big Bang state of the universe require the existence of the mysterious “singularity” plus something equally unknown to make it explode. The laws of pre-universe physics applicable to these things are unknown, and will remain so because they went up in smoke when the micro-pea blew up. No one has even guessed at the nature of these laws. What would be the point of doing so, since they can never be verified?

Beon Theory proposes that the universe originated with something already known to exist, energy, originally in its most natural and stable state and obedient to the Laws of Thermodynamics. Unlike the Big Bang belief, beon theory is scientific.

In Darwin's Black Box, microbiologist Michael Behe introduced the concept of irreducible complexity. This refers to a mechanism which cannot be made less complex than its current form and still serve a useful function. As an example, Behe used the standard spring-loaded mousetrap.

Borrowing from Behe's idea, consider a parallel concept— irreducible simplicity.

Something is irreducibly simple if it cannot be decomposed or separated into smaller parts. Components of the standard mousetrap do not fit this definition, for each is made from atoms. Atoms do not fit, for each is made of subatomic particles such as electrons. The equation for an electron is complex, so an electron cannot be irreducibly simple either.

Dark energy in its primeval state is irreducibly simple.

Behe's concept of irreducible complexity defines a state of usefulness. In contrast, something in a state of irreducible simplicity cannot do anything useful.

Therefore, with energy in a state of irreducible simplicity, nothing should happen.

Thu 08/13/09 23:10