# Where did matter and energy come from? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 18, 2021, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187 "2021-02-18T01:46:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2021, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/21 "2021-02-18T20:26:25Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Exactly! It is wrong to talk about matter and energy as if we are talking about two different things, they are two forms or states, of the same thing. Is energy a more “energetic” state of matter in the same way that steam is a more energetic form of water? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2021, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/22 "2021-02-18T20:29:35Z")
> [@Nansbread1](#): > > As good as any theory. Only in the sense that all non-scientific theories are equally bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2021, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/23 "2021-02-18T21:16:51Z")
> [@Nansbread1](#): > > An equally valid answer, in comparison to all the talk about Vacuum energy and Newtonian physics, can be found in the Wikipedia entry for Hindu Cosmology from 10,000 years ago. Its a valid theory too, n the absence of any credible theories from present age. Its the first theory written by Hindu theorists, godmen call them what you will. They were the first to talk about the scale that we now accept. In a nutshell it says, the universe has existed for millions of years. It says that the universe follows a cycle of millions of years in existence and then disappears for million bs of years only to reappear for millions of years. And this cycle has been repeated for millions of years. As good as any theory. That’s not a theory; that is a mythology. A scientific theory proposes mechanisms that can be tested against observations or experiments. Astronomical observations give an age of the universe of 13.787±0.020 billion years, with the age of the Earth being estimated at 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years as established by radiometric data. There is no data or observations that in any way demonstrate that “the universe has existed for millions of years…follows a cycle of millions of years in existence and then disappears for million bs of years only to reappear for millions of years.” There are cosmological models that postulate an oscillatory universe, but because the universe was opaque to light for the first 240,000 to 300,000 years, we cannot ‘see’ anything before that time. It is hoped that gravitational wave astronomy may give an ability to probe into the structure of spacetime before first light that but there will be a limit at which all of the forces of the Standard Model will be unified (and perhaps gravity as well, although to date no one has proposed a workable theory of quantum gravity) and at the point approaching the initial singularity even spacetime will have no distinct structure. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2021, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/24 "2021-02-18T21:30:12Z")
Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state. Then nearly 14 billion years expansion started. Wait! The beginning of the theme song to the television show _The Big Bang Theory_ actually tells us just about all we now know. 13.787 billion years ago (plus or minus 20 million years) there was something there for some reason we don’t know. It has expanded since then. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2021, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/25 "2021-02-18T21:31:53Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > Is energy a more “energetic” state of matter in the same way that steam is a more energetic form of water? I would _like_ to answer “yes”, but here’s my problem: I’ve read a lot of layman-level subatomic physics, enough to pretend that I understand that an electron is really just a bunch of spinning quarks, and quarks are just vibrating strings that are zipping around. But unfortunately, I’ve never gotten a good explanation of energy at that sort of level. I have no concept, even how to make a child’s metaphor of how to break down energy into component parts. Heat, for example, simply radiates. I don’t even know what it would mean to say that gravity is made up of vibrating strings. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2021, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/26 "2021-02-18T21:54:27Z")
The notion that gravity is made up of vibrating strings is only one of the current possible ways physicists have to explain it. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2021, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/27 "2021-02-18T22:40:25Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > Heat, for example, simply radiates. The notion that heat is a type or quantity of radiation is a common misapprehension. Enthalpy (the internal heat of a system plus its product of pressure and volume, or alternately entropy and temperature) is a state property of a system. Systems that have a lot of internal energy and that have a high temperature or a low entropy will tend to have a lot of transfer of energy from one area to another, which includes radiation of thermal (infrared) radiation, and if it is hot enough even visible or ultraviolet radiation (i.e. photons at frequencies in those bands). Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Saffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saffer/32/6440_2.png) [@Saffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saffer)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2021, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/28 "2021-02-18T23:28:32Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > electron is really just a bunch of spinning quarks An electron is a fundamental particle. Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/29 "2021-02-19T00:03:06Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > Is energy a more “energetic” state of matter in the same way that steam is a more energetic form of water? This analogy does not seem sound: for instance energy can be carried by a photon which is a massless boson and not “matter” at all. ---
**Author:** ![daisysmithh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@daisysmithh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/daisysmithh)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/30 "2021-02-19T01:58:12Z")
Frankly, we don’t know. 😄 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/31 "2021-02-19T03:11:09Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Only in the sense that all non-scientific theories are equally bullshit Exactly. A scientific theory is NOT filling in the blanks with imagination instead of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/32 "2021-02-19T03:16:36Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Not only do we not know, it is likely we will never know. I have problems with the second part. There are things we know, things we need to know, and things we want to know…but the only thing we _cannot_ know is where and in what way others will seek answers. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/33 "2021-02-19T05:48:40Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The perpetual problem on the Dope is that when physicists start talking subtle they almost certainly and instantly lose the naive audience that is asking the questions. You’re right, but the other side of the coin is that popular-level illustrations, repeated by those who don’t know the actual science they’re anchored in, inevitably degrade in a sort of ‘telephone’ effect. Hence, I think it’s useful to every once in a while try to reconnect with what these illustrations are actually based on—if only to emphasize that they’re only illustrations. There’s also the factor that some of these illustrations aren’t all that great, and lend themselves to erroneous conclusions—my go-to example being the ‘rubber sheet’ analogy for gravity: masses deform the rubber sheet, and hence, influence the motion of other masses. But then, I’ve more than once encountered the following argument: masses deform rubber sheets only because of gravity. Hence, the GR explanation of gravity is actually circular! Einstein was wrong! Given only the rubber sheet analogy, that’s a perfectly sound conclusion. But of course, that’s not how general relativity _actually_ works; but there’s no explanation on the level of this analogy one could give to get that fact across. Hence, I think when such a thing happens—and frankly, there are several examples of it in this thread—there’s really only the option to leave the level of popularization and try to at least give a glimpse at the machinery behind. Even if there are some to whom this explanation isn’t useful, it may become clear to them that there’s more to the story, and to exercise caution when appealing to popular illustrations. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/34 "2021-02-19T13:27:46Z")
Wow. I was intentionally oversimplifying, but I didn’t realize that I was so far off-base. Thanks, all. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/35 "2021-02-19T14:04:21Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > You’re right, but the other side of the coin is that popular-level illustrations, repeated by those who don’t know the actual science they’re anchored in, inevitably degrade in a sort of ‘telephone’ effect. Apologies for the snooty post. I was pre-coffee. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/36 "2021-02-19T16:10:43Z")
We’ve had this argument for years and undoubtedly will continue to do so. I want to make it absolutely clear that I greatly value the time and effort our physicists put in to their explanations. Getting the nuances and surprises hidden in the math laid out before us is invaluable in many ways. As a writer, though, I know there are as many ways to elucidate a subject as there are writers (more, considering that writers write differently to different audiences). That’s why I suggest continuing reading by picking up the popular works of actual working scientists. Do they use analogies and illustrations and simplifications and words in place of equations? Sure. That’s the only way to reach their audience. Does that mean that the audience will take away a complete and proper understanding of what they write? Unfortunately, no. But that’s true of every book and every subject read by non-experts. I’ll go farther. I’ve stopped caring that the rubber sheet analogy is wrong. Maybe it infuriates physicists, but it’s eye-opening to people encountering it for the first time. And the accompanying text should make clear what the illustration is supposed to mean. (TBH, the rubber sheet is less used today as other, better, analogies are tried, but I think the point remains.) I understand how tiresome it must be to correct people who proffer wrongly their half-understood knowledge of the subject. I have to do so in my field of expertise and I lost patience with the outright idiots years ago, though I’ll work hard to clarify for the ones who simply don’t understand. But you’re committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a perfectly good range of answers between regurgitated gibberish and technical jargon. That’s what should be pitched to a naive audience. Or that’s my dream. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/37 "2021-02-19T16:15:12Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > First of all, of course, no philosophical problems are solved in this way: we may get a way to create a universe from the quantum vacuum, but that just poses the question, but why the quantum vacuum? The quantum vacuum is far from nothing, and substituting one for the other is just rhetorical sleight of hand. (Which doesn’t stop people from selling books on this basis, but when has it ever.) Agreed, and there’s another point I’d like to add. Often in discussions like this, it’s assumed that the problem is entirely with the start point, so “solutions” to ontological problems are usually some flavor of getting rid of a start point e.g. [Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)’s allusion to “always something and never nothing” being a solution (I’m not criticizing EM; (s)he’s correctly summarizing popular opinion on this topic). But really, when we’re asking questions of where it all came from, it’s really about an explanatory gap. And just saying “it’s always been this way” in itself does nothing to close that gap. There are no obvious inferences we can take from that. Now, it may well be the case that there are aspects of reality that we will _never_ be able to understand, and will just have to be taken as a given. That’s fine. As long as we don’t confuse the acceptance of a lack of explanation, for an explanation. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/38 "2021-02-19T16:22:42Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Do they use analogies and illustrations and simplifications and words in place of equations? Sure. That’s the only way to reach their audience. Right, no analogy is perfect, if it were, then it wouldn’t be an analogy, it would be an accurate description of what you are trying to describe. At a certain point, if someone doesn’t find analogies good enough, then that means that it’s time to learn the math. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I’ve stopped caring that the rubber sheet analogy is wrong. Maybe it infuriates physicists, but it’s eye-opening to people encountering it for the first time. For a book or a classroom demonstration, sure. But with 3-d modeling and video, I’ve seen much more informative illustrations that show the whole of the spacetime actively warping and drawing in space and anything in the space around it. > [@Mijin](#): > > But really, when we’re asking questions of where it all came from, it’s really about an explanatory gap. And just saying “it’s always been this way” in itself does nothing to close that gap. That’s why when analogies fail, it is time for math. In some ways, it is no more useful to ask where the inherent properties of the universe came from than it is to ask when 1+1 started equalling 2. ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/39 "2021-02-19T16:48:59Z")
> **[Teaching Physics](https://xkcd.com/895/)** > > Space-time is like some simple and familiar system which is both intuitively understandable and precisely analogous, and if I were Richard Feynman I'd be able to come up with it. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2021, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187/40 "2021-02-19T17:38:27Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > That’s why when analogies fail, it is time for math. In some ways, it is no more useful to ask where the inherent properties of the universe came from than it is to ask when 1+1 started equalling 2. I agree with this principle, but in this case we right now lack explanatory power whether we describing the situation in equations or Aesop’s fables. (And before anyone says it, I am not trying to imply “…therefore God”. God lacks explanatory power here just as anywhere else. And I’m atheist anyway.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-did-matter-and-energy-come-from/933187.md?page=3)