Is energy a more “energetic” state of matter in the same way that steam is a more energetic form of water?
Only in the sense that all non-scientific theories are equally bullshit.
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
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.
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.
The notion that gravity is made up of vibrating strings is only one of the current possible ways physicists have to explain it.
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
An electron is a fundamental particle. Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks.
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.
Frankly, we don’t know. 
Exactly.
A scientific theory is NOT filling in the blanks with imagination instead of evidence.
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.
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.
Wow. I was intentionally oversimplifying, but I didn’t realize that I was so far off-base. Thanks, all.
Apologies for the snooty post. I was pre-coffee.
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.
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’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.
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.
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.
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.)