I know that basic physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but why is that true? For example, one theory called Quantum Fluctuation states that 'normal' and anti energy is constantly being created and then colliding throughout the universe. But experiments at one particle accelerator (I think it was the Large Hadron Collider) showed that when you collide a particle and its anti-energy equivalent, there are more 'positive' emissions that anti-emissions. Wouldn't this mean that energy is constantly being created, since the collisions would create more particle emissions than anti-particle emissions?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No experiment has ever shown the result you mention ('when you collide a particle and its anti-energy equivalent, there are more 'positive' emissions that anti-emissions'). Physics as observed in earthbound labs is symmetrical between matter and antimatter (i.e. if photons decay, equal amounts of particles and antiparticles are produced). If you can find the specific source where you heard this we can debunk it or clear up the confusion. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 29 '15 at 18:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are probably thinking of the baryon asymmetry problem, which is simply the fact that we don't observe much antimatter lying around. This is a puzzle, because there is a matter/antimatter asymmetry observed in the universe but not in the known physical laws which we think created it. An experimental observation of such an asymmetry in physical law would be groundbreaking and essentially solve the puzzle. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jun 29 '15 at 18:59
  • $\begingroup$ the experiment was meant to solve the asymmetry problem. And I'll try to find it, but it was 1-2 months ago, so I might not be able to. $\endgroup$ – user2425429 Jun 29 '15 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Emilio Pisanty : you could always ask a question on this website. $\endgroup$ – John Duffield Jun 29 '15 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Emilio: CP violation can occur during weak interactions, and this has been observed in Kaon decay. This could (but probably does not) explain the matter/anti-matter imbalance. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation $\endgroup$ – hdhondt Jun 29 '15 at 23:54

If there is evidence of some balance problem that involves energy the missing energy must be somewhere and the extra energy must come from somwhere.

A good way to see this was detailed in the Fyenman Lectures, where Richard Feyman explained conservation of energy in a very simple way.

So the answer is:

  • No, Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed.
  • $\begingroup$ The feynman lectures aren't conclusive proof that it isn't possible. This problem is similar to the black swan visualization: you say that all swans are white, but as soon as you see a black swan you know that this is false. And since energy creation could be the reason for the universe's expansion accelerating, you can't dismiss the theory for lack of examples either, at least unless humans find out what's really behind this acceleration. ('dark energy' causes this, but that's still just a label for an inexplicable creation of energy) $\endgroup$ – user2425429 Jun 29 '15 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ @user2425429 I didn't say that they were proof of anything, the only proof is experiment, and no experiment has shown a violation of this principle. And even though your explanation about the universe expansion acceleration is tempting, I don't think there is experimental evidence of anything to explain it, so you can argue that it's happening because of the creation of energy, but that's all you can do about it. $\endgroup$ – iharob Jun 29 '15 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ yes, but I meant they don't mean it doesn't make sense. and the expansion acceleration needs to have an influx of energy to exist, otherwise the universe would be decelerating due to gravity. And though it's possible that the energy comes from outside the universe, the more reasonable explanation is that it comes from somewhere inside the universe (since there is no theoretical or practical process, even an illogical but popular one, for unequal net amounts of energy traveling between universes) But thanks for the answer... especially the link to the lectures! $\endgroup$ – user2425429 Jun 29 '15 at 19:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.