Basically, would it be possible to base some electrical or other type of machinery or technology on the transfer of different types of energy through a vacuum such as heat through radiation or light?

Is there any technology which uses this at the moment, but with an actual vacuum as compared to fibre optics or something?

Surely to the extent where you wouldn't necessarily have to pump the gas out to create a vacuum surely this would be cheaper than using actual materials?

Anyway just a thought, any answers would be appreciated.

Human beings have identified four fundamental forces of nature (the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity), and it appears that these four fundamental forces enable us to account for everything we observe in the universe (including all matter – i.e. all particles and subatomic particles are understood to be stable manifestations of these four fundamental forces). It appears that all other forces observed in nature can be derived from these four fundamental forces.

If it is correct that Energy is defined not by what it is but by what it can do, then is it correct to assume that energy must be some measure of the fundamental forces of nature acting upon one another?

The fact that mass (such as matter) can be converted into energy (such as in a nuclear explosion) in accordance with Einstein’s equation suggests that everything we observe in the universe is simply the various stable manifestations of the four fundamental forces acting upon one another. If this is correct, then what is a force, exactly (i.e. what is a force, not what does it do)?

According to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy of a closed system always tends towards equilibrium (because an equilibrium state has a higher probability than any other) and the overall entropy always increases. Can energy (all forms including heat, potential energy, kinetic energy, chemical energy etc.) be explained and defined by the fundamental forces of nature tending towards equilibrium?

According to Einstein's famous equation E = MC2, or Energy = Mass times the speed of light times the speed of light. This tells us that anything that has mass, such as matter, is comprised entirely of energy. Any physical object with mass is therefore simply a lump of energy existing in some stable form.

As I understand it, all forms of energy, including chemical energy, kinetic energy and potential energy are covered by Einstein's equation, meaning that fundamentally all forms of energy are the same basic 'stuff' (for want of a better word). My question is, therefore, what exactly is energy? I want to get to a fundamental understanding of energy, because it seems that such an understanding would help to explain much of reality.

I'm not asking for explanations about work done etc, I'm asking at the fundamental level what is energy?

When a magnet lifts a metallic object against gravity, it is doing work and energy is being converted. Where does this energy come from? Presumably it comes from the magnet- but what form does it take and does it eventually get depleted- or - is the energy restored as the metallic object is pulled away from the magnet?

Thanks

Steve Fletcher

Simon Galloway

Andy Carter

Anaesthetic Dept

Bradford Teaching Hospitals

Is there way to use the pull/push of magnets to make some sort of motor and if so would it be true free Energy ?

The other day I was opening a letter at dusk without the room lights on.  As I pulled the seal apart, I thought I saw small flashes of bluish light at the as the strands of glue broke. Has anyone heard of energy being released in the form of light when glue bonds are broken?  Might there be some phospherent chemical in the glue which is activated when the material is stressed?

The concept of getting to orbit via a "Space Elevator" has been around for years and seems to be gaining ground.

Leaving aside the practical difficulties such as manufacturing a strong enough filament, what would be the advantage?

Surely the "lift" would not only have to haul itself and its payload up to say the geosynchronous altitude but would also have to provide sufficiant energy to bring itself to the orbital velocity. Given that achieving orbit would probably take days rather than the shuttles' minutes, complex life support systems and supplies, with redundant systems, would also be required. Then again, energy would have to be supplied to negate the orbital speed on the way down.

Where exactly would be the savings over conventional orbital transition? Am I missing something?

My wife and I recently decided we could not, in clear conscience, make a trip to London merely to attend a wedding.  We were both sure that the cost to the planet of such whimsical continent-hopping must be unsustainable, but had no real idea just much energy it takes to move one adult from Johannesburg to London by air (approx 9000kms or a quarter of the way around the world).  We'd love an answer expressed in everyday terms like say tumble-drier-hours, or 100W lightbulbs burning, etc.

Tim Greene Johannesburg

In common parlance, one would say the body 'burns' food, and, indeed, we are warm creatures due to some kind of exothermic reaction(s) inside us, yet our muscles and brain work on electrical impulse. Is this the most efficient conversion of heat to useful energy we know of, or is the electrical energy converted from chemical potential energy somewhere?