4 ms·
I would argue the energy was always there -- it is the mass-energy equivalence, after all. I should probably clarify my point: energy must come from somewhere;
by Hasz 9y ago
I would argue the energy was always there -- it is the mass-energy equivalence, after all. I should probably clarify my point: energy must come from somewhere; energy is not spontaneously created.
Also, I don't even think anyone has broken even yet. ITER is supposed to, but we'll see.
- mkagenius 9y agoThen how come big bang created so much energy from nothing?
- chongli 9y agoIt didn't. All of the energy was there, it just happened to be located in one place. Now all that energy is spread all over the place but it's still the same amount of energy.
- djcapelis 9y ago> Also, I don't even think anyone has broken > even yet. ITER is supposed to, but we'll > see. Yeah, no one has managed to harness more energy out of a plasma than put in to make it yet, but technically if it’s doing fusion at all, there’s more energy created though with current technology most of it just goes out into the universe as entropy that’s not harnessed. Unless of course, as other posters mentioned, you consider the energy as present in the matter in the first place, which is a reasonable way to model it too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯