quote:
I suspect the total energy is zero.
This makes sense if you consider that this then puts the universe's energy into balance.
I know this doesn't work if you consider the low ambient "positive" energy of the zero point field, but again this is, as you pointed out, relitavistic physics. There will always be a point of reference somewhere that changes this potential. If there is a positive zero point field in this universe, it stands to reason there will be a balancing negative field in another.
James.
You have to take into consideration the presence (or predicted presence) of dark matter and dark energy, since theres considerably more of that than normal matter and normal energy.
I had thought about such a subject along time ago, i had concieved two main idea's , one that the total energy of our universe, and/or the multiplude of others, was either a constant, or more likely infinite
If energy was a constant, then there must be some sort of a "recycling" a sort of refreshment for the stagment usless energy,
if the energy was infinite either negative or positive, then it would be rather hard for us to contemplate the effects it would have,
perhaps infinite, is a steady state, akin to zero, its like if you either have a full glass, or an empty one, the glass can never get any more full if it is already full, and the glass can't get any more empty if it is already empty
I like talking in useless analogies.
The universe may be a lot bigger than 15 billion lightyears, with things moving away from us so fast we can not detect light from them.
Also, the old rule of the preservance of energy has come under fire, so the old ways of thinking may not give the right answer in this case.
Remember, Einstein did not have all the answers. We've still to come up with a unified theory for electromagnetics and gravity, and if you look at some of the applications of Tesla's theories it will once again make reality more incredible than fantasy.
Hey Beavis,
Let's face it there was nothing to start with, but if that nothing was somewhere it was localised at a mathematical point, therefore there was an infinite uncertainty in how much energy there was (according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). I know you know what I'm on about 'cos I read one of your previous quantum physics posts! Someday the universe will work it out.
Or maybe they won't.
Total amount of energy? Irrelevant question. The answer for me is just "lots" and I leave it at that.
Later
~FT
What about a superposition of both zero and infinite energy?
exactly, zero and infinite have relationships with one another
but what if the "amount" of energy doesn't matter
what if all that matters is the amount of pattern in a system?
what if everything was just infinite interference patterns of waves?
what if the atoms we see are nothing more than the point(s) that the waves of energy are colliding at?
what if there is infinite waves from infinite dimensions that all subtly combine like ripples in water?
I know that physicists can "trap" atoms using laser interference patterns, and you can create a "holograph" with light intereference
but what if someone somewhere created an atom out of interference patterns? would that be sufficient evidence to support the holographic universe theory? well i don't think we live in two dimensions but infinite, thats the only problem with the two-dimensional holograph theory
Even if you knew the answer, why does it matter?
maybe the other dimensions arent as easily accessable or noticable as compared to others
the answer does not matter, the fact is Im trying to comtemplate things which are beyond our understanding, only through questions can we ever find our true abilities,
plus the answer will never remain the same, multiple different answers can be correct in the same circumstances
The answer matters to me because if the total energy is nonzero, I would want to find out why that energy exists. If it is zero, the main question that should be asked is why and how the negative was separated from the positive (from nothingness, if such a thing ever existed). Many people would say "god" did it, but thats a copout. If it is to be labeled "god", I want to know how "god" works, so the same questions must be answered with a non-god answer. Dogma hinders learning.
Ah, OK. It's a version of the concept of the Anthropic Principle. Basically "the universe exists because we are here to see it". If we weren't here to see it, no one could confirm its existance and thus it might as well not exist. From this we can also assume there are coutless other universes, a multiverse, that we are not aware of.
Take vacuum fluctuation into account and you might have an explanation of what the effect awareness has on this non-existence thatexists 'outside'. I tend to refer it as "null", "void", "abyss" or Chaos.
The ancient Greek said "The Cosmos stems from Chaos".
So "God" equals awareness, and is the source of all creation.
Next on Ceriel Nosforit Live: The Truth, Part II.
Ceriel N the universe exists because we are here to see it
No. We are here to see it because it exists. The question is not if it exists. It is, why does it exist (without using any dogma in the answer)?
"I think, therefore I am"
- Descartes
Should have been "I'm aware, therefore I am."
We are aware of the universe around us, and therefore it too Is.
If our minds and bodies were of a different origin than that of our universe, then this could be doubted, but we are aware of our minds and bodies in the same fashion that we are aware of the universe.
I think the total energy must be zero because of the balance of all nature.
There is also and end of the energy/space.
There was no beginning of the universe...nor an end. But here I'm talking about the time line. Not about the energy.
I just cant believe something like infinite energy
Can someone explain me how something can be infinite?
woah..........
(stupid smart people)[}:)][}:)]
Hi Beavis,
In my opinion, the total energy of all the Universes has to be zero. This is because all things in nature exist in an equlibrium. May it be chemical reactions or energy mass interconversions, everything is in equilibrium.
When positive energy is made it has to be accompanied by the formation of equal amount of negative energy. We know that when reactions are in equilibrium, on disturbing the equilibrium the reactants and the products adjust themselves in such a way that equilibrium is again restored. If such is the tendency of things to remain in equilibrium, then there's no way that energy would not obey this.
Even the Yin-Yang states that the formation of anything is accompanied by the formation of it's opposite.
What science has calculated is just the total energy in a given region, which can be both positive, negative or even zero. We know that there are limitless Universes. Thus the only way to calculate the total energy of all universes would be to derive a formula, which can give an exact energy location in all dimension variable and then integrate it partially wrt to different dimensions from negative infinity to positive infinity and adding them up(Here by dimension I mean co-ordinates). Now the derivation of such a formula is out of hands of Human beings as science has not advanced till that stage, but the summation of partial integration of that formula wrt different dimensions from negative infinity to positive infinity will definitely give zero.
All things in this universe follow definite set of rules and one of them which stands on top is equilibrium.
Vikram.
vikram88 In my opinion, the total energy of all the Universes has to be zero. This is because all things in nature exist in an equlibrium. May it be chemical reactions or energy mass interconversions, everything is in equilibrium.
When positive energy is made it has to be accompanied by the formation of equal amount of negative energy.
That implies the total energy cant change, but it could have always (outside of time) been negative, zero, or positive.
We know that there are limitless Universes.
If that means infinite universes, how did you count them?
If it means without limits, how do you explain the obvious limits of physical existance?
All things in this universe follow definite set of rules
We have approximations to the rules, which are only valid in our local area of spacetime. We know of no definite rules (except for theoretical things).
Hi Beavis,
First of all I would like to state that it should be integral of negative infinity to positive infinity. I'll do the editing.
Yes, that certainly implies that total energy can't change, but the equilibrium fact also implies that there can't be a net positive or a net negative quantity. If there is a net positive or negative quantity then it cannot posses an equilibrium state.
Unlimited Universe is an assumption that I have made. This is because of my belief that there are no limits. Till now we have never found a limit and we never will. I think that there is no limits to physical existance either. What science has found is just a fragment of reality.
That's the point. We actually don't know any of those rules. The theoretical rules which imply only to our local area of spacetime are just like short extensions of those rules.
For example::(Hmmm... what should I take)
E=Electric field of a point on the axis of a uniformly charged ring.
E=kqr/(x2+r2)3/2
But when x>>>r, x2+r2==1
So E=kq/r2
So this behaves as an extension to the previous actual formula when we have defined some limits.
In the same fashion there are some specific limits(like time) applicable to our local spacetime and the actual rules diminish into the theortical rules we have formed.
Vikram.
Vikram is right it is zero. It has also been stated that to attain all energy you must achieve zero. This is true because of things like cold fusion. If anyone was ever to get to 0 Kelvin then all energy would be easily accessible. I think Nicholas Tesla was working on some device like that as well. His had to do with radio waves or something though.
vikram88, equilibrium could exist with a nonzero total energy. Energy would move around, but would always be the same amount, equilibrium (assuming energy can only be converted but not created or destroyed). But that is irrelevant because we dont know that the universe is in equilibrium.
E = kqr/(x2+r2)3/2 * (1-A) + A * f(b,c,d,e,f,g) <--- some function with a lot of variables
'A' is a variable that is 0 near spacetime and 1 far away. The left side of the formula tells us nothing about f().
Speaking of energy not being created of destroyed they have found that atoms around a black hole sometimes just disappear (and not into the black hole) or multiple atoms will just appear out of nowhere. I think it was on the Discovery Channel. They tried to explain it with multiple universes and stuff like that.
Beavis, I don't think that nonzero total energy can remain in equilibrium. I believe that Big-Bang was the result of the inequilibria of total non-zero energy. This is because by some reason or the other our universe contains a net positive energy and it's balancing negative energy was moved to some other universe(the cause may be anything).
We can never tell anything about the funtion f() because all we know is it's extension, just like from E=kq/r2 you cannot deduce E=kqr/(x2+r2)3/2. Moreover in our local spacetime there is no need for that f().
Khuli follower, I think that the appearence and dissapearence of atoms near a black hole is due to the formation of wormholes. This is because due to high gravitational field of black hole, it causes tremendous variations in electric and magnetic field around it and such a phenomenon is the ideal condition for the random production of wormholes.
That may very well be Vikram but I think they were trying to link it to multiverses. Meaning that we trade material with other universes and that explains the large amounts of mirror matter found outside of blackholes.
By definition, there can only be one universe. Multiverse is a crappy way to describe sections of the universe. The sections are not as separated as you think. The title of this thread contains "everything that exists" instead of "universe" to avoid that confusion.
Khuli follower, that's the same thing that I said. Wormholes are communication channels between two points in any space time realm, so it can be between two dimensions(ie Universes) or it might be unidimensional. Thus it's the same thing that I said, just that I gave the specific method and reason why such things happen.
Yes, it's true that realising how these universes are seperated is difficult. We just say them Universes to avoid confusion. If we say that all these interconnections between the universes is given the name Hierarchy(Hmmm... neat name). Who knows if there are more than one hierarchy and how the other Hierarchies are interconnected and this will again go on and on.
I apologize Vikram I guess I was just thinking about something else at the time. You understand what I am talking about. Once again I apologize. Hope to speak to you again soon.
Good fortune and good training my friend...
"Hey Beavis,
Let's face it there was nothing to start with, but if that nothing was somewhere it was localised at a mathematical point, therefore there was an infinite uncertainty in how much energy there was (according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). I know you know what I'm on about 'cos I read one of your previous quantum physics posts! Someday the universe will work it out."
In Heisenberg's uncertainty principle it basically states that one cannot know the speed and position of a given atom without sacrificing either one or the other. Also, there must not be an infinite amount of energy because it is just nature's behavior to achieve equilibrium. And if you end up with an infinite answer, you know you've done something wrong.
My take on the total energy of the universe agrees with everyone else that says it = 0. For every particle there is the opposite, aka antimatter.
The multiverse theory isn't such a bad "way to describe sections of the universe" at all. In fact it's pretty intuitive. I'll take an example from the book I am currently reading :
Say you are a mile away from a suspended water hose that stretches between two houses. Now, in your perspective you just see a one dimensional plain, which has only two directions, left and right. Lets now say you took a pair of binoculars and noticed an ant on the hose. You can now say it is a 2-d plain. The ant can move up and down, left and right. Now, Kaluza, (a man who came up with this idea), stated that there must be more dimensions than meets the eye. In this everyday dimension we can only see extension, x,y, and z axes. But Kaluza proposed that there must be "curled up" dimensions within the spacial dimension we live in, like the hose example. Within each point in the space, there is the x axis, y axis and z axis, but Kaluza states there there is one more that wraps around itself, like a the circumference of the hose. But these dimensions are so small that even what we have today cannot detect, and it was calculated to be around a Planck length.
So we see, that our fabric of space can be seen as a 3-d carpet looked at from a far distance, but as we look closer, we notice that the carpet is actually interwoven, giving it an extra spacial dimension, 4-d.
~ivan
I dont know how to answer that question but if you pm me ill give you the name of this book that has the weight of the the world and might have that.Its supposively authored by celestial beings.
Is it negative, zero, or positive?
Mass, energy, and space can all be converted to energy, according to relativistic physics.
I read that science says the total is positive, but I dont believe them because they havent measured astral and probably many other places farther away. They can only see 15 billion lightyears away.
This question also includes the energy in all times, because all time exists simultaneously.
If the average energy of our local area of space (15 billion lightyears) was zero, the opposite energies would have destroyed each other (destructive wave interference). Usually, an area gets an amount of negative and positive energy that is at least some different. The amount of energy left is their difference, and it will be mostly positive or mostly negative. That is probably what happened here, so we Assume it is all positive.
I suspect the total energy is zero.