It's been said that the net energy of the universe is zero. Matter and radiation have positive energy, and at the same time an equal amount of negative gravitational potential energy. But where does the cosmological constant fit in? It is not gravitationally attractive, so would it net out to zero?
that kind of the problem there is all this matter with gravity so there should be so kind of anti-gravity out there keep the universe growing? but where and what is this stuff???
May it be that gravity is the negative of matter? I haven't figured out where TIME fits in! But it may be like a type of CPT invariance ,but at the first super-symmetry break when gravity and space were `created`... Also can i add that i believe that the net total of charge and rotational energy is also zero for the universe...
It has been said the cosmological constant is causing the acceleration of the universe (and thus is gravitationally repulsive) and would cause any universe to expand. I'm just wondering if the net energy of the universe with such a CC is nonzero.
Dark energy is not fully understood. It is possible that it may be the influance for the increase in expansion speed. If that is so it might be the "antigravity" effect that is sought.
Dark energy...? anyone? What we do know is that Quantum theory requires empty space to be filled with (virtual?)particles and anti-particles being continually created and destroyed. This would give the vacuum a density; it would behave like a cosmological constant. During the Higgs period of spontaneous symmetry breaking of the Big Bang a large vacuum energy density existed ,(inflation). The universe is a closed system, so we can predict that the CC must be constant... I imagine the universe is like a large balance, if you add something to one side you must remove something from the other... As for virtual particles they are `cheating` Time...It may look like that they cancel out, BUT if they do add to the vacuum density where do they take that `energy` from? ( time, gravity, space?)
Those particles always destroy each other if they don't then energy is lost from something. Take Black holes for example: they lose energy from preventing these particles from annihilating each other.
True, but you are not taking into account that every point in space is constantly being filled with anti-particle/particle reactions... This is the vacuum density ... Are you saying that empty-space is empty? Are you saying that the vacuum density is zero? i disagree... there may not be a creation of mass ,because it cancels out... but in the brief time scale that it DOES, that is when it adds to the density of space... The Higgs particle when it decayed (in the early BB) also filled the vacuum with energy, (thats what drove the inflation)...
You must be thinking of the Inflation field/particle. The Higgs field, like the inflation, is a scalar field but exists even to this day. Apparently, interaction with the Higgs is what gives quarks their mass.
Are those question pointed at me? If so then Yes the vacuum does holed energy as to the nature of that energy I really don't know: I’m a biochemist and astronomy is just something I look at (literally)
Hehe, sorry. I just chucked in the idea of the Higgs particles decay giving energy to the tiny bubbles formed at the BB. It was just to point out that the mechanism(?) is the same. i stand by the idea that the vacuum density IS the cosmological constant ( BTW the constant was an idea put in to explain the expansion rate ot the universe)
The constant has been around forever. Einstein introduced the term to allow for a static universe, but the value given was off.
