How Do they Know ours is a Zero Energy Universe?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Robittybob1, Dec 15, 2011.

  1. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Not you, as you treat a concept, zero, as if its a physical object.

    As for the original question Hawking didn't do an explicit calculation, he put forth an idea such a thing might be an explanation for some properties of the universe. If the total energy of the universe is zero you avoid some issues about energy conservation*. If E(universe)>0 where did that come from if energy conservation is true? One way to avoid this is to set E=0 and you can have the notion of "E(nothing)=0, then nothing becomes something but E(something)=E(nothing)=0 by conservation of E".

    Personally I find this a little philosophically unpalatable because talking about 'before' the creation of time is self contradicting. I find a different proposed explanation a little better, that conservation of energy may not be unilaterally true.

    It depends on some assumptions which might not have been valid in the early universe. To be more precise we get energy conservations in modern physics models by constructing a Hamiltonian or Lagrangian which is explicitly time independent. This continuous symmetry (t->t+T doesn't change the Hamiltonian's form) is related to a conserved quantity (Noether's theorem) and that quantity is what we call energy. But what if the assumptions of say Noether's theorem weren't always true in the past? If your symmetry is discrete energy might be able to change. When you get near the big bang or any singularity in space-time the very notions of space, time and space-time fall apart, shredded by quantum gravity effects.

    There's an area of string theory devoted to considering models which don't have usual notions of space-time. Actually there's a few but I personally did work in a particular one, that of non-geometric spaces. If space-time's properties are encoded into the metric what happens if the metric can't be constructed because you have no points at which to define it? In usual physics you talk about a ball being here or a rocket being there. But what if 'here' and 'there' don't exist? Then so much of what we take for granted in physics goes out the window.

    The nifty thing about strings is that they don't need such concepts to exist to still have meaningful dynamics. If space-time is a combination of the 3+1 dimensions we experience normally and 6 (or 7 if you're into M theory) are rolled up and then distorted by string quantum effects into a construct without even points/locations then can we totally trust energy conservation, which is based on the smoothness and existent nature of space-time?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Oh shame.. I decided to put physics in the Universe.. :bugeye: Basically, all I put in was inflation, but infinite instead of local. But I call it scale, because it also scales down.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    You didn't put anything. You're just throwing out words you firstly don't really understand and secondly haven't shown to have a viable model of.

    You're mistaken about the amount of mathematics your compute program about spheres pre-assumed, you're mistaken about how good your work is and you're mistaken your claims are aligned/comparable to the stuff Hawking has done.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    PP: . . . perhaps do the spherical math on a sphere whose radius is expanding
    at c . . . . . how fast is the sphere's "surface" area increasing? . . . just curious . . . I leave the math to you and AN . . . it should be a relatively (no pun intended!) simple solution . . . . might simplify the math by considering a circle in 2-D . . . radius increasing at c . . . . how fast does the circumference increase . . . .bet it has somethng to do with pi.
     
  8. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    . . . . addendum . . . might also have to do with dark energy/mass behaviour . . . maybe that's why we don't seem to be able to detect dark energy/mass that easily . . . . faster than c . . . perhaps . . . . 3 x c???
     
  9. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Well I was talking about the TV program. He used a hill, I used an igloo. The program was the same.

    My sphere idea is perfect. I scale them, they bump, the bump is time. They release more sphere, the sphere are energy being released. They can't share the same space, so they move apart from release force. They scale, they bump, the bump is time, They release more sphere, the sphere are energy being released. They can't share the same space, so they move apart from release force. I scale them, they bump, the bump is time. They release more sphere, the sphere are energy being released. They can't share the same space, so they move apart from release force. They scale, they bump, the bump is time, They release more sphere, the sphere are energy being released. They can't share the same space, so they move apart from release force. I scale them, they bump, the bump is time. They release more sphere, the sphere are energy being released. They can't share the same space, so they move apart from release force. They scale, they bump, the bump is time, They release more sphere, the sphere are energy being released. They can't share the same space, so they move apart from release force.

    Then they are too many to scale up again, so they scale down. They scale negative, they become a black hole. Now they have freedom again, so they enter the hole. They spin due to angular momentum of opposing forces.


    But what is the program actually doing?

    Repeating the same loop. Its, scale, bump, time, energy, scale, bump, time, energy.

    What does a simple loop create?

    Everything in the Universe.

    How much maths does it take?

    What do particles know of maths?

    It scale, bump, time, energy. A self building model.
     
  10. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Thank you AlphaNumeric, for that post.

    So where do we start with an Energy Audit? Or is it pointless for the String Theory would allow for the non-conservation of energy close to the Big Bang.
    Which in other words, we will never be able to calculate it for we will never be able to tell how much non-conservation of energy occurred.
    When you say "non-conservation" can that process operate in both directions, as in creation and destruction of energy? Could both processes occur?
     
  11. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    PP: . . .actually, I enjoy your insights . . . when I can readily understand them (not always!) . . . and also your artwork . . .too bad the SM yah-hoos seem so threatened by alternative thinking . . . .
     
  12. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Can we keep the discussion to the topic of the Energy Audit of the Universe please? If your theory is right PP you would want a Total E = 0 bottom line. So you might want to look at it seriously too. It is not about the process as much as doing the accounting and then assessing whether there is an energy excess or deficit.

    I initially thought there was an excess of Energy but there are whole lot of "new" other factors to take into account and that could alter the equation.

    Does anyone have any idea of where to start?
     
  13. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I only have 1 particle, there is nothing for me to work out. 1 + -1 = 0 is all of my particles, and physics. I don't add anything new after that. My Universe is a repeating pattern. It's like a Neural Network, it self builds. You always know it is zero, because you never add anything else.

    I write Neural Networks, see...
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Pincho333#p/a/u/0/zBtt-iVqvFE

    And I have figured out a way to get the Universe to self build.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2011
  14. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    I know roughly how your hypothesis works, over all, but if we were to look at the actual Universe we live in what is the final energy balance? Does it support your method? If it does the final result in your case it should be zero, but is it?
    Can we work it out? I imagine it isn't going to be easy. Can we estimate the energy involved in the various components? For we might always just be guessing their ultimate quantities.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I only have 1 particle. An atom is made from my 1 particle repeated 24 times. A photon is my particle scaling down past zero scale. An Electron is my 1 particle scaling up out of an atom. Time is bump, and the arrow of time is my 1 particle moving into the 13th hole.

    I don't need to work anything out, because I start from nothing. You only need to work anything out if you work backwards, and I don't. I work forwards. I'm not a person dismantling a TV to see how it works. I'm a person building a Universe from nothing. It's going to be a computer simulator.
     
  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    But is your Universe our Universe? That is a question you have to ask yourself and I think an Energy Audit will be the way to sort it out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    If you start from nothing you have already answered the question... can you start a Universe from nothing? So not much point. Science is supposed to ask where we came from. If I can build a universe with a different energy, it still tells you where we came from. We don't have a full comparison anyway. We can't see far enough.


    That's why 1 + -1 = 0 beats Victor Stenger. He works backwards, which is pointless when you can work forwards.
     
  18. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    When you say 'alternative thinking', you mean crap which has nothing to do with the actual physics of the universe. Anything which is garbage has your stamp of approval. The only reason for this that I can see is that you don't have the first clue about actual physics or science, and since you don't understand it, you have to dismiss it.
     
  19. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    How did Stenger work backwards if we can't see far enough? He can only do that by educated guesswork. Well maybe I'll have to follow his method then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Basically you have two choices...

    Start the Universe from something.

    Start the Universe from Nothing.

    If you start the Universe from something, and I can start the Universe from nothing, I will say to you... "Look at my version, I can make the part that you started with. So you don't actually need that part."

    It's like string theory. I can make a string from my theory. I don't see then why you would need string theory.
     
  21. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,199
    Hang on. Can your system ever produce an excess of kinetic energy and heat over and above the amount that is tied up in the gravitational fields and matter? Do your particles start off hot? Where does this heat come from, so that the Microwave background is still visible? Does it account for the angular momentum and kinetic energy of the galaxies?
    "It's like string theory. I can make a string from my theory. I don't see then why you would need string theory" on one of your other threads make some string then? Match to the string Theory (m-Theory) in fact, with the 11 dimensions!
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2011
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    When does the educated part happen?
     
  23. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    AlexG: . . . "He best bears reproof, who merits praise"
     

Share This Page