This is only a theory in the works of the universe's creation

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RickyH, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. RickyH Valued Senior Member

    Please be kind, this is only a theory. This thoery does have alot of supporting information all but one which is the basis of my theory. So if anyone knows about thermodynamics well enough to help with the third law, please do!

    Ok now on with the theory

    Lets say about 15+ billion years ago there was nothing no energy no matter no nothing. well with no energy you obviously have nothing to cause heat. So without heat would space become very cold so cold that it becomes absolute zero. But if that is true then the third law of thermodynmics is wrong which says that absolute zero cannot be reached. one expert on thermodynamics stated this

    Unfortunately we are unable to reach absolute zero itself. It is forbidden by the third law of thermodynamics. In practice, though, it is often the heat input from the outside force (or "heat leak") into an experiment which prevents further cooling. In the low temperature limit, all heat capacities C go to zero so that for a heat energy input Q the temperature rise dT = Q/C becomes increasingly large. Even absorbed cosmic rays can produce a significant heat leak.

    well if a heat leak keeps us from reaching absolute zero,and space vacuums cause most heat leaks. Is it possible that a space vacuum could have been this outside force this person speaks of. Seeing as how a space vacuum exist where there is nothing this seems fairly reasonable to state. So with a heat leak you then have the creation of energy, thus the beggining of the universe.

    the website i got that from is this the person who stated it is Michael Lea, a professor of physics at Royal Holloway, and the university of london also a member of the Low Temperature Physics Research Group.

    Does this theory seem possible to began energy in our universe in short creating matter and ect.?
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RickyH Valued Senior Member

    this is only a very small part of my theory but the only part of my theory that is some what hard to beleive. So any coments would be very nice. Also please tkae note of this since there are no molecules does that mean we could have just gone straight into absolute zero, if so this makes my theory incorrect. But since the Space Vacuum could have been that outside force. Which in most heat leaks it is. Also most of the outskirts of space is about 3 degrees above absolute zero, and the big bang theory says that space is constantly expanding. But with my theory could it be the heat leak expanding space if so proving my theory correct and the big bang wrong.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RickyH Valued Senior Member

    a side theory could energy be started from reaction from somthing that does not require and eregy input like a space vacuum if so what else would react with it. If there is somthing to react with it then you can prove quantum physics zero-point energy to be true. If that is true then the bing bang theory is wrong, but not completely. Some of the information in the big bang theory is correct like galaxys moving away from each other, and the black-body radiation. so in terms the equation would be n/a+n/a=energy very hard to grasp the concept of but very pluasible somting that normally happens withc out energy but makes a reaction that causes energy to be exerted
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. orcot Valued Senior Member

    sounds complecated
    If so wouldn't this leak be constant, and all over the place?
  8. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    only an idea... we're in a science forum, use scientific terminology.

    or hypothesis... whatever.. has to be testable.
  9. RickyH Valued Senior Member


    well on the outskirts of space the temp is 3 degrees above absolute zero so it is psible thheat leak is what is making space growing. Also the heat leak would only be where there is a low enough temp to absolute zero. The only part of space said to be close enough to absolute zero is the outer parts of space.
  10. RickyH Valued Senior Member

    Well, yes it would be a hypothosis,until they learn how to look closer to the outskirts of space.
    There is just one law saying that energy cannot be created or deystoyed. But at the same time things can exist when there is no energy to start it but an energy output. So ifthats true the first law is wrong i beleive because that is an creation of energy.
    Space vacuum doesn't need anything to began, which is why its a space vacuum. Also wouldnt there still be tempperatrue if there was nothing. Just a very low one? One very close to absolute zero? Plus it is possible to see if a heat leak in the outskirts of space is causing the growth so, it is testable. Making it a theory.
  11. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    But since the universe is expaning faster the the speed of light (C) how could we ever see further to the outskirts of space?
    Also space is a vacuum hence it has no temp. The plank explorer is measuring 'regions' of space but the temp of space itself cannot be measured. the third law of therm. does not apply and hence your "theory" is flawed.
    Also the big bang created energy so yes energy can be created. You need to remember that physical laws that gorern our universe may not have applied prior to the begining
  12. RickyH Valued Senior Member

    then if space's temp cannot be measured then why has it been measure, in alot of areas. true we cannot see the end of space,yet. but the universe expanding at the speed of light is only a theory, it is only stated that ends of space are moving at the same speed away from each other, you cannot prove that this is happeneing since like yuo said you cannot see this. but i do not remember if it was black holes or somthing that was seen moving away from each other moving away but that is not enough to proof to say what your saying its true. Also the big bang theory did not create energy, or einstein would'nt have followed with this "energy has always existed" what you are saying has some basis but there only other theorys, you cannot use a theory to prove another theory wrong. Also if the big bang created energy what was the cause of that, a explosion? is that correct on how the big bang started im not to sure ive only read so much on it none where to clear on which started it, but if it was an explosion you would need energy to start this explosion, correct? Also if space has no temp. because it is a vacuum, giving it no temperature what proof is there on this? there is nothing to measure the temp because we do not know how to measure it, its hard to measure it when there is no atmosphere
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Dude, before the big bang, ie 15 Billion years ago, the 'laws of thermodynamics' didn't apply, as they only apply to matter as it was created from the big bang.

    Physics breaks down at the singularity.

    'space' wasn't cold, at 0K, because space didn't exist before the big bang, and 0K is just the lowest temperature matter (which didn't exist yet) can reach, so pretty irrelevant to a void.

    Good you are thinking about this though, and not just saying 'god did it'!
  14. RickyH Valued Senior Member

    very interesting point, let me do some research on that. So i can find somthing else that could have been started when there is nothing, because there are a few other thins just that was the most likely thing.
  15. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned


    i was just about to reply untill i read this post, so now i dont have to.

    time saver, thanks.

  16. skidochufada Registered Senior Member

    To a 14 year old, it sounds like your saying that a space vacumm realesed heat which created matter, which started the universe, and more matter=more heat=more matter = ect ect....

    But does heat create matter? (I seriously dont know)

    And if at first there was nothing, how did the heat get there....

    Is our universe just one billionth of the world, like a riot starting, its so tiny and insognifigant.

    About the god did part. Thats even possible. My calculations is that if ever main religon in ever part of world (32) that it has a small but unlikely chance...

    But as a strong religon\athiest-less person (i dont know what i belive) and i know scientoligy is less likely then Stephan Kings "it" coming true, likely we are the only intelegent life in the world, but life could and might exist somewhere else, and my very very very very tiny idea could add a big arguement to the intelgent life out there.

    But the heat couldnt be possible becuase your theroy says there was nothing, so nothing mean NOTHING not even your heat leaks would be there...

    Sorry if the post was noobish, this is only a 14 year old wiz kids views on your writing

    The curious 14 year old kid
  17. Present BAMF Registered Senior Member


    wait im confused. if there is no matter how could absolute zero be reached?

    The definition of absolute zero is:
    The lowest possible temperature in the universe, at which all atomic activity ceases. Equal to -273 degrees Celsius (- 459 degrees Fahrenheit). Used as a benchmark for measuring temperature.

    What am i missing?
  18. Mythbuster Mushroomed Registered Senior Member

    But wait, space isn't empty. The article you posted said that it is possible for space to have a temperature because it contains black body radiation. So if you want to posit that something can come from nothing you'll have to redefine your notion of a vacuum or pick a different cause of your "heat leak."

    I think it makes sense to say that new matter (or energy) can't be created, especially from nothing. Those are pretty fundamental laws of chemistry and physics.
  19. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    sorry it took so long, I was not getting e-mail nites on this topic
    There is a difference between measuring an area of space and measuring space it self.
    No the unverse expanding at the speed of light(C) is not a theory it has been measured since the 1920s IIRC
    The big bang did not create energy????? look a little deeper
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    to Skidochufada:

    Keep thinking kid! I am nearing the other end of life's spectrum and sad, almost depressed, by what I see happening to (and in) the western world. Your post is the best thing I have read in days.

    Heat is common way to say "low grade energy."

    Low grade energy is energy that can only partially be converted into "high grade energy."

    Temperature is a concept that only applies when certain conditions exist. It can exist in matter or without it. In matter, the "certain condition" has to due with the way the energy is shared between the particles. If they have hit each other randomly enough, they always arrive at the same distribution and then a temperature does exist. (You will learn the equations that describe this distribution soon enough.)

    In vacuum, which always has very very briefly some matter coming into existence and quickly vanishing again, ("Vacuum Polarization" if you want to know more.) there is electromagnetic radiation. It too will have a distribution of frequencies and this is sort of the same as the sharing of energy among particles, but not the same equation as for the particles, when the temperature concept applies to the vacuum (See "Black Body radiation" to learn more. Also note the “photon energy” is directly proportional to the frequency.)

    Just as particles can have a non-thermal energy distributions, so can the vacuum. Laser beam passing thru or spectral line radiation from a hot gas, but if there is only thermal radiation from matter with a temperature well defined ("in thermal equilibrium") then the “matter temperature” and the “vacuum temperature” near the matter will be the same.

    Now that I have said a few words about "temperature" (which when it exists in matter, is the average Kinetic Energy of the particles.) I can tell what is the maximum possible conversion of “low grade energy” into “high grade energy” or efficiency, E, of any motor /engine operating between a high temperature, T, heat source and a lower temperature, t, heat sink.:

    E = (T - t )/ T.

    where we measure the temperatures on the Kelvin (also called) absolute temperature scale.

    One form of “high grade energy” can, in principle, be 100% converted into another form of “high grade energy” but never in actual practice.

    Ok that is it for today. Keep thinking and good luck. My grand children are counting on you. Work hard, but enjoy life as you go - you only have a "one-way ticket."
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2005
  21. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member


    1) the idea, and infact all the math... as taugh... about absolue zero... has to do with atoms... I.e.. only atoms can have temp.... can hold heat as velocity and vibration... NOT SPACE... thus if we had only space.. then the concept of temp is not properly applicable...
    the idea of absolute zero, has to due with the actual spin energy of electron orbitals... I.e.. atoms have volume....
    but as we cool them.. they get smaller.... and at some point the electron would lose all energy and drop into the proton... and it would rest.. doing nothing... hence at abolute zero... but it still has volume... nucleon volume, and it is simply that it has entered a zero energy state..... which is not nothing...
    and it cannot actually be reached... as the enviorment we are in, will always be emitting photon energy which is above zero... and so while we can get close... we cannot hold the state.. and in truth... IT SERVES NO PURPOSE TO DO SO.


    3) I dont see any bizarre theory being discussed at that link... only establishment fundamentals of chemistry.

  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    to Skidochufada:

    Today's lesson is more important and shorter than yesterdays:

    SUMMARY --- Believe less than half of what you will find posted as fact here.

    Point 1 of MT's post below is about as close to 100% nonsense as you will find anywhere.

    The radiation from empty space not only has a temperature (It is about 3.7K as I recall) but at many points on the frequency vs. intensity curve have been measured and they fit the black body curve essentially perfectly. This is the primary reason that the "Big Bang" theory is almost universally accepted by Ph.D. physicists, like me.

    The idea that atoms have volumes is correct, but the concept that they shrink with cooling is silly. You can find tables of the size of the atoms and there is no need to tell at what temperature the data was measured as the size is constant for all atoms. One reasonable well versed in quantum mechanics can calculate the size of the hydrogen atom from very basics facts, not including the temperature, and get the value measured (actually the measurements are not perfect (in error slightly) compared to the exactly calculated results.

    The remainder of MT's 1 makes so little sense that I can not followed the claims, but the part of it that states: "will always be emitting photon energy" seems to be violating conservation of energy.
  23. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    a PHD?? ha..

    and you are not even aware that the cosmic background radiation is the same signal expected from free floating hydrogen gas at 2 degrees -3.7 degree Kelvin in free space...


    and space does not have temp... it has waves of energy in it... passing threw it.

    you do know how to use PV=NRT dont you?

    do you understand it?

    the problem i have found with most PHD's.. is they think they are so smart..
    but unfortunately.. they are accustommed to having people teach them stuff..
    rather than seeking it out for themselves.. and teaching themselves that which the schools and their biased views don't teach...


Share This Page