Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lobstrosity · 07-02-2003, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NZAmoeba
spose... but thats assumeing T ever equalled 0

My own personal pulled-out-of-my-arse theory is that the universe has been creating and destroying itself an infinite number of times, expanding then collapseing, expanding again, then repeat infinitely. Then you don't have to think of the nothingness beforehand because then it would have never existed ever.

You may be forced to abandon your POMA theory sometime soon... The recent results from the WMAP survey show rather persuasively that the universe is flat as opposed to open or closed (as is predicted by inflationary theory). As such, the universe's expansion would never halt. You can find a lot of references for this if you google "wmap flat universe." For example, check out:

http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dyn...1/206knusp.asp

or

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_content.html

Nic Tamzek · 07-03-2003, 12:07 AM

IIRC a flat universe is one in which energy put into the expansion of the universe exactly balances the gravitational pull of the matter in the universe.

Which means, IIRC, that the net amount of "stuff" in the universe is...0. Which would be consistent with the universe being just a very elaborate version of nothing.

PS: Yes, I'm sure the physicists out there would like me drawn and quartered now, but I'm sure I heard something like this somewhere. Comments from the knowledgable?

Nic Tamzek · 07-03-2003, 12:20 AM

Aha! I'm not crazy! (Or at least other people are just as crazy)

Quote:

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

A Universe from Nothing

Mercury, Mar/Apr 2002 Table of Contents

Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.

by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.

Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, � 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.

In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth�s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all � that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg�s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations." Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other � but even if they didn�t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.

Of course, if you think about this stuff very long you'll be wishing you had a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster in your hand...

HRG · 07-03-2003, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
But then his question still stands, of what created that energy in the first place, since energy can't destroy or create itself. It was either created by an outside force, or always existed.

Well, energy conservation says that it cannot even be created by an outside "force", unless the outside "force" undergoes a similar decrease in energy.

Thus this question arises immediately: what created the energy of this outside force ?

Quote:

But as has been said by atheists before on this board, if something leaves behind no physical evidence, its not true. There is absolutely no case or evidence supporting energy being able to always exist - its an assumption because scientists can't think of anything better.

"Being able to always exist" is a typical example of anthropomorphic thinking. Thiis not a special "ability"; energy conservation says that energy does always remain constant - and there is physical evidence in favor of this proposition.

BTW, you should be aware that in many cosmological models the total energy of the universe is zero, because the positive contribution of the fields is balanced by the negative contribution of gravity.

Regards,
HRG.

NZAmoeba · 07-03-2003, 02:36 AM

Hah! the universe, population 0, and an infinitely verbose version of nothing... I think Douglas Adams was onto something...

:notworthy for Doug

Godless Dave · 07-03-2003, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
But then his question still stands, of what created that energy in the first place, since energy can't destroy or create itself. It was either created by an outside force, or always existed. But as has been said by atheists before on this board, if something leaves behind no physical evidence, its not true. There is absolutely no case or evidence supporting energy being able to always exist - its an assumption because scientists can't think of anything better.

So, since science hasn't found an answer yet, we should just make one up based on the religious writings of a particular ethnic group living in the Middle East a few thousand years ago?

MortalWombat · 07-03-2003, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Tamzek
Which means, IIRC, that the net amount of "stuff" in the universe is...0. Which would be consistent with the universe being just a very elaborate version of nothing.

Much like religion, politics, and the internet.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-03-2003, 12:07 AM	#12
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	IIRC a flat universe is one in which energy put into the expansion of the universe exactly balances the gravitational pull of the matter in the universe. Which means, IIRC, that the net amount of "stuff" in the universe is...0. Which would be consistent with the universe being just a very elaborate version of nothing. PS: Yes, I'm sure the physicists out there would like me drawn and quartered now, but I'm sure I heard something like this somewhere. Comments from the knowledgable?

07-03-2003, 02:36 AM	#15
NZAmoeba Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 478	Hah! the universe, population 0, and an infinitely verbose version of nothing... I think Douglas Adams was onto something... :notworthy for Doug

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.