hackbackwards

As a new member, making my first post and first thread, I wanted to open with something respectful, interesting, and educated.

I also wanted to make sure it hasn't been posted before, and that I'm posting in the wrong forums. If this is the wrong section, let me know. If this has been posted before, let me know. I had been thinking it could go in one of the atheistic discussion sections, but I realized that no large discussion would spawn there. So, I posted here.

Now, on the the subject matter:

The idea behind this post came from the creator of the Inflationary Theory of the universe, Alan Guth. I got most of my information from his book, the Inflationary Theory of the Universe. These are my own words and own drawings, condensing several chapters worth of material into one post.

I am posting this because I find the implications of this train of thought to be fascinating, and I hope you all can enjoy this as much as I do.

So, here it is:

------------------------------------------------------

First, we need to take a look at potential and kinetic energy, and how they are stored and released.

Imagine a ball, held out at arm's length. Air friction is negligible. Once the ball is dropped, its kinetic energy begins to increase. However, since in all systems there must be a conservation of energy, then there must be a decrease in energy somewhere else to counteract this kinetic energy increase. When the ball is held in your hand, not moving, then its kinetic energy is zero. Just before it hits the ground, its kinetic energy is at its maximum value. Which means at these two points, the energy store where the ball's kinetic energy is coming from must be at maximum and zero, respectively. Thus, when the ball's kinetic energy is at zero, its potential energy is at maximum. Think of it in terms of the ball's highest potential kinetic energy.

Before we continue, I must make note that potential and kinetic energy are not just made up things to help us measure properties of the world. Since we can use an object's potential energy to predict its kinetic energy, and through that predict how far and how fast it will move, then these two methods of energy storage and transfer must be very real. We can even quantize them (mostly measured in ergs).

Now, we continue with an examination of the nature of potential energy. In the case of the ball, the amount of potential energy is determined by the ball's height above the ground (or any medium that will cause its kinetic energy to drop to zero. Keep in mind, that even though the ball may come to rest on the ground, it still has potential energy, since it's not moving). Since its height is directly related to its potential energy, then the potential energy must be directly related to gravity. Thus, we call the new combined form of energy gravitational potential energy. For each centimeter the ball falls, its gravitational potential energy decreases, and its kinetic energy increases. After one centimeter (assuming the ball has a mass of one gram, and air friction is still negligible), its kinetic energy is 980 ergs. After two, the energy is twice that amount. After three, thrice the amount, and so on and so forth. So through this, we see that potential energy is stored in gravitational fields. This also means the the potential energy between planets, stars, and anything with any mass at all is stored in the gravitational fields they exert on each other. While the actual numerical amounts for these are almost impossible to predict, we know that the energy is still there.

Next, we need to examine the nature of gravitational fields. Specifically, what happens when one is created. The most basic way to begin a discussion of gravitational energy is with a thin spherical shell of mass.



This shell is hollow. Having mass, it also creates a gravitational field, which at each point in space provides a measure of the force that would be experienced by a mass if it were located at that point. To calculate the effect of the sphere's gravitational pull on any point of mass, we must consider the shell of the sphere to be made up of an infinite number of infinitely small points. The resulting calculations are what caused integral calculus to be developed. However, physicists love drawings, and what follows is the graphical representation of these points, and their effect on a point mass outside of the shell:



Point masses Q and P are on the shell, and their forces on point mass M are shown. Each infinite point on the shell has a force as well, but these are not drawn. Through this observation, we find that the force of the gravitational field exerted on M by the sphere is directed inward, towards the center of the sphere. Thus, the gravitational field exerted by the sphere points inwards.

But what about the gravitational field inside the sphere? To find this, we must again consider a point mass, B:



Which direction is the gravitational force on B? One could argue that it would be to the right, as the mass of the sphere is closer there. One could also argue with equal validity that it is to the left, because there is more mass there. But which is correct?

The answer is: both. The gravitational forces are equal from where ever they are being measured inside the sphere, and therefore cancel each other out. So, the gravitational energy inside the sphere is zero.

Now we move on to what happens when a gravitational field is created.

Imagine we allowed our thin spherical shell to contract a bit, while still keeping its original shape. To help illustrate, refer to the next drawing for all further points:



Lines drawn as straight and evenly as OpenOffice drawer will let me :/

The lines represent the gravitational field outside the sphere. The grey area is an the area of space that was previously inside the sphere. Since the gravitational energy inside the sphere was zero, there now exists a gravitational field where there wasn't one before. We have just created a gravitational field. Imagine, now, another point particle in the region of space outside of the shaded region, the old sphere size. Since the effect of a gravitational field decreases with increasing distance, the effect of the gravitational field has decreased on this point. Thus, the energy of the gravitational field has decreased with this operation, which means that energy was released when the new gravitational field was created. Therefore, the energy of a gravitational field must be represented by a negative number, if the energy in the rest of the universe is represented by a positive one.

Therefore, because the energy stored in gravitational fields is negative, and because the amount of energy they can store is potentially infinite, combined with the fact that gravitational fields affect everything in the universe (and thusly, all the potential energy from these masses is stored), the total energy of gravitational fields cancels out the energy of the universe. The total energy of the universe is zero, and it had to have come from nothing.

----------------------------------------------------

My question to you, the community, is this: what relevence could this have to many materialistc creation vs. theistic creation arguments? Does this help to support a materialistic creation, or does it support a supernatural creation?

hackbackwards

For those of you who don't want to take the time to read through the whole thing, go ahead and skip to the bottom to respond to the question posed there.

Soralis

I think this is incorrect, you can treat a perfect sphere as if it were a point-object at it's center of mass (if you're on the outside). Causing it to contract would move the near side further away, but it would move the far side closer, and it ends up evening out. At long as you're still on the outside of it, it should have the same gravitational pull, at the same distance from it's center, no matter how far it's compressed or expanded.

GenesisNemesis

It's just a theory, of course! :banghead: I don't think there's anything Supernatural about it... God created the Earth from nothing, right? "And the Earth was without form and void" yadda yadda yadda... whatev...

hackbackwards

No, because the mass on the outside of the sphere that's projecting the gravitational field is now further away from the point particle.

But still, energy is released when the field is created, because energy must be expended in order for the new form of energy to appear, and keep the conservation of mass and energy in effect.
One of the big arguments about the existence of God or a God, and the validity of religion in and of itself is the creation of the universe. The materialistic claim is only valid if the universe came from nothing. The theistic argument then comes in and says that the materialistic claim cannot show that the universe came from nothing (because of the conservation of mass and energy law), and that there must have been a higher power involved.

With this fact (and yes, it is a fact, not a theory or hypothesis. We know that's how potential energy is stored, we know that's how gravitational fields work, so it follows that this must be true), the materialistic claim now has some more validity. But does this also help the theistic claim, in that God had to have started the creation, if there was nothing beforehand to get it going.

Kosh

<long technical explanation of the origin of the universe>

vs.

"Goddidit!".

You've been to Wal-mart, which do you most people will understand?

hackbackwards

Good point.

IRON MAN

:wave: Welcome to the board hackbackwards, mind if I call you kcah for short?

hackbackwards

Most people end up calling me hack, but if you'd like to make a play on my name, that's fine by me.

.sdrawkcab gnipyt trats dluoc uoy rO

Karen M

I don't see how the total energy of the universe being zero necessarily proves the universe came from nothing?