Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
72 online now:
anglagard, PaulK (2 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,972 Year: 3,618/14,102 Month: 238/321 Week: 54/44 Day: 5/9 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Did a 5-D black hole brane event horizon make the universe?
Member (Idle past 1040 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 17 of 18 (729665)
06-16-2014 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TryingToBeLogical
06-16-2014 1:50 PM

Re: Something to chew on...
Anyway, as it is, thermal energy would increase as the mass it was contained in decreased, correct?

No, I'm pretty sure as thermal energy goes up so does mass. But overall thermal energy does not increase as you go back in time, there's a law about that.

Thus, the Big Bang contained the absolute energy of the universe, right?

The universe has always (including today, tomorrow and forever as far as we can extrapolate) contained the sum total amount of energy of the universe. It hasn't, as far as we know, ever changed.

But the key is that that energy couldn't have come into existence on its own.

We also know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, at least in our universe. Therefore it is not settled that energy 'comes into existence' at all.

Also, we don't know a damn thing about dark matter.

We know that it is matter and it is dark. We know that most dark matter does not interact with other matter very strongly. We know that most of dark matter is therefore probably exotic, for the most part ruling out MACHOs for example.
That's what I know. I don't know what you know. I'm sure physicists know more than both of us together.

antimatter, well, we all know the destruction that can cause.

Meh, I've had antimatter injected into my body, it wasn't that bad.

The point being, based on the theory of relativity, isn't it entirely possible that you could transform a negative energy value into a negative mass value?

Depends on which version you look at. It violates the conditions of some versions, and is potentially possible in others. I should point out that technically, transforming mass into energy is no more possible than transforming the sun into a star.

The logical conclusion as to the identity of this (keeping in mind that this is all just postulation) anti-matter would be the single most mysterious form of matter in the known universe. Hence, dark or anti matter.

Anti matter basically just has the opposite charge, not the negative mass/energy equivalence. Dark matter is gravitationally attractive and weakly interacting. That's not antimatter which interacts just the same as matter, nor does it describe something with negative mass, which and I'm speculating a little beyond my ken here, would be (gravitationally) repulsive (it might still be (eg.) electrically attractive, of course).

It would, I'm sure, be considered 'exotic' in any event.

There WAS no energy for it to do anything; it was simply there.

The entire universe of the energy was there (and more of it was available to do work with than today), in fact - the huge amount of energy in a small amount of space is one of the defining features.

So where did the energy come from? Where did the mass originate?

'Where' implies a spatial coordinates. It has not been established that this makes sense. Let's assume that it does. Let's define the spatial centre of the region which contained the energy our universe would come to contain as the origin of our cartesian system.

{00, 01, 03...0n} = {0!} (my own notation)

Therefore the answer to your question is - {0!} is where the energy come from (since mass is equivalent to energy this also answers your second question). Where is that relative to us? We don't even know if it is spatially relative or dimensionally contiguous with us, if it is I'm betting that spatially it's right there, it's just a long way away temporally (ie., before the big bang, which happened right there).

This probably doesn't leave you more informed than you were previously. There are some interesting ideas about this region of space that includes {0!}, but we're still trying to determine what differences the different ideas would make to our universe so we can try and gather evidence to maybe eliminate some of them (I believe many have already been all but completely eliminated to date).

The answer, as it turns out, might lie in gravity and dark matter. Gravitational potential energy is a negative value; if it wasn't, we'd all be pushed AWAY. But this means that this is actually 'anti-energy', as it might be termed, and therefore, is a negative value in the gigantic equation of the Universe. Averaging out the gravitational potential energy with every positive and negative energy value in the universe may very well result in Absolute Zero; thus, there is a loophole in the Law of Conservation of Energy. The same applies to matter; anti- or dark matter could well be a negative value to 'regular' forms of matter, and thus, average out to Nothing once the equation is complete. The implications are troubling.

It's interesting, but it raises questions very similar to the ones you are using it to solve. What caused no energy to split into energy and gravity? Sure where may get a set of complicated answers to these questions too, but I'm just hoisting that point up the flagpole to show how it isn't, in that sense, all that dissimilar from the problems facing an alternative region of space time to answer the 'where' and possibly 'when' questions.

We may be simply +42-42.

As a matter of fact, if the zero-energy universe notion is correct, we ARE 42-42, if you pick your units carefully.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

This is dangerously close to being a pun.

Your brain is fuelled by oxygen and other nutrients through a complex web of a circulatory system. Electro-chemical signals are coming in from your toes and your eyes and all over the place. In addition it regulates and is regulated by means of hormones which can affect one's mood or interests. Neurotransmitters in the brain act as a mediator of electrical signals, inhibiting or amplifying them depending on their own individual state. Anyway - these inhibitions and excitations are almost entirely unconscious and involuntary. Makes you think, doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TryingToBeLogical, posted 06-16-2014 1:50 PM TryingToBeLogical has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021