T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe

When you can change this to " . scientist are happy to accept . " you might have an argument.Edited by lyx2no, : Add signature.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

Hi Marcosll,EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim to be legitimate science, and for this reason we try to keep science and religion separate, just like in the public schools in the US. Any argument that wouldn't pass muster in a presentation to a school board because of its religious content should be taken to the religious threads.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I guess the difference is that we know the universe is here. There is no empiriacl evidence for God (if you want to debate this point take it to another thread - this debate site is full of them) Working out how the universe came to be here is the intersting part. The Big Bang is all but indisputable in terms of the evidence of the universe evolving to it's present state from a very hot, very small, very dense prior state. How that initial state might have occurred and/or what if anything is required for this to happen is the subject of this thread.
I don't think it is true to say science is happy to accept that the origin of the cosmos has been explained at all. A great deal of thought and research has gone into and continues to go into this very subject. The expansion of space and time itself requires no energy as I understand it. Whether the universe has any overall energy and "where" or how this could have come about are exactly the subject of this thread. But no scientist claims to know the answer to this question as yet. Energy behaves in ways that we understand. As for "transdimensional energy".... well I am not sure even you know what you mean by that.I don't think abandoning all forms of research and simply claiming that "transdimensional energy" is responsible for everything is going to progress our understanding of nature very much at all.There is a long history in science of the seemingly unexplainable being attributed to God. Some great scientists have fallen foul of this trap in times gone by and halted their research as a result(Newton is a good example). However in almost every case someone else has come along less willing to give up on the problem so easily and progressed humanities understanding of nature as a result.Maybe we can discover how the universe came to be. Maybe we cannot. But accepting the answer as God and not even investigating the question any further is guaranteed to get us nowhere.Welcome to EvC.

I think the actual problem is that you think you know what your talking about. If you go through this site and read whats posted on the threads you may get a better understanding of what is being explained, and not just generalize what you think scientists say about the Universe and how it came into existance.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

Admin: "EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim to be legitimate science, and for this reason we try to keep science and religion separate, just like in the public schools in the US. Any argument that wouldn't pass muster in a presentation to a school board because of its religious content should be taken to the religious threads."Firstly, most if not all of American Creationism Theories are utter rubbish. Religion and science should be kept as different subjects of study. Secondly, I was musing at the fact that some people will only focus on the "how" without thinking about the "why" (once again, relating to the original poster who is theorizing in the metaphysical - origin).Straggler: Picking parts of someone's sentence out and messing with each phrase, then completely ingoring the entire point is just rude."Energy behaves in ways that we understand. As for "transdimensional energy".... well I am not sure even you know what you mean by that."Well, we all know of the standard 4 dimensions but recent research and theories are suggesting more dimensions that create the "physical" universe we observe. I am of the belief that there is a driving energy making all this nice stuff exist since the easiest state would be nothinness.I don't think abandoning all forms of research"Who is abandoning all forms of research? On the contrary, my posts are always geared towards opening up thought.onifre: Very constructive reply there buddy. I could copy and paste what you said directly back at you and it would serve the same purpose.

---

Estepona Apartments - Apartments for sale and rent in Estepona, Spain

I didn't "pick" or "mess". In fact I quoted you in full and responded to each of your points individually in turn. This is a debate forum. This is the sort of thing people do here.Now I am goig to "pick" the relevant parts out of your latest post and respond to each in turn. Again - That is what we do here. There is at least the possibility of empirically testable conclusions as to "how". The "why" you refer to may or may not exist. There is no empirical reason to think there even is a "why" regarding the existence of the universe. Even if there is a "why" I am baffled as to how you think we might reliably investigate this? Yes, string theory is one such theory. I believe that this currently postulates 10 spatial dimensions. I have yet to see any reference to "transdimensional energy" though. Is this a common term or one that you thought up? On what do you base this belief?
In the "nothinness" of the vacuum we see quantum fluctuations. Particles spontaneously appearing and dissappearing. All of the time. This has been observed.
It is not at all clear that genuine "nothinness" is indeed the natural state of being in the way that seem to think is so obviously the case.How much energy might the universe "have" in total and what implications does this have for our theories of the physical origin of the universe we see today?This was the sort of loose premise of my OP in response to various creationist attacks on Big bang theory (which they perceive to be a theory of cosmological origins rather than one of cosmological evolution) regarding T=0, conservation of energy etc. etc.Am I right in thinking that you dispute BB theory on the basis of these sorts of issues?

You are referring to the vacuum in a particle collider I assume.Are you implying there could have been a vacuum that the universe appeared in and began to expand?I would like your definition of genuine nothingness. Because I can only see nothingness existing someplace as it is not the absence of anything.Part of your last sentence seems to be missing making it hard to understand.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

"Am I right in thinking that you dispute BB theory on the basis of these sorts of issues? "I don't dispute the BB theory, it is a strong theory based on the observed.I have seen the reasearch and I agree the universe looks like it's expanding from a "central" location. However, that being said, I don't quite understand how if light cannot escape a black hole due to it's gravitational pull, how can a much much dendser Big Bang cause expansion. If all the mass were concentrated there the gravitational field would be infinitely bigger than that of a black hole. No possiblity of expansion there.Also, if there was a centre to the universe wouldn't everything slowly be pulled in towards it rather than away from it (as we notice now?).

---

Estepona Apartments - Apartments for sale and rent in Estepona, Spain

First of all, there was a very entertaining, but ultimately useless thread on the idea of the Universe having a center. Most people, IamJoseph being a notable exception, think the Universe is finite but unbounded and therefore does not have a center.

Not necessarily a particle collider, but a vacuum as in no matter whatsoever. Just empty time and space. No not really. Time and space as we know them were obviously not in existence "before" the big bang so a vacuum as we know it would not have existed as time and space as we know them were not in existence.
I am not trying to play the 'Get out of jail free' card that you think I am. My definition is probably the same as yours. No time. No space (i.e. no dimensions). Definitely none of the matter that we observe as part of our universe now. Absolutely and utterly nothing in a way that the human mind is unlikely to be able to comprehend at all. The last sentance was a specific reply to Marcosll - But the basic premise is to question the assumption that nothingness is the natural state of things.
True, a vacuum in our universe is not a like for like representation of anything that existed "before" our universe. BUT it is the closest we can directly study and contrary to common sense it is teeming with particles spontaneously popping in and out of existence.I think this should at least cause us to question the assumption that "something" cannot spontaneously arise from true nothingness.I am asking you to question your assumptions about spontaneous existence. That's all. On what are your objections to this based and are they valid or not? That is what this thread is about.ICANT - What I am trying to do here is seperate the empirically tested and validated components of BB theory from the questions of T=0 that you and others are, frankly, far more interested in. Based on a wealth of empirical evidence there can be no real doubt that the Big Bang theory of cosmological evolution from a very hot, very dense, very small prior state is true.However - How the universe came to exist in that very small, very hot, very dense state to begin with is a perfectly valid question.
It is a question I have seen you ask numerous times. It is also the subject of much speculation, much research, much dispute and the subject of this thread.Science doesn't claim to know the answer but I am hoping that some of us might learn something about current scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe and on what they are based.
Some theories do indeed speculate that "something" was present "before" the BB. Theories of the multiverse for example. Other theories do not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It is the the space between the matter (not "around" the matter as you seem to be implying) that expanded so matter was not concentrated for long. Also according to inflation theory the initial rate of expansion of the universe was absolutely enormous. Much much faster than the speed of light.Additionally the nature of gravity in the very early universe is a complete unknown as our current theories are just incapable of describing it. Thus the ongoing search for a quantum theory of gravity. The topology of the universe is another area of research. Current theories, as far as I understand them, suggest that the universe is akin to the surface of a 4 dimensional sphere. Like the surface of a sphere there is no center.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quote boxesEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You have a vacuume in time and space that is something.An absence of anything is exactly that. There is no time, space, matter, gravity, vacuume, and no place for any of those to be. It is truly hard to imagine an absence of anything.Concerning the vacuume: In an absence of anything there would be no particles to pop in an out of existence as there would be no place for them to pop from or into. I appreciate that.I know the universe had a beginning. I know the universe is expanding, I know all the planets, stars, galaxies, black holes, everything we can see and can not see came into existence. I know the universe is going to explode one day and the elements are going to melt with fervent heat. I am not too interested in how all the parts and pieces of the universe runs and accomplishes the things it does.But the Question of where did it come from is fasinating.
Because that brings up a more important question for me.Why am I here? That brings up the question,Where do we go from here?Whatever it is I am going to enjoy the ride and be happy. I have been told several times since coming to EvC that a Theory was a hypothesis that had been accepted by the community as a whole.The Big Bang Theory is such a theory. Even though there are many who dispute it's being correct.Why do we have a string theory, a bounce theory and all these other theories when they are nothing but hypothesis.In Message 26
Straggler I have a problem with space expanding maybe you can help.If at the moment expansion began every particles was moving apart at the speed of light (186,282 miles per second), How was anything able to form?You said the matter was not together long. Doesn't that depend on where it came from? If it just popped in and started expanding I would agree. But that would mean matter just appeared from an absence of anything and started expanding.You also said according to the inflation theory. I do not find where it is a theory yet. It is a hypothesis.You said these particles were moving faster than the speed of light. Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that break the law of physics that nothing can move faster than the speed of light?Unless all this took place at the singularity where GR breaks down and prior to T=10^-43.But why would the laws of physics not be applicable?Guth's Reworked Inflation hypothesis I find Here.Requires an initial patch of gravitational repulsion about one-billionth the size of a proton.It only has to have a nonzero probability.If it exists it will expand as it is negative energy.The total energy is conserved as positive energy appears as the negative energy is appearing in the gravatational field.This could be the zero total energy universe.The inital inflation must have some way of stopping. The big problem with this hypothesis is the small patch has to have somewhere to be or to come from. But since prior to this small patch there is an absence of anything the possibility of it existing is ZERO.Also in msg 26: I have a nagging question in the back of my mind about the expansion of the pea sized universe. If space inside of all the particles in the little universe expanded and somehow it was able to produce enough mass to create the universe wouldn't all that mass still be inside of the universe?That is the reason in another thread I asked if I was standing on the surface of the universe and looked up what would I see. The surface would be the outside of the universe in my opinion. Somebody give me some help.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Agreed. But if particles of matter can pop into existence in "empty" spacetime (as we know they can) can spacetime pop into existence in "empty nothingness"?
I merely question the assumption that the natural state of things is genuine nothingness. On what basis is this assumption made? Indeed. I think your overriding search for answers to these sorts of "why questions" potentially clouds your judgement with regard to the "how" questions that we might have a chance at answering. Fair comment. The term theory is indeed all too often used interchangeably in science for both things that we are (all but) certain of and also things which are empirically untested areas of research. I agree it is very inconsistent. Especially in the more abstract areas of theoretical physics.
However not even the most enthusiastic proponent of string theory (for example) would claim it as empirically verified at all.
The potential validity of such theories (or hypotheses if you prefer) is based more on mathematical concepts. Whilst this approach to physics has worked incredibly successfully in the past (the work of both Einstein and Dirac for example) I don't think any physicist would dispute that until empirically verified by predicted results any theory of nature should be considered as "true". I think the problem here is that you are still thinking in terms of matter exploding. You are thinking of it like a tightly packed bag of ball bearings exploding out from the center and scattering the ball bearings everywhere.
It isn't like this. Think instead of the bag of ball bearings itself (I appreciate that this is not a perfect analogy) ballooning out and taking tne relatively stationary ball bearings with it as it expands. The space between the ball bearings is what increases. Not the speed of the ball bearings travelling in space. It certainly isn't as verified as the broader BB theory regarding the evolution of the universe.
But the findings of WMAP, COBE etc. are highly consistent with the predicted results of inflationary theory. I would say it is more than a hypothesis at this stage but testing is ongoing and continues. New CMB mapping projects are getting underway as I write. No No No. the particles are not moving in space faster than the speed of light. Space is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light. The space between the particles is expanding. The particles themselves are not necessarily moving at all. The mathematical basis on which all our current theories are based breaks down. Space and time are of quantum proportions. But we have no quantum theory of space and time. Currently we just have no way of calculating what was happening at this stage of the universe's evolution. Well that is indeed the question.
But is the possibility of it exiting literally from nothing really zero? On what basis is that assumptio made? Common sense (which several areas of physics have taught us to be wary of) or something more reliable?
In the absence of anything is it the natural state of things to remain that way? If I understand your question correctly then I would say yes (although energy as oposed to mass might be a better term in this context). The question in the link of the OP is whether or not all of this energy is effectively equal and opposite to the gravitational potential energy of the universe. I.e. How much energy is there in the universe in total. Could it be 0?I was hoping someone with more knowledge than I would tell us if this is a viable sceientific propspect or not. The trouble with this is it does not make sense. You are standing IN the surface of the universe. There is no ON.

I made the statement it is hard for us to understand an absence of anything. I made that statement because we base everything on something. Therefore we don't want to believe in a total absence of anything because that would mean absolutely no thing, power, energy, mass existed, and that just could not be.I do not believe that there was ever a time that there was an absence of anything. If there had been you and I would not be here because there would still be an absence of anything.If the law of the conservation of energy is true that energy can not be created or destroyed then all the energy that is in the universe has always existed in some form.Or there had to be an endless supply of energy that never runs out. But what would you call that source?If this energy has always existed there had to be someplace that it existed in.If this energy existed in something then that something had to be a vast emptiness except for the energy that existed someplace in it.If part of this energy separated and began to expand and our universe is the result then our universe exists in this vast emptiness and can expand forever.If part of that energy that was left separated and created another universe there could be parallel universes.If more of that energy separated and started other universes there could be many universes.I have no problem with any of those. I don't know if you took time to read the article by Guth that I cited but he goes into great detail about the zero energy universe.
This is a modified version of his 1981 Inflation hypothesis.In 1981 version he did not have zero energy just matter being created during the inflation period. The revised one is to eliminate the problem of conservation of energy. I agree that there could be no on the surface of the universe.But I don't see how I could be standing in the surface of the universe. Correct me if I am wrong on this but I think if I had a powerful enough telescope I could look in any direction at anytime of the 24 hour time period as the earth rotates and I could see 37+ billion light years. That makes this surface pretty thick.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Boldening done by me. I don't think our inability to comprehend something is good enough reason to discount it as "impossible". An inability to believe something is even less of a reason to discount it.
Modern physics as a whole is barely comprehensible even to those who could be called experts but it's practical and predictive success is indisputable. A theory of cosmological origins is likely to follow suite.
Neither my nor your ability to comprehend or believe something will ultimately affect the truths of nature. Our comprehension and beliefs are irrelevant. Any argument based on those alone is no argument at all. Now this is an interesting one. The law of conservation of energy is derived from time symmetry. Put simply the laws of physics do not change with time. The total amount of energy in the universe does not change with time.
But in the absence of time (i.e "before" time is created as part of the BB)..........? If time does not exist does the conservation of energy apply?
Additionally in the very early universe (pre-planck time) we cannot say with any certainty that any of the laws of physics apply. Including energy conservation. We just do not know.Alternatively there is the zero energy universe hypothesis which would in fact overcome your objections. What do you personally make of a zero energy universe? There are highly speculative theories that suggest exactly these things. I must admit that I am surprised that you would be happy to accept these sorts of proposals. It is not strictly on topic but, briefly, how would you reconcile these things with your theistic beliefs? I have been wrestling with a rampant 2 year old all day and have not as yet read it but I definitely will. Apologies if the replies I have given without reading this have required you to repeat yourself. I really am interested to read the article and will do so. Hmmmmm. The power of the telescope is not an issue. To look "up" from the surface of the universe would involve looking "up" in a dimension that is not itself part of the universe. If the universe contains all the dimensions that there are then this would be impossible.
The usual comparisons with living in the 2D surface of a balloon (which I am sure you have heard before?) apply here.Maybe someone like Cavediver of Son Goku can explain better. I reiterate that I am far from an expert in such matters.