The Source Of All Energy (The Source Of All Time)?

[Atlan0001]

Well observable universe is just that, all we can ever experience no matter what tech happens.
We are stuck in some small part of this BB bubble never to see what is beyond and as matter beings we never will since faster than C would turn is into radiation unless a different way to travel is discovered that bypasses physics.

At best we have a shrinking frontier of what can possibly be visited with any tech.
If the BB truly is all that exists then the start of it was infinite speed since it violated C and that can never be reached even at infinite speed.

The constant of (('c') ('-c')) cannot be "violated'. Stand in the middle of your room and turn 360 degrees, what do you observe concerning light? Go outside into the widest area you can find and turn 360 degrees, what do you observe concerning light? Go aboard an aircraft, or a starship, with a 360 view and view 360 degrees worth of observation, what do you observe concerning light? You observe that it has only one front to it, the front toward the observer (the front toward the universe immediate to the observer, always oncoming to the observer at it's horizon constant of 'c')). Single-sided 2-dimensional frames of historical time englobing each and every observer in a local cocoon of light-time, of which the other end is always and only the distant Planck and BB horizon. It is a horizon "nothing" is outside of, therefore it is a horizon "everything" is outside of. Thus, it will not be violated because it cannot possibly be violated.

 

[Catastrophe]

"never to see what is beyond "

but different observers see different parts of the total they have only to move in any direction

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

The constant of (('c') ('-c')) cannot be "violated'. Stand in the middle of your room and turn 360 degrees, what do you observe concerning light? Go outside into the widest area you can find and turn 360 degrees, what do you observe concerning light? Go aboard an aircraft, or a starship, with a 360 view and view 360 degrees worth of observation, what do you observe concerning light? You observe that it has only one front to it, the front toward the observer (the front toward the universe immediate to the observer, always oncoming to the observer at it's horizon constant of 'c')). Single-sided 2-dimensional frames of historical time englobing each and every observer in a local cocoon of light-time, of which the other end is always and only the distant Planck and BB horizon. It is a horizon "nothing" is outside of, therefore it is a horizon "everything" is outside of. Thus, it will not be violated because it cannot possibly be violated.

At the Beginning of the BB it did violate C.
Anything going faster than C has no space/time to it so the edge of the BB might be infinite far away or in another dimension or disconnected from reality.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

"never to see what is beyond "

but different observers see different parts of the total they have only to move in any direction

Cat

Very true, they are stuck in the bubble they can experience.
They have a shrinking frontier also of same fluctuation and less other stuff..
You can see how meaningless (Frontier) is.

 

[David-J-Franks]

Yep could be Nothing is just that, Nothing.
Or could be the reason for everything is just a property of Nothing occupying an area.

One way or another everything started from nothing so what is the easiest solution to nothing starting everything?

If we think of classic BB theory it's expanding into nothing from nothing/nowhere.
We just need a mechanism for this to happen and not just the fact that it is happening.

One way or another everything started from nothing

it is not possible for something to come from nothing. The first law of thermodynamics says that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, this means existence is eternal, i.e. it has no beginning. There has always been something!

I think you have an otherwise good theory apart from insisting it started from nothing.

I don't understand how using the word void changes anything, void still means a completely empty space.

The other meaning of void is - not valid or legally binding - so your universe theory is not legally binding.

 

[David-J-Franks]

This is all confusing to me. I simply look at the conservation of energy law, which tells us all the energy in existence had no beginning and will have no end. In other words, it is eternal, constant, finite, of fixed value - however you want to word it. Then I dissect reality, or everything in existence from there and ask questions: Is the universe and all its known and undiscovered dimensions everything in existence or is it just a fraction of a more complex reality that could consist of other universes like or very much unlike ours with different laws of physics? Since space-time is an energetic fabric, I imagine there is a point at which it can no longer stretch. At that point, it could simply reverse course if it acted like an elastic or it could quantum leap into something else with different dimensions and laws of physics. Since the expansion appears to still be accelerating, I favor the quantum leap view. The universe could be in a more complex cycle instead of a simple expansion and contraction. That would apply if the universe is all there is, but if it is only a fraction of a more complex, perhaps open reality in which all the energy can interact with only temporary barriers, the picture would be considerably more complex.

I simply look at the conservation of energy law, which tells us all the energy in existence had no beginning and will have no end. In other words, it is eternal, constant, finite, of fixed value - however you want to word it.

The conservation of energy law does not put a limit on the size of the universe, it equally applies to a finite universe or an infinite universe. so if the universe is infinite then there would be an infinite amount of matter and energy in it.

My own way of looking at it is to suggest that there is an average density value of energy/matter in an infinite universe and it's that that is fixed or constant.

The conservation of energy law can't be used to argue that the universe must be finite, but it does mean it is eternal as you say.

 

[Catastrophe]

"The conservation of energy law can't be used to argue that the universe must be finite, but it does mean it is eternal as you say."

I agree. I add that a cyclic Universe (just one Universe cycling between phases) would seem to solve these problems.

Cat

 

[agent00seven]

To be clear, I see the universe as possibly being only a fraction of a greater reality, but I'm certainly in no position to draw conclusions.

I see where you are coming from in the infinite universe (or infinite reality) view and it's as mind-boggling as a reality that had no beginning and will never end. The phrase 'everything in existence' implies there is a limit to the amount of energy within reality. and that there is no beyond reality Otherwise there is no 'everything in existence' because there would be an unlimited amount of energy in existence. It's very difficult to wrap our heads around any of this, but there's no way to prove either one of us is on the right track.

 

[agent00seven]

I would like to update that law. Energy can neither be created or destroyed in a a universe of fluctuation.
One in the same reason it can't be created or destroyed because fluctuation already has an energy balance.

Energy can't emerge from a complete void and start fluctuating without a catalyst. The energy that is responsible for any fluctuations had to have always been there to be the cause of those fluctuations. That energy is eternal and has a value of 1, not zero. A void is in perfect balance, but I don't believe voids are anything more than figments of the imagination.

 

[agent00seven]

"The conservation of energy law can't be used to argue that the universe must be finite, but it does mean it is eternal as you say."

I agree. I add that a cyclic Universe (just one Universe cycling between phases) would seem to solve these problems.

Cat

I always refer to the amount of energy within reality as being finite, but I don't view the universe as everything in existence. If reality consists of (not contains) an infinite amount of energy. there is no such thing as 'everything in existence' because that puts a limit on the amount of energy in reality. If reality is indeed infinite, which also can't be proven, then there's one more thing we won't be be able to wrap our heads around.

 

[Catastrophe]

" I don't view the universe as everything in existence."

Then you disagree with the definition.

Cat

 

[agent00seven]

" I don't view the universe as everything in existence."

Then you disagree with the definition.

Cat

I disagree with anyone who concludes that the universe is everything in existence. The universe may be only a percentage of a greater, more complex reality and I prefer to keep them separate entities for that reason.

 

[Catastrophe]

Does that not mean that you have your own personal definition?
'

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

it is not possible for something to come from nothing. The first law of thermodynamics says that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, this means existence is eternal, i.e. it has no beginning. There has always been something!

I think you have an otherwise good theory apart from insisting it started from nothing.

I don't understand how using the word void changes anything, void still means a completely empty space.

The other meaning of void is - not valid or legally binding - so your universe theory is not legally binding.

Well if absolute nothing has properties then it has potential.
Since we are expanding into nothing then it has some placement properties as the existence of nothing and not truly nothing with no properties
Could be that simple David (nothing) is unstable and creates everything.

Using the word Void just gets away from thinking about space with nothing since space with nothing is already something.

Conservation of energy isn't broken by nothing becoming something if nothing has potential E.

We are stuck with nothing turning into a universe no matter what math we throw at it, at some point it was nothing and now it's some product of that.
With an E value to nothing we have a clear straightforward start to everything.

It's perplexing to think nothing can have energy properties but far more logical than a BB starting from nothing and nowhere.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I disagree with anyone who concludes that the universe is everything in existence. The universe may be only a percentage of a greater, more complex reality and I prefer to keep them separate entities for that reason.

Energy can't emerge from a complete void and start fluctuating without a catalyst. The energy that is responsible for any fluctuations had to have always been there to be the cause of those fluctuations. That energy is eternal and has a value of 1, not zero. A void is in perfect balance, but I don't believe voids are anything more than figments of the imagination.

Could be just void space is unstable.
Or void space has some potential energy in occupying an area.

We have to start from nothing somehow.
Infinite void space with some potential, any potential energy= everything.
Or infinite void space that is unstable = everything.

One of the 2

 

[Catastrophe]

"We have to start from nothing somehow."

Why? Cyclic theory circumvents this.

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

To be clear, I see the universe as possibly being only a fraction of a greater reality, but I'm certainly in no position to draw conclusions.

I see where you are coming from in the infinite universe (or infinite reality) view and it's as mind-boggling as a reality that had no beginning and will never end. The phrase 'everything in existence' implies there is a limit to the amount of energy within reality. and that there is no beyond reality Otherwise there is no 'everything in existence' because there would be an unlimited amount of energy in existence. It's very difficult to wrap our heads around any of this, but there's no way to prove either one of us is on the right track.

To be clear, I see the universe as possibly being only a fraction of a greater reality, but I'm certainly in no position to draw conclusions.

catastrophe has been at pains to point out that the dictionary definition of 'universe' is everything that exists, so any other ideas you come up with such as you've said, like a greater reality, then that greater reality must be included as part of the universe. So what you originally called the universe must now be called a pocket universe or a bubble universe in the Universe which includes your greater reality and the bubble universe. Even that wording is incorrect but everyone knows what it means.

The phrase 'everything in existence' implies there is a limit to the amount of energy within reality. and that there is no beyond reality Otherwise there is no 'everything in existence' because there would be an unlimited amount of energy in existence.

I don't see why the phrase everything in existence implies there is a limit to the amount of energy within reality. In an infinite universe reality would be Infinite and there would be an infinite amount of matter/energy., It just means that everything in existence is Infinite.

there's no way to prove either one of us is on the right track.

Agreed, but I can put both ideas side by side so people can make their own mind up. On the one hand you can have a finite universe and that would mean an infinite void surrounding it or beyond it, a bit absurd. Or you can have an infinite universe full of stuff, which on average must be be the same everywhere, since any imbalance has had an infinite amount of time to even out (a crude way of putting it I'm afraid). A better explanation might be to simply say that the laws of physics are the same everywhere so everything would appear the same everywhere.

 

[Catastrophe]

I think that the source of the problem is that people are, so to speak, arguing to the death that there must be an end to the surface of a sphere. It is simple anthropocentric lack of understanding of higher dimensions. If we get used to the idea that we exist on the equivalent of the surface of a sphere, we can stop searching for what lies on the other side/

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

A cell acquires so much energy, it divides in to two or more cells, none of which are overloaded in energy (conservation of energy is maintained). The more cells the more sustained the dividing (the more sustained the conservation of energy). The infinity of the cells, the infinity of the division (the constant of the sustaining). There is no monolith here regarding energy (finite potential of infinity per cell until division only); no net finish in infinite of energy. That the infinity of finites pre-exist the finite potential of infinity per finite is a matter of Multiverse multi-dimensionality (a matter of the hyper-dimensional timelessly (energylessly) infinite Universe neither gaining nor losing anything ever). You could even call the infinite the ultimate in entropic being (the flattest, most ordered, most symmetrically smoothest, 'Vulcan hammered' Universe going in Chaos Theory): The absolutely immovable object (no matter that that is a bit redundant; gravity being its irresistible force integral completing it). Some see it as an infinitely dimensionless "point" rather than dimensionally an infinitely flat "plane" infinite in its extent. How many "dimensionless points" are there in that dimensional "infinite of flat plane"? An infinity of dimensionless points? Or just one dimensionless point?

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

"We have to start from nothing somehow."

Why? Cyclic theory circumvents this.

Cat

Chicken and egg.
If we start from something how did the something happen?

Only really 3 ways the everything happened.
1 nothing was unstable.
2 nothing had potential energy
3 God

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

catastrophe has been at pains to point out that the dictionary definition of 'universe' is everything that exists, so any other ideas you come up with such as you've said, like a greater reality, then that greater reality must be included as part of the universe. So what you originally called the universe must now be called a pocket universe or a bubble universe in the Universe which includes your greater reality and the bubble universe. Even that wording is incorrect but everyone knows what it means. I don't see why the phrase everything in existence implies there is a limit to the amount of energy within reality. In an infinite universe reality would be Infinite and there would be an infinite amount of matter/energy., It just means that everything in existence is Infinite. Agreed, but I can put both ideas side by side so people can make their own mind up. On the one hand you can have a finite universe and that would mean an infinite void surrounding it or beyond it, a bit absurd. Or you can have an infinite universe full of stuff, which on average must be be the same everywhere, since any imbalance has had an infinite amount of time to even out (a crude way of putting it I'm afraid). A better explanation might be to simply say that the laws of physics are the same everywhere so everything would appear the same everywhere.

Yep no real rule says the universe has to be in bubble mode or any mode with any border.
We would all like to pin some logical conclusion to what the universe is but it might be so odd as to have no conclusion or might be an evolving thing that we are a tiny bit of.
Sort of like an ant looking at the patch of ground it walks and thinking it has a good grasp on reality.

That is no reason not to take a stab at what it might be though.
I just keep an open mind since my ideas are probably wrong anyway.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

A cell acquires so much energy, it divides in to two or more cells, none of which are overloaded in energy (conservation of energy is maintained). The more cells the more sustained the dividing (the more sustained the conservation of energy). The infinity of the cells, the infinity of the division (the constant of the sustaining). There is no monolith here regarding energy (finite potential of infinity per cell until division only); no net finish in infinite of energy. That the infinity of finites pre-exist the finite potential of infinity per finite is a matter of Multiverse multi-dimensionality (a matter of the hyper-dimensional timelessly (energylessly) infinite Universe neither gaining nor losing anything ever). You could even call the infinite the ultimate in entropic being (the flattest, most ordered, most symmetrically smoothest, 'Vulcan hammered' Universe going in Chaos Theory): The absolutely immovable object (no matter that that is a bit redundant; gravity being its irresistible force integral completing it). Some see it as an infinitely dimensionless "point" rather than dimensionally an infinitely flat "plane" infinite in its extent. How many "dimensionless points" are there in that dimensional "infinite of flat plane"? An infinity of dimensionless points? Or just one dimensionless point?

Does chaos even exist?
Every event in the universe has a straight forward line.
Even at the tiniest fluctuation has a cause and action.
IMO things just look chaotic because we are seeing things from our scale.
Very tiny might be very ordered and not chaotic at all.
Quantum leaps say that tiny is extremely ordered, place 1 or 2 but no fraction between them.

 

[David-J-Franks]

At the Beginning of the BB it did violate C.
Anything going faster than C has no space/time to it so the edge of the BB might be infinite far away or in another dimension or disconnected from reality.

It was the Fabric of space, that is quantum fields and quantum foam, which was travelling faster than light, 'it was a something'. Not only was it travelling faster than the speed of light then, it still is travelling faster than the speed of light, even within our observable universe. Towards the edge of the observable universe it is expanding at around three times the speed of light today. That's how it got to be 46.5 billion light years in radius in just 13.7 billion years! Who knows what speed it is expanding at the edge of the whole universe? (whole contents of the Big Bang).

 

[David-J-Franks]

I disagree with anyone who concludes that the universe is everything in existence. The universe may be only a percentage of a greater, more complex reality and I prefer to keep them separate entities for that reason.

The universe is not a matter for conclusion, it is a dictionary definition, it is everything that exists, so your complex reality becomes the universe or part of it and what you originally called the universe is now just a small part of the proper definition of Universe which includes, or is your complex reality. So any theories anybody has about the universe, if true, will have to be called the universe or become part of it.

 

[Catastrophe]

VPE
"Chicken and egg.
If we start from something how did the something happen?"
This is an easy question to answer. It is certainly much more likely than "nothing" or "the other".

Cyclic Universe has no beginning or end. It us like the surface of a sphere.

Imagine yourself an ant, on the surface of a sphere. Or, come to that, a man on the surface of the Earth before the arrival of aeroplanes or rockets. You cannot get off the surface. The surface of the sphere is your universe.

Think of a circle. In 2 dimensions, it has no beginning or end. As we have seen, the surface of a sphere has no beginning o

The universe is not a matter for conclusion, it is a dictionary definition, it is everything that exists, so your complex reality becomes the universe or part of it and what you originally called the universe is now just a small part of the proper definition of Universe which includes, or is your complex reality. So any theories anybody has about the universe, if true, will have to be called the universe or become part of it.

I heartily commend this and hope all will take note of this excellent post. Cat