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

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

#### Catastrophe

##### The devil is in the detail
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

David-J-Franks

#### David-J-Franks

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.
Well if absolute nothing has properties then it has potential.
Who said absolute nothing has properties? I don't think absolute nothing has any properties!
Since we are expanding into nothing then it has some placement properties as the existence of nothing and not truly nothing with no properties
Again who said we are expanding into nothing?
Could be that simple David (nothing) is unstable and creates everything.
How can nothing be unstable? Surely only a 'something' can be unstable.
since space with nothing is already something.
How do you figure that out?
Conservation of energy isn't broken by nothing becoming something if nothing has potential E.
Again, I don't think nothing can have potential energy, so to have something from nothing would violate the conservation of energy law!
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.
We are stuck with eternal existence according to the first law of thermodynamics, and according to this, at no point was the universe nothing.

Catastrophe

#### David-J-Franks

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
Or 3, everything has always existed - as per the first law of thermodynamics!

Catastrophe

#### David-J-Franks

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

Only really 3 ways the everything happened.
1 nothing was unstable.
3 God
4. Everything has always been here

#### Catastrophe

##### The devil is in the detail
So I guess I should check in with cyclic Universe. I suppose it should be under 4, if that is OK with David?

Cat

David-J-Franks

#### David-J-Franks

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.
might be an evolving thing that we are a tiny bit of.
Anything that has always existed can't be in a state of evolution, only in a state of change, which on average always ends up similar to what it was, but never exactly the same.

Catastrophe

#### David-J-Franks

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.
Phew, what a change, something I can completely agree with you on. In a nutshell it's called determinism
Does chaos even exist?
Absolutely not, it's just a word you use when something gets too complicated to predict, all systems are deterministic, including the universe, but not necessarily practically predictable.

Catastrophe

#### David-J-Franks

I heartily commend this and hope all will take note of this excellent post. Cat
Thank you so much Catastrophe.

It makes up for all the times when I think I've said something useful but everyone's ignored it

Catastrophe

#### David-J-Franks

So I guess I should check in with cyclic Universe. I suppose it should be under 4, if that is OK with David?

Cat
Definitely OK, all Universe theories must be recycling somehow, it's the only way existence can be eternal, in motion and not evolving at the same time.

You know how much I like infinity, so I would need an infinity of your Nexus ideas in an infinite space. That will give you a headache.

Catastrophe

#### Catastrophe

##### The devil is in the detail
Thank you David.
There is a very great deal about infinity in the new "Agreed terms ... ... singularity.
Why not have a look sometime? It's under Forum feedback.

Cat

#### voidpotentialenergy

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).
At C though time and space are meaningless.
Light traveling from one end of the universe to the other at C experiences the trip in no time.
Billions of years pass for the trip to happen but light experiences it in no time.

Anything going faster than C has the potential to be infinite distance away and infinite time away.

#### voidpotentialenergy

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

I heartily commend this and hope all will take note of this excellent post. Cat
Even in a never ending cyclic universe we still need the creation of energy to have the first one before it became cyclic.

Still gets stuck in the energy problem of how did the original energy happen.
I'm not a fan of the nospace/nowhere spawns a BB for no reason.
I think energy creation for this and other BB's will be quite simple math and reasons.

We might be in a cyclic BB universe but we still need a reason for it.
No free energy ride

#### Catastrophe

##### The devil is in the detail
VPE, "Even in a never ending cyclic universe we still need the creation of energy to have the first one before it became cyclic."
A cyclic Universe has no "first one".

Cat

David-J-Franks

#### voidpotentialenergy

Who said absolute nothing has properties? I don't think absolute nothing has any properties!
Again who said we are expanding into nothing?

How can nothing be unstable? Surely only a 'something' can be unstable.

How do you figure that out?

Again, I don't think nothing can have potential energy, so to have something from nothing would violate the conservation of energy law!

We are stuck with eternal existence according to the first law of thermodynamics, and according to this, at no point was the universe nothing.
Since we need a start point to the energy for everything the only candidate for that energy is (nothing)
No other players in the game.

Lots of nothing exists in our universe with properties, quantum leaps is a shining example that nothing takes up space and has properties.
Orbit A or B but not a fraction.
Showing set energy levels for electron orbits with nothing between and if nothing didn't have properties then why set energy levels for orbits?

Could be as simple as the area nothing takes up is free energy or potential energy.
Conservation of energy from that to energy/matter/fluctuation is pretty simple math with no broken energy law.
Just a conversion of one energy potential to another.
Then everything building by fluctuation over unthinkable time scales.

No guarantee the BB is expanding into nothing.
No guarantee the BB is the universe.

All guess work David but i think (nothing) will be the key to everything.

#### Catastrophe

##### The devil is in the detail
" the area nothing takes up "
Nothing" does not take up space of any dimension(s) including area and volume.
"
"No guarantee the BB is expanding into nothing."
"Nothing" can expand into nothing

"Nothing" has neither existence and nor properties.

Cat

David-J-Franks

#### David-J-Franks

Since we need a start point to the energy for everything the only candidate for that energy is (nothing)
No other players in the game.

Lots of nothing exists in our universe with properties, quantum leaps is a shining example that nothing takes up space and has properties.
Orbit A or B but not a fraction.
Showing set energy levels for electron orbits with nothing between and if nothing didn't have properties then why set energy levels for orbits?

Could be as simple as the area nothing takes up is free energy or potential energy.
Conservation of energy from that to energy/matter/fluctuation is pretty simple math with no broken energy law.
Just a conversion of one energy potential to another.
Then everything building by fluctuation over unthinkable time scales.

No guarantee the BB is expanding into nothing.
No guarantee the BB is the universe.

All guess work David but i think (nothing) will be the key to everything.
Since we need a start point to the energy for everything the only candidate for that energy is (nothing)
Only humans need a starting point, it looks like nature doesn't need one.

There are two simple choices;
1. Everything came from nothing as you say
2. Everything has always existed

I'll leave people to make their own minds up.

Catastrophe

#### Catastrophe

##### The devil is in the detail
2. Everything has always existed

Including the cyclic Universe Theory.

Cat

David-J-Franks

#### voidpotentialenergy

" the area nothing takes up "
Nothing" does not take up space of any dimension(s) including area and volume.
"
"No guarantee the BB is expanding into nothing."
"Nothing" can expand into nothing

"Nothing" has neither existence and nor properties.

Cat
Tell that to quantum orbits that exist in one or the other location and can never be measured between the orbit as they change in a atom decay.
Nothing exists, we just need to figure out what exactly nothing is and why it can exist and take up space.

#### voidpotentialenergy

Only humans need a starting point, it looks like nature doesn't need one.

There are two simple choices;
1. Everything came from nothing as you say
2. Everything has always existed

I'll leave people to make their own minds up.
Very true everything could have always been here.
Even if it wasn't always here the BB was a start clock for our BB area so earlier and later than the BB are mute points.

Like BB theory though saying the BB just is, then all the energy came from it and created everything.
It's an incomplete theory.

A starting point to everything might not exist or be so ancient that making any working idea of it might never happen especially being locked into one BB region.

The real universe could simply go on forever with interactions so grand as to boggle the mind.

But we still need a reason for it to begin no matter what the reality is something created the energy for it all to make a chicken.

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### The devil is in the detail
"The real universe could simply go on forever with interactions so grand as to boggle the mind."

The real Universe does simply go on forever with interactions so grand as to boggle the mind.
And it needed no beginning for the same thoughts.

Cat

Atlan0101

#### Atlan0101

I've said that the infinite Universe is also the ultimate entropic entity. As definitions state, entropy is taken from the words 'turn' and 'transformation', meaning 'change'. It has come to infer nothing but negativity, which is in no way true. Because I've been long a student of history I've run into entropy as a matter of history again and again, and again, and found it to be a basis for renewal of energy, the constant basis for [renewals] of energy. How? Complexity builds in a system, building up [negative forces] for collapse. Once the collapse occurs, or even while it is occurring, the system is beginning to open to energy; to freeing and becoming energetically disorderly once more. A system too tyrannically uniform and flat and smooth, too tyrannically ordered and symmetrical, too slavishly Utopian or perfected, is one on the way to locking, to seizing, itself up: Is a system closing, closing, closing toward collapse from a complexity too maximized. And that collapse will always be toward energetic opening to.... systemically maximizing energy once more (regarding the infinity of finite local, relative universes (u), energy is never lost nor gained, only minimized or maximized; exactly the same as its flip-side of the coin, entropy). Regarding the infinite Universe (U) (('1') ('-1')), it is never anything but maximized in conditions of entropy, the ultimate entity ('Utopia' = Gk.: 'Nowhereland' ('Everywhereland' or all in one 'All-At-Once-Land' (infinitely "flat as a pancake", so to speak))) of entropy (Big Crunch Vortex (Big Hole Vacuum) (Big Mirror Mirroring...)).

(*note* I used the terms "negative energy" and "negative energies." Upon further information gleaned, I should not have. "Forces" is what I actually meant and should use...and inserted in place.)

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

Einstein -- "God does not play dice with the Universe!"
Hawking -- "Oh yes He does! But they're loaded!"

Last edited:

#### voidpotentialenergy

"The real universe could simply go on forever with interactions so grand as to boggle the mind."

The real Universe does simply go on forever with interactions so grand as to boggle the mind.
And it needed no beginning for the same thoughts.

Cat
No real proof one way or another if we are just one BB in a sea of forever BB's or we are it.
Dents in the microwave background and dark flow hint at we are just 1 BB is a forever of them with gravitational interactions between all of them.
If we are just one BB then it had a true beginning no matter how far the clock has to go back to get to it.
If we are 1 in forever of them then that clock had a beginning also.

Now just got to hunt out the Chicken
We can't break the law of conservation of energy so either everything is an energy conversion or just a property of empty.
Not so much a question of what the universe is but more a question of where did the energy come from without breaking conservation of E..

Last edited:

#### voidpotentialenergy

I've said that the infinite Universe is also the ultimate entropic entity. As definitions state, entropy is taken from the words 'turn' and 'transformation', meaning 'change'. It has come to infer nothing but negativity, which is in no way true. Because I've been long a student of history I've run into entropy as a matter of history again and again, and again, and found it to be a basis for renewal of energy, the constant basis for [renewals] of energy. How? Complexity builds in a system, building up [negative forces] for collapse. Once the collapse occurs, or even while it is occurring, the system is beginning to open to energy; to freeing and becoming energetically disorderly once more. A system too tyrannically uniform and flat and smooth, too tyrannically ordered and symmetrical, too slavishly Utopian or perfected, is one on the way to locking, to seizing, itself up: Is a system closing, closing, closing toward collapse from a complexity too maximized. And that collapse will always be toward energetic opening to.... systemically maximizing energy once more (regarding the infinity of finite local, relative universes (u), energy is never lost nor gained, only minimized or maximized; exactly the same as its flip-side of the coin, entropy). Regarding the infinite Universe (U) (('1') ('-1')), it is never anything but maximized in conditions of entropy, the ultimate entity ('Utopia' = Gk.: 'Nowhereland' ('Everywhereland' or all in one 'All-At-Once-Land' (infinitely "flat as a pancake", so to speak))) of entropy (Big Crunch Vortex (Big Hole Vacuum) (Big Mirror Mirroring...)).

(*note* I used the terms "negative energy" and "negative energies." Upon further information gleaned, I should not have. "Forces" is what I actually meant and should use...and inserted in place.)

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

Einstein -- "God does not play dice with the Universe!"
Hawking -- "Oh yes He does! But they're loaded!"
Very true what we see could be the result of negative energy.
That would not break the law of conservation of energy since it's just a conversion of E to what we see.
Matter anti matter, why not energy anti energy that the result is everything.
Sort of a (nothing) becomes everything solution.

#### Atlan0101

One of these days it is going to be understood -- by those who deal in common sense -- that there is a sub-Planck (horizon limit) infinite realm we can never reach to (once more, it is infinite). Famed German mathematician Georg Cantor, as I said elsewhere, was the first known person to realize that even infinity can and does come in different sizes (relative to finite (which, of course, regarding sizing infinities, recognizes only differing proportional potentials)).

Infinities of sub-Planck level, or limit, or horizon, point infinitesimal singularities belong to the realm of the infinite Universe and are a correlative alternation of its binary 'naked singularity' (('1') ('-1'). I had to realize a basic source for cross Planck horizon vibrating strings and finally realized, to my satisfaction, that it had to be those singularities. Nothing else fit, or could fit, that necessarily truly titanic bill for me. And finally I realized it probably couldn't be just one doing the job but the combination of -- at least -- an interacting pair of them to spring a vibrational string. Now I was at the stage of cross Planck level action I'd already realized and described.

#### voidpotentialenergy

One of these days it is going to be understood -- by those who deal in common sense -- that there is a sub-Planck (horizon limit) infinite realm we can never reach to (once more, it is infinite). Famed German mathematician Georg Cantor, as I said elsewhere, was the first known person to realize that even infinity can and does come in different sizes (relative to finite (which, of course, regarding sizing infinities, recognizes only differing proportional potentials)).

Infinities of sub-Planck level, or limit, or horizon, point infinitesimal singularities belong to the realm of the infinite Universe and are a correlative alternation of its binary 'naked singularity' (('1') ('-1'). I had to realize a basic source for cross Planck horizon vibrating strings and finally realized, to my satisfaction, that it had to be those singularities. Nothing else fit, or could fit, that necessarily truly titanic bill for me. And finally I realized it probably couldn't be just one doing the job but the combination of -- at least -- an interacting pair of them to spring a vibrational string. Now I was at the stage of cross Planck level action I'd already realized and described.
I agree just because tech can't see or measure anything below a lepton is no reason to believe it doesn't exist.
Infinite regression is quite possible.