Total energy of the system

[RobbyQbit]

I remember reading years ago that the sum total of energy in the universe is (possibly) zero, given matter and antimatter etc cancelling each other out. I guess this could be so given that it apparently started from nothing. At the same time we know energy is conserved. But I guess conservation is where the energy is transferred from Potential to Kinetic and vice-versa.
Does this theory still stand?

 

[rod]

Interesting. How was energy created? When was energy created? How did antimatter at the beginning not destroy matter, thus no universe today? How much energy is in the BB model at the moment of the Big Bang postulated event? Units like joules/s or ergs/s as an example.

 

[rod]

This 'charming' particle could have saved the universe, https://forums.space.com/threads/this-charming-particle-could-have-saved-the-universe.39620/

Stars made of antimatter could exist in the Milky Way, https://forums.space.com/threads/stars-made-of-antimatter-could-exist-in-the-milky-way.38698/

Leptons: The elementary particles explained, https://forums.space.com/threads/leptons-the-elementary-particles-explained.59672/

 

[rod]

I remember reading years ago that the sum total of energy in the universe is (possibly) zero, given matter and antimatter etc cancelling each other out. I guess this could be so given that it apparently started from nothing. At the same time we know energy is conserved. But I guess conservation is where the energy is transferred from Potential to Kinetic and vice-versa.
Does this theory still stand?

FYI, I used Google search and found this comment

"Was there infinite energy in the Big Bang? If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does it come ...
It may sound incredible, but many scientists believe that the total energy of the universe is zero. Hence, no energy needed to be “created” when the universe came into existence. Mar 9, 2022"

So here we have it folks. Nothing created the universe and energy we see in nature today At least according to some bright minds

 

[RobbyQbit]

FYI, I used Google search and found this comment

"Was there infinite energy in the Big Bang? If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where does it come ...
It may sound incredible, but many scientists believe that the total energy of the universe is zero. Hence, no energy needed to be “created” when the universe came into existence. Mar 9, 2022"

So here we have it folks. Nothing created the universe and energy we see in nature today At least according to some bright minds

Interesting. How was energy created? When was energy created? How did antimatter at the beginning not destroy matter, thus no universe today? How much energy is in the BB model at the moment of the Big Bang postulated event? Units like joules/s or ergs/s as an example.

The whole thing is mind boggling. I'm like an ant floating on a lollipop stick in the middle of the Pacific ocean. And even that's not to scale.

 

[weirmg]

I remember reading years ago that the sum total of energy in the universe is (possibly) zero, given matter and antimatter etc cancelling each other out. I guess this could be so given that it apparently started from nothing. At the same time we know energy is conserved. But I guess conservation is where the energy is transferred from Potential to Kinetic and vice-versa.
Does this theory still stand?

Einstein convinced us that energy is interchangeable with matter -- and likely all that dark matter [aka, dark energy] together with all the other observed mass has kept the universe from expanding into extinction eons ago. I suspect we can no longer consider the universe to be a closed system where conventional energy and mass are conserved.

 

[rod]

The whole thing is mind boggling. I'm like an ant floating on a lollipop stick in the middle of the Pacific ocean. And even that's not to scale.

Keep in mind that the expanding universe metric used in GR as found in the cosmology calculators, the CMBR redshift of about 1100, shows comoving radial distance from Earth today as some 46 billion light-years so the present universe diameter is some 92-93 billion light years across. Most of that space is not visible Redshifts of 1.4 or larger is space expanding faster than c velocity. It seems to me that nothing creating the universe and total energy for the universe is nothing, much of space is not visible in this model yet somehow it is still nothing

 

[rod]

I remember reading years ago that the sum total of energy in the universe is (possibly) zero, given matter and antimatter etc cancelling each other out. I guess this could be so given that it apparently started from nothing. At the same time we know energy is conserved. But I guess conservation is where the energy is transferred from Potential to Kinetic and vice-versa.
Does this theory still stand?

"I remember reading years ago that the sum total of energy in the universe is (possibly) zero..."

Very interesting RobbyQbit. I went back through my home database and found some reporting from September 2012 on this topic.

"In the beginning were the laws of physics (not!). ...Lawrence Krauss appeared on CNN’s Faces of Faith program last Sunday to explain how the universe created itself from nothing. Krauss, in London at the time, was interviewed about his new book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing..."So how do the laws of physics supposedly explain how the universe created itself from nothing? Big bang cosmologists need a source of “negative energy” to balance the massive amount of energy of our universe, which was supposedly produced by the big bang. In physics we normally assign a negative value to gravitational potential energy. Some physicists propose our expanding universe could therefore generate the necessary negative energy....This is the escape hatch that Krauss and others propose, that the sum of the energy in the universe is exactly zero, so the universe appeared in a manner that did not violate the conservation of energy. Of course none of this is proved, and Krauss does admit this, though many people reading his book or watching the interview may miss that point. But there still remains the problem of where the physical laws, came from. The best that Krauss can argue is that those laws came into existence with the universe, so that the universe popped into existence in a manner that is consistent with itself. This is the meaning of the “ultimate free lunch,” a phrase Krauss used in the interview."

 

[rod]

IMO, it looks like the Big Bang model in order to explain the origin of the universe we see today must violate the conservation law of energy in the beginning, so step(s) must be taken to avoid this However, does it violate the conservation of energy? I think BB does

 

[Helio]

I think, and I could be wrong, the view is that many apply the mass equivalence for energy (e=mc^2) and note that objects of mass attract one another. On the other hand, DE (Dark Energy) seems to push mass away from each other, along with spacetime itself. So, by placing a negative sign on DE and a positive sign on normal energy and matter, they begin to cancel. But DE is far greater than energy/matter, so more things like antimatter must be out there, or something else, not that I buy any of this.

Simply using sign conventions don't necessarily produce net zero effects even when the mass or energy quantities are the same.

But, playing with a universe starting with a net of zero, why don't we see a lot more universes popping-up all over the place?

Science, currently, is only capable of being real science when addressing the universe after about the first trilionth of a second, because these energy levels have been observed at CERN's accelerator.

When others want to talk about the universe before that point in time, you've entered into metaphysics, or the Twilight Zone for some, where supposition and speculations abound. Claims here are untestable, hence they no longer qualify as scientific claims. Religion and philosophy rule these subjective realms.

But, there have been some impressive attempts at overlaying string theory with quantum physics to see how a limited number of multiuniverses might form, and one of these theories claims that things like the slight void region in the CMBR matches the theory. Unfortunately, a theory must make testable predictions, so ....

 

[Helio]

I remember reading years ago that the sum total of energy in the universe is (possibly) zero, given matter and antimatter etc cancelling each other out. I guess this could be so given that it apparently started from nothing. At the same time we know energy is conserved. But I guess conservation is where the energy is transferred from Potential to Kinetic and vice-versa.
Does this theory still stand?

Consider this, what happens to the scientist who combines both matter and antimatter together in an attempt to produce a net zero effect? Sometimes the fabric of mental ideas can be incredibly elastic.

 

[rod]

I think, and I could be wrong, the view is that many apply the mass equivalence for energy (e=mc^2) and note that objects of mass attract one another. On the other hand, DE (Dark Energy) seems to push mass away from each other, along with spacetime itself. So, by placing a negative sign on DE and a positive sign on normal energy and matter, they begin to cancel. But DE is far greater than energy/matter, so more things like antimatter must be out there, or something else, not that I buy any of this.

Simply using sign conventions don't necessarily produce net zero effects even when the mass or energy quantities are the same.

But, playing with a universe starting with a net of zero, why don't we see a lot more universes popping-up all over the place?

Science, currently, is only capable of being real science when addressing the universe after about the first trilionth of a second, because these energy levels have been observed at CERN's accelerator.

When others want to talk about the universe before that point in time, you've entered into metaphysics, or the Twilight Zone for some, where supposition and speculations abound. Claims here are untestable, hence they no longer qualify as scientific claims. Religion and philosophy rule these subjective realms.

But, there have been some impressive attempts at overlaying string theory with quantum physics to see how a limited number of multiuniverses might form, and one of these theories claims that things like the slight void region in the CMBR matches the theory. Unfortunately, a theory must make testable predictions, so ....

"Science, currently, is only capable of being real science when addressing the universe after about the first trilionth of a second, because these energy levels have been observed at CERN's accelerator."

This is a report that sounds familiar here. Quarks: What are they?, https://forums.space.com/threads/quarks-what-are-they.58460/

"Quarks are the ultimate building blocks of visible matter in the universe."..."The strong force that binds quarks inside hadrons is carried by another kind of tiny elementary particle called gluons, which are exchanged between the quarks. To separate individual quarks requires an enormous amount of energy (it's not called the strong force for no reason). This amount of raw energy only existed in nature about 10 billionths of a second to about a millionth of a second after the Big Bang, when the temperature was approximately 3.6 trillion degrees Fahrenheit (2 trillion degrees Celsius(opens in new tab)). During this brief, early period, the baby universe was filled with a form of matter known as a quark–gluon plasma, a particle soup of free-floating quarks and gluons. As the temperature and pressure quickly dropped as the baby universe expanded, the quarks became bound together, forming hadrons that ultimately formed the basis of all visible matter that we see today in the cosmos, from stars and galaxies to planets and people. Although the quark–gluon plasma only existed 13.8 billion years ago in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, scientists have successfully recreated it in particle accelerator experiments by smashing two heavy nuclei, such as that of lead, into each other close to the speed of light. The first time that this was achieved was at CERN's Super Proton Synchrotron(opens in new tab) in 2000."...

The time stated here is about 10^-9 to 10^-6 second *after the Big Bang*. That is a long way from the Planck time after Big Bang and what followed before this time period, *quark-gluon*. Does not explain where or how much energy was there before the *quark-gluon* plasma appears and demonstrate conservation of energy was not violated in the BB model thus the need for Larwence Krauss approach and book. If the Big Bang has a problem here, it should be clearly explained and shown to the public IMO.

Correction, 1E-10 to 1E-6 second after Big Bang.

 

[Atlan0001]

Consider this, what happens to the scientist who combines both matter and antimatter together in an attempt to produce a net zero effect? Sometimes the fabric of mental ideas can be incredibly elastic.

Helio, as usual I might be wrong but I've no proof I am. That mad "scientist" that you speak of above is the "weak force" (W(+1) W(-1) Z(0)). It has very deep (hyper-deep) personality issues. But I can't think of a universe (of countless universes) without it (the weak force) and them (its personality issues).
---------------------

"Fight enough dragons you become a dragon: Stare into the Abyss, the Abyss will stare back into you." -- Neitszche.

 

[Helio]

The time stated here is about 10^-9 to 10^-6 second *after the Big Bang*. That is a long way from the Planck time after Big Bang and what followed before this time period, *quark-gluon*. Does not explain where or how much energy was there before the *quark-gluon* plasma appears and demonstrate conservation of energy was not violated in the BB model thus the need for Larwence Krauss approach and book. If the Big Bang has a problem here, it should be clearly explained and shown to the public IMO.

Good points.

I like the term "pure energy" for those earlier periods before even quarks began to precipitate out of this energy "fluid". The size of particle accelerator necessary to get much closer defies the imagination, not to mention requiring trillions of dollars to build in space.

But, IMO, since the BBT is the theory describing what our universe looks like today, and we know that it also includes everything to the point in time science allows us to go (ie 10E-12 sec), then we must avoid blaming BBT for not being able to answer questions we can't ask of it in any scientific way.

All models require initial conditions, but these initial circumstances can begin at any point the physicists which to start. Engineers as well. Engineers don't design a bridge with steel that is only hypothetical in material content; they use known steel products.

BBT is the only known scientific model, however, that comes close enough to t=0, so it's not surprising those that wish to avoid a religious or philosophical discussion chose to not mention that science does not go where they have attempted to take it.

 

[Atlan0001]

Just how long is "forever"? Is "eternity"? Answer: An instant of time, a moment of time, THE moment of time ("T=0|1" the time on the Hawking clock hanging over the dead center of Hawking's "Grand Central Station" of universe (of all the universes). The same time found by Einstein at the end of his mind's eye trip to the photonic of the speed of light (the measure of the speed of time ([past (into the future) || future (into the past)]) as well). My own "quantum monopole moment." The local averaged, or universal sum total, version, "t=0", 0-point "spooky action at a distance" of / from T=0 (null unity) | 1 (unity) . . . and parity.

 

[Atlan0001]

I badly wanted to put this thinking elsewhere, but since what it involved:

Dismissing a black hole, what would be the greatest, most super, superconducting state in the universe. To me, certainly not absolute zero of cold, so to speak, since I see it to be, and have it being, one heck of an explosive state (the point of the absolute of hot freezing cold absolutely still, hell freezing over, the max state of complexity breaking down with a vengeance).

I was reading along -- it's taking forever since I'm doing a lot of thinking as I read Sean Carroll -- in 'Something Deeply Hidden', and he's describing, discussing, low energy and high energy states. I'm not finished with it but I'm thinking as I'm reading that no such high energy state will ever, or can ever, be a superconducting state, much less the greatest, most super, superconducting state. It has to be a low energy state and I don't mean a negative energy state which is simply negative energy state; not zero! I mean a low energy state, all the way to some point somewhere just short of an absolute zero of energy. I ask myself, am I looking at yet another way to a tunnel effect, not necessarily a wormhole, probably not a wormhole, state in the universe? Shorter range than a wormhole since a wormhole has virtually no limit in range, but still fast -- blazing fast so to speak, for whatever the range it extends to -- as fast can get,

The point, though, is that it must be a low energy state to be such a superconductor rather than a high energy state.

And the closer I get to the absolute zero state of energy (the closer I get to the absolute zero state of cold) the more I start thinking about the hottest hell reaching absolute freeze point, freezing absolutely still, and instantaneously with it (with absolute zero), a bang . . . a Big Bang. Of course, that particular point will never be any one-time thing but a constant of eternal bang at absolute zero point . . . entropy in the universe, just for one physic, always making sure it is a constant on the horizon, the dimension of collapsing, collapsed, horizon ("complexity breaking down with a vengeance").

 

[Classical Motion]

The greatest possible events are made from the smallest possible events.