What created energy if energy cannot be created?

[MigL]

Energy conservation is a result of the Lagrangian being symmetric ( more exactly, the action of a system, the integral over time of the Lagrangian ) under continuous translations in time ( Noether's theorem ).

By definition, there cannot be symmetry in time, at the beginning of time.

So why assume energy has to be conserved at the beginning of time ?

[XirusDaVirus]

1st post so please forgive me if I am way off here.

 

Could it be possible that one of the few Simulation Theories explains why we cannot work out where the energy came from at the moment of the big bang? Maybe the simulation was booted up?

[BenSCBSc]

1st post so please forgive me if I am way off here.

 

Could it be possible that one of the few Simulation Theories explains why we cannot work out where the energy came from at the moment of the big bang? Maybe the simulation was booted up?

Data from a few different areas of physics seem to favour the multiverse theory. Where some sort of phase transition occurs in a localised 'space' of a larger 'universe' and rapidly blows it up creating our universe in alternate dimensions. So I'm imagining this larger universe to be an extremely dense origin of matter/energy to begin with......

Also black holes seem to be miniature reversals of the afore mentioned theory, so where does the mass/energy go at the singularity of a black hole? Theoretically there is nothing there, gravity has crushed the mass into nothingness, so where has that energy gone? The gravity remains warping the space-time around it but the matter simply isn't there. As yet I haven't studied GR so I don't know what the mathematical explanation is? But if a black hole can be infinite in mass and infinitely small, the matter/energy is perhaps squeezed into other dimensions? Obviously I'm theorising with little experience but it seems more plausible than simulations to me.

[Phi for All]

Data from a few different areas of physics seem to favour the multiverse theory. Where some sort of phase transition occurs in a localised 'space' of a larger 'universe' and rapidly blows it up creating our universe in alternate dimensions. So I'm imagining this larger universe to be an extremely dense origin of matter/energy to begin with......

Also black holes seem to be miniature reversals of the afore mentioned theory, so where does the mass/energy go at the singularity of a black hole? Theoretically there is nothing there, gravity has crushed the mass into nothingness, so where has that energy gone? The gravity remains warping the space-time around it but the matter simply isn't there. As yet I haven't studied GR so I don't know what the mathematical explanation is? But if a black hole can be infinite in mass and infinitely small, the matter/energy is perhaps squeezed into other dimensions? Obviously I'm theorising with little experience but it seems more plausible than simulations to me.

 

Dimensions aren't what you think they are. Length, width, height, the x, y, z axes of a coordinate system that, together with time, allows us to measure where something is.

 

Black holes don't have infinite mass. The mass is still there, but the volume of the matter has shrunk to almost nothing.

[Coherentbliss]

One that has always been here is a lot easier to comprehend than one that came out of nothing.

Really? hmmmm......can you explain your way or ability or how you comprehend this? To me both answers are perplexing...each one assumes some kind of designer or "god". For energy/matter to have always existed for ∞ is saying we believe in the tooth fairy....in other words we might as well believe in anything that makes for an easy answer. But then we could just as easily say energy/matter was created by a designer/God. IMO either answer is beyond any comprehension but the designer/God theory would be my Ocham's Razor. But...if t=∞ then who or what assembled matter/energy to give us our show in our short time of existence? By "show" I mean the things we humans see, feel and touch on Earth and in space.

[zapatos]

Really? hmmmm......can you explain your way or ability or how you comprehend this? To me both answers are perplexing...each one assumes some kind of designer or "god". For energy/matter to have always existed for ∞ is saying we believe in the tooth fairy....in other words we might as well believe in anything that makes for an easy answer. But then we could just as easily say energy/matter was created by a designer/God. IMO either answer is beyond any comprehension but the designer/God theory would be my Ocham's Razor. But...if t=∞ then who or what assembled matter/energy to give us our show in our short time of existence? By "show" I mean the things we humans see, feel and touch on Earth and in space.

 

Can you explain how God would 'be your Ockham's razor'? Was your God created, or did He always exist? If he always existed, then His existence describes a more complex model than a universe that has always existed, not a less complex model.

[Coherentbliss]

You are correct. There are many questions none of us will ever be able to answer and this fact is not a reason to not believe in something. Just because one believes in something (anything) does not make it true. This stands for both of us. But I "choose" to believe. It is none of my business what anyone else believes unless they try to force it on me and visa-versa. We all go through our lives with opinions and beliefs and as time passes some of these change...it is human nature to believe something and later change our minds...but hopefully always seeking more wisdom as we do it.

[zapatos]

You are correct. There are many questions none of us will ever be able to answer and this fact is not a reason to not believe in something. Just because one believes in something (anything) does not make it true. This stands for both of us. But I "choose" to believe. It is none of my business what anyone else believes unless they try to force it on me and visa-versa. We all go through our lives with opinions and beliefs and as time passes some of these change...it is human nature to believe something and later change our minds...but hopefully always seeking more wisdom as we do it.

 

For many of us, 'not knowing' is an excellent reason to not believe in something. I feel I would be being dishonest with myself by 'choosing' to believe in something that I didn't know to be true. I prefer to just admit I don't know.

[Coherentbliss]

I won't use the phrase "for many of us" because I can only speak for myself....and following a crowd is not my style. Not knowing something is everyone's dilemma including yourself. All we can do is weigh the information and hope for more, and also use what information is already available and study in a non-bias atmosphere.

The latter is a hard one for most. I've always believed a good student/scientist will study all sides of a question and not just the parts that lean towards his/her way of thinking. Heck, if we all only studied the things we agree with where would we be?....in a world of hurt.

I can see that you are a smart individual and have a set paradigm relating to the god factor...but answer me this, have you ever studied creationism using a strict non-biased platform? I guess one could say have you ever looked over the fence and then decided to actually use the gate? Maybe yes maybe no. IMO many people do not "use the gate" because they are afraid of what they might find, or they are afraid they might become brainwashed because they don't have the strength or wisdom to learn about this subject without becoming "one of them". The very first thing anyone needs is self confidence in ones own mind....in other words a good student will not follow others opinions or beliefs until they themselves have studied it first.

If you are interested in knowing a few of the reasons I believe in a creator I would be glad to tell. If not, then hey great...I wish you well and prosperous in all that you do.

[zapatos]

Sorry, but a further discussion of God needs to take place in a Religion or Philosophy thread, rather than here in Physics. Feel free to find an existing thread there or start one of your own. There are many people on this site who will be happy to join in, but be prepared as quite a few people will debate you with vigor.

[Strange]

I can see that you are a smart individual and have a set paradigm relating to the god factor...but answer me this, have you ever studied creationism using a strict non-biased platform?

 

 

I suspect many / most people here have looked at creationism long enough to find out that it is NOT SCIENCE and therefore irrelevant. There is no point "going through the gate" if you are interested in science. And if you are not interested in science, but only in unsupported beliefs, then you are already on the other side of the fence. But, hey, maybe you are afraid that the evidence would contradict your beliefs.

 

So, the question really is, have YOU ever considered abandoning your beliefs and looking at the evidence.