how much energy is ther in universe?

[Sisyphus]

Isn't it oxymoronic to say "an infinite amount was created" in the past-perfect tense? If it was created then it stopped at some point, right? And if it stopped than it is no longer producing more.

 

Why does that matter? If the universe is infinite in size, then the amount of energy in it can't be finite.

[Zarnaxus]

Why does that matter? If the universe is infinite in size, then the amount of energy in it can't be finite.

 

 

well, if we are on the topic of theoretical physics, we cant just say that the universe in infinite is size, when theoretically, it could be curved around itself. We could all be living a giant "hyperdonut". In this case, there definitely would be a finite size of the universe, there still would be no "endpoints", but it is still finite none-the-less, and you would not be able to fit an infinite amount of energy inside of it.

[Sisyphus]

well, if we are on the topic of theoretical physics, we cant just say that the universe in infinite is size, when theoretically, it could be curved around itself. We could all be living a giant "hyperdonut". In this case, there definitely would be a finite size of the universe, there still would be no "endpoints", but it is still finite none-the-less, and you would not be able to fit an infinite amount of energy inside of it.

 

I didn't say it's infinite in size. I said if it's infinite in size, which.

[between3and26characterslon]

Isn't it oxymoronic to say "an infinite amount was created" in the past-perfect tense? If it was created then it stopped at some point, right? And if it stopped than it is no longer producing more.

 

BTW, did the forum guidelines happen to tell you that your username had to be "between 3 and 29 characters long" and you just followed the directions? If so, that is very funny. Even if that's not why you did it, it's still funny actually.

 

 

 

As I understand it the energy of the universe is constant, it can not be created or destroyed therefore energy is not being created right now. However much energy there is in the universe it is constant so either that energy was created at TBB or it existed before TBB. My question is why would this be a finite amount? The amount of energy in the universe was fixed at t=0 and hasn't changed since. Why would a finite amount come from nothing or why would a finite amount exist before TBB?

 

I wouldn't like to speculate in the wrong forum but if the universe was infinite in size (and therefore had infinte energy) but we were confined to only a small part of it (which had a finite amount of energy) it would make sense to me. But that a finite amount of energy was created at t=0 does not make sense IMO.

 

BTW when I signed up to the forum it said my username "should be between 3 and 26 characters long" so yes I just followed directions, as you can see though, I can't count.

Edited December 16, 2010 by between3and26characterslon

[lemur]

I wouldn't like to speculate in the wrong forum but if the universe was infinite in size (and therefore had infinte energy) but we were confined to only a small part of it (which had a finite amount of energy) it would make sense to me. But that a finite amount of energy was created at t=0 does not make sense IMO.

Ok, I'll bite. Why is it logical that the universe would contain infinite energy at t=0?

 

BTW when I signed up to the forum it said my username "should be between 3 and 26 characters long" so yes I just followed directions, as you can see though, I can't count.

I can't decide if its a type of pun or humor of overly literal interpretation. Let me guess: your password is something like "containsatleastoneCapitalanda$ymbol."

 

 

[between3and26characterslon]

Ok, I'll bite. Why is it logical that the universe would contain infinite energy at t=0?

 

 

I can't decide if its a type of pun or humor of overly literal interpretation. Let me guess: your password is something like "containsatleastoneCapitalanda$ymbol."

 

 

 

I really couldn't be bothered to think of a name so just wrote what it said, it amused me a little and no that's not my password. (Damn!... changes password)

 

Back to the question, I'm not trying to put forward some ground breaking theory, just some thoughts I've had based on what I've watched and read. I don't believe energy is constantly pouring into the universe, as I understand it the amount of energy in the universe is constant and was fixed at t=0. I don't know if current theory suggests that energy was created at TBB or if it existed 'somewhere' 'before' TBB but it seems completely arbitrary that there should be a finite amount.

 

Why would a finite amount come from nothing?

 

or

 

why would a finite amount exist before TBB?

 

If, as Krauss said, mass = positive energy and gravity = negative energy and therefore the net energy of the universe is zero my question is why would zero break into finite amounts? I'm asking a question not stating a theory.

Edited December 16, 2010 by between3and26characterslon

[lemur]

I really couldn't be bothered to think of a name so just wrote what it said, it amused me a little and no that's not my password. (Damn!... changes password)

Too late. I already posted that you think snot is a special element on the periodic table and that urine is close to follow. You'll be banned for sure now!

 

Back to the question, I'm not trying to put forward some ground breaking theory, just some thoughts I've had based on what I've watched and read. I don't believe energy is constantly pouring into the universe, as I understand it the amount of energy in the universe is constant and was fixed at t=0. I don't know if current theory suggests that energy was created at TBB or if it existed 'somewhere' 'before' TBB but it seems completely arbitrary that there should be a finite amount.

 

Why would a finite amount come from nothing?

 

or

 

why would a finite amount exist before TBB?

 

If, as Krauss said, mass = positive energy and gravity = negative energy and therefore the net energy of the universe is zero my question is why would zero break into finite amounts? I'm asking a question not stating a theory.

Ok, so you're basically asking why a process that created something from nothing would start or stop. To know that, wouldn't you have to know the conditions that would cause "nothing" to differentiating into something and anti-something?

 

 

[between3and26characterslon]

Too late. I already posted that you think snot is a special element on the periodic table and that urine is close to follow. You'll be banned for sure now!

 

You posted two irrefutible facts in my name and you think I'll get banned, I laugh in your face Hahaha (see).

 

 

Ok, so you're basically asking why a process that created something from nothing would start or stop. To know that, wouldn't you have to know the conditions that would cause "nothing" to differentiating into something and anti-something?

 

Not quite, my understanding (which may be wrong) is that all the energy in the universe was created at the instant of TBB. It wasn't a process that started and went on for a bit and then stopped it's simply that first there wasn't energy and then there was energy, all of it in one instant. Whether that energy was created or existed before I don't know.

 

Krauss said that it would be very satisfying if the energy of the universe was zero and I agree.

 

If the universe is infinite in size or if there are infinite universes then there must be infinite energy. The universe may be finite in size (in which case it would have finite energy) but it may be part of something bigger (in which case there could be infinite energy)

 

I will add to Krauss and say that IMO if the energy of the universe was infinite it would also be satisfying albeit that we only experience a small part of it.

Edited December 16, 2010 by between3and26characterslon

[lemur]

Not quite, my understanding (which may be wrong) is that all the energy in the universe was created at the instant of TBB. It wasn't a process that started and went on for a bit and then stopped it's simply that first there wasn't energy and then there was energy, all of it in one instant. Whether that energy was created or existed before I don't know.

To me the only way to think about this is to begin with what you assume you know about the progress of an early universe during a "big bang" and then use existing physical laws and knowledge to project further back under the assumption that forces and energy worked the same way in that context as in the one the knowledge is derived from. If energy can't be created or destroyed, what would have caused it to emerge at the moment of the big bang (without resorting to deus ex machina)? Since my current hunch is that force-fields were extremely dense and tight early on, I think energy emerged from the expansion and fissure of the dense field(s) itself, like a giant macro-neutron destabilizing and beginning to spit and expand into smaller particles. I don't see how energy and matter could exist as a dichotomy, let alone particles of matter in multiplicity in such a dense situation. What other explanations are there for the existence and/or dynamics of such an initial "egg?" My best guess would be that the "egg" was the inside of a black hole in another universe that existed prior to the formation of the black hole. But then of course you could ask where that universe came from, etc. If the answer was another black hole in another universe, you'd have a chicken-egg problem.

 

Krauss said that it would be very satisfying in the energy of the universe was zero and I agree.

Maybe at first, but then wouldn't you have to ask what caused the nothingness to differentiate into energy and anti-energy? Then you would have some causal factor that did not add up to zero, right? . . . unless there was some anti-factor that would cancel out that cause and so forth. Another chicken-egg problem, no?

 

If the universe is infinite in size or if there are infinite universes then there must be infinite energy. The universe may be finite in size (in which case it would have finite energy) but it may be part of something bigger (in which case there could be infinite energy)

Suppose this universe is ultimately destined to all end up falling into the same black hole. Then suppose that black hole contains the seed of another big-bang and that there's no particular relationship between time inside the black hole and outside; so the big bang inside the black hole begins at a single moment in its time whereas that single moment spans the life of the black hole from inception to the moment all matter-energy in its universe has fallen into it. In that case the total contents of each subsequent universe could be finite and ultimately equal to the universe preceding it, no?

 

I will add to Krauss and say that IMO if the energy of the universe was infinite it would also be satisfying albeit that we only experience a small part of it.

Do you have a logical reason that would be "satisfying," like the summing to zero, or are you just waxing content with regard to the privilege of experiencing life in the universe as you know it?

Edited December 16, 2010 by lemur

[D H]

but it can't be zero (proves it by piking up a book and doping it again).

Sure it can. Your example proves nothing. That the total energy of the universe is identically zero is treated quite seriously. Still a conjecture, but a viable one.

 

For example, see http://www.astrosoci...02/nothing.html

 

 

Why does that matter? If the universe is infinite in size, then the amount of energy in it can't be finite.

Why not? Zero is a perfectly good answer for a finite or an infinite universe.

 

 

The short answer is, no-one has any idea. Anyone who says they do, is just guessing.

There is that, however. The zero energy universe conjecture is just that: A conjecture. Conjecture is a fancy word for "guess".

 

 

 

Off-topic:

Let me guess: your password is something like "containsatleastoneCapitalanda$ymbol."

Now that wasn't nice.

And its probably wrong. I would suspect something more along the lines of "HueyDeweyLouieMinnieMickeyDonaldGoofyPlutoSacramento".

(Eight characters and a capital.)

 

Edited December 17, 2010 by D H

[Sisyphus]

 

Why not? Zero is a perfectly good answer for a finite or an infinite universe.

 

Yeah. But zero isn't really "finite," right? I just meant that it can't be 10 joules or something.

 

But now that I think about it, I guess it could be with some weird non-homogeneous geometry or something.

[between3and26characterslon]

To me the only way to think about this is to begin with what you assume you know about the progress of an early universe during a "big bang" and then use existing physical laws and knowledge to project further back under the assumption that forces and energy worked the same way in that context as in the one the knowledge is derived from. If energy can't be created or destroyed, what would have caused it to emerge at the moment of the big bang (without resorting to deus ex machina)? Since my current hunch is that force-fields were extremely dense and tight early on, I think energy emerged from the expansion and fissure of the dense field(s) itself, like a giant macro-neutron destabilizing and beginning to spit and expand into smaller particles. I don't see how energy and matter could exist as a dichotomy, let alone particles of matter in multiplicity in such a dense situation. What other explanations are there for the existence and/or dynamics of such an initial "egg?" My best guess would be that the "egg" was the inside of a black hole in another universe that existed prior to the formation of the black hole. But then of course you could ask where that universe came from, etc. If the answer was another black hole in another universe, you'd have a chicken-egg problem.

 

But there was no matter in the universe to begin with, it was too hot. It was only when the universe expanded and had cooled down enough that matter started to form.

 

Maybe at first, but then wouldn't you have to ask what caused the nothingness to differentiate into energy and anti-energy? Then you would have some causal factor that did not add up to zero, right? . . . unless there was some anti-factor that would cancel out that cause and so forth. Another chicken-egg problem, no?

 

 

 

Suppose this universe is ultimately destined to all end up falling into the same black hole. Then suppose that black hole contains the seed of another big-bang and that there's no particular relationship between time inside the black hole and outside; so the big bang inside the black hole begins at a single moment in its time whereas that single moment spans the life of the black hole from inception to the moment all matter-energy in its universe has fallen into it. In that case the total contents of each subsequent universe could be finite and ultimately equal to the universe preceding it, no?

 

 

 

 

Do you have a logical reason that would be "satisfying," like the summing to zero, or are you just waxing content with regard to the privilege of experiencing life in the universe as you know it?

 

I have the feeling that if I had said the I think there is a finite amount of energy in the universe you would have taken the opposite view and would have argued just as much. I can not explain further than I have already, I am not creating 'macro neutrons' or black holes inside black holes inside black holes ad infinitum or 'resorting to deus ex machina'. What I am saying is either energy existed before TBB or it was created at the instant of TBB and I do not understand a mechanism whereby there would be a finite amount of energy in either case. If the energy of the universe is zero because gravity and mass cancel then an infinite amount of mass and an infinite amount of gravity would cancel to zero as well. It's a very simple concept, there was no hidden agenda and it's not based on some radical new theory that's going to change the world, I simply suggested it as a possibility.

 

I think this discussion is now exhausted, I'm sure other people are getting bored with it. smiley so you know I'm not having a go.

[Mr Skeptic]

I have the feeling that if I had said the I think there is a finite amount of energy in the universe you would have taken the opposite view and would have argued just as much. I can not explain further than I have already, I am not creating 'macro neutrons' or black holes inside black holes inside black holes ad infinitum or 'resorting to deus ex machina'. What I am saying is either energy existed before TBB or it was created at the instant of TBB and I do not understand a mechanism whereby there would be a finite amount of energy in either case. If the energy of the universe is zero because gravity and mass cancel then an infinite amount of mass and an infinite amount of gravity would cancel to zero as well. It's a very simple concept, there was no hidden agenda and it's not based on some radical new theory that's going to change the world, I simply suggested it as a possibility.

 

Well there's the view of something outside the universe causing the B.B. In that case, the energy of the universe could be equal to that of the finite something that caused the B.B.

[lemur]

But there was no matter in the universe to begin with, it was too hot. It was only when the universe expanded and had cooled down enough that matter started to form.

That may or may not be the case, but the interesting part is the reasons for claiming it to be or falsifying the possibility.

 

I have the feeling that if I had said the I think there is a finite amount of energy in the universe you would have taken the opposite view and would have argued just as much.

It does not matter who takes which side or whether I disagree just to play devil's advocate (although I don't try to do this). The only thing that is important is applying critical rigor to developing the question into a reasonable set of parameters. If you didn't want to do this, why post it in the first place?

 

I can not explain further than I have already, I am not creating 'macro neutrons' or black holes inside black holes inside black holes ad infinitum or 'resorting to deus ex machina'. What I am saying is either energy existed before TBB or it was created at the instant of TBB and I do not understand a mechanism whereby there would be a finite amount of energy in either case.

To me, you have to have mechanisms such as macro-neutrons or black holes within black holes that model the initial state of the universe in a way that allows you to reason where the energy came from and how it developed. Your approach amounts to deus ex machina, imo, because you just assume that it was somehow created or previously existing without any reason or mechanisms.

 

If the energy of the universe is zero because gravity and mass cancel then an infinite amount of mass and an infinite amount of gravity would cancel to zero as well. It's a very simple concept, there was no hidden agenda and it's not based on some radical new theory that's going to change the world, I simply suggested it as a possibility.

Infinite things are constantly being generated. They have rates of generation. How can you say that an infinite amount of anything can be generated within a finite period of time? If that's not what you're saying, what then?

I think this discussion is now exhausted, I'm sure other people are getting bored with it. smiley so you know I'm not having a go.

Well, it's up to you when to move on to more interesting topics. Don't blame it on other people getting bored. It sounds like YOU are the one getting bored.

 

 

[Nexium Tao]

If the universe is infinite then the total energy in the universe must be infinite because even empty space in a vacuum has energy (Dark energy)

[between3and26characterslon]

That may or may not be the case, but the interesting part is the reasons for claiming it to be or falsifying the possibility.

 

 

It does not matter who takes which side or whether I disagree just to play devil's advocate (although I don't try to do this). The only thing that is important is applying critical rigor to developing the question into a reasonable set of parameters. If you didn't want to do this, why post it in the first place?

 

I was just adding my 2 cents, like I said I had no hidden agenda nor was I promoting any new and wonderful theory so I don't think it was necessary to apply any critical rigour to develop the question into a reasonable set of parameters. Also I didn't state anything as fact, if I had your critisism would have been completely justified, however your analysis and critique seemed disproportionate to the nature of my post IMO. Perhaps though you enjoy the debate and maybe I took it the wrong way.

 

To me, you have to have mechanisms such as macro-neutrons or black holes within black holes that model the initial state of the universe in a way that allows you to reason where the energy came from and how it developed. Your approach amounts to deus ex machina, imo, because you just assume that it was somehow created or previously existing without any reason or mechanisms.

 

If our universe is inside a blackhole in another universe where did that universe come from? What reason or mechanism is there for that universe? Where did its energy come from and how did it develop? And would not blackholes inside blackholes ad infinitum suggest infinite energy?

 

What about stuff that falls into blackholes, wouldn't that mean the energy of our unverse is increasing? or loosing energy due to Hawking radiation? Is mass and energy inside a blackhole the same as mass and energy outside of it? Why are the conditions inside a black hole different depending on whether you view it from the inside or the outside? That would suggest that the laws of physics are different depending on whether you are inside or outside, in which case you can not know the physics of the universe that contains the blackhole we live in and therefore can not describe a mechanism for a blackhole to develop in that universe for us to exist in.

 

If our universe has 100bn galaxies each with 100bn stars each of which are 1 solar mass then our universe is 10²¹ solar masses and the biggest black hole we know of is only18bn solar masses, that blackhole would make a very small universe. As for deus ex machina the same could be said about macro neutrons or blackholes inside blackholes, starting from axioms and seeing where they take you is one way of thinking but you have to work out all the rules first. Starting with the proposition that energy is infinite and working out how it came to be is not the same as saying a magic crystal exploded and infinite energy poured out of it deus ex machina.

 

When I have more time I will look up macro neutrons.

 

Infinite things are constantly being generated. They have rates of generation. How can you say that an infinite amount of anything can be generated within a finite period of time? If that's not what you're saying, what then?

 

If something's constantly being generated it can't be infinite because it must have started at zero and will take an infinite amount of time to get to infinity, or, if if is infinite and still being generated then it must have been infinite to start with. Your post I've highlighted in bold contradicts the question you posted after it.

 

Well, it's up to you when to move on to more interesting topics. Don't blame it on other people getting bored. It sounds like YOU are the one getting bored.

 

I just felt we were arguing for arguements sake, I didn't rule out the possibility people were getting bored with me.

[confidenceguy]

finite i think, 1st or 2nd law of themodynamics, energy is neither created nor destroyed. Same applies to mass, neither created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another therefore there would be a fixed amount of energy available from all forms.

 

as for the estimate of the energy..... no idea whatsoever!

[lemur]

If the universe is infinite then the total energy in the universe must be infinite because even empty space in a vacuum has energy (Dark energy)

What causes "vacuum energy" except multiple gravity-wells pulling things away from each other?

[elas]

If the universe started with a ‘Big Bang’ then it can never fill infinity.

 

The term ‘vacuum energy’ implies the existence of mass (energy = mass) therefore it is a partial vacuum term, no one has ever found or created a volume of absolute nothing probably because the term absolute nothing by implication also means no dimensions.

 

The likelihood is that infinity has no historical beginning or end, it has always consisted of vacuum zero points surrounded by energy fields both together forming partial vacuum fields (elementary particles [gravitons?]). Universe creation takes place much like a storm (vortice) in the weather systems of infinity; at least that is how the ancient Greeks describe the beginning of our universe and I cannot see that any improvement on that hypothesis has been made in the last 3000 years.

[lemur]

I was just adding my 2 cents, like I said I had no hidden agenda nor was I promoting any new and wonderful theory so I don't think it was necessary to apply any critical rigour to develop the question into a reasonable set of parameters. Also I didn't state anything as fact, if I had your critisism would have been completely justified, however your analysis and critique seemed disproportionate to the nature of my post IMO. Perhaps though you enjoy the debate and maybe I took it the wrong way.

Well, maybe I had made something sound personal by using a tone based on some present state of mind I was in at the time, but I don't think I have anything against you personally. I was just trying to make the discussion interesting, as far as I know.

 

If our universe is inside a blackhole in another universe where did that universe come from? What reason or mechanism is there for that universe? Where did its energy come from and how did it develop? And would not blackholes inside blackholes ad infinitum suggest infinite energy?

If all matter-energy ended up in the same black hole and developed into a new universe inside the black hole, wouldn't the new universe contain the same amount of energy as the universe that fell into that black hole?

 

What about stuff that falls into blackholes, wouldn't that mean the energy of our unverse is increasing? or loosing energy due to Hawking radiation? Is mass and energy inside a blackhole the same as mass and energy outside of it? Why are the conditions inside a black hole different depending on whether you view it from the inside or the outside? That would suggest that the laws of physics are different depending on whether you are inside or outside, in which case you can not know the physics of the universe that contains the blackhole we live in and therefore can not describe a mechanism for a blackhole to develop in that universe for us to exist in.

Empirically, you can only know what you can observe. Beyond that you can only presume to extrapolate hypotheses by extending knowledge you have from empirically observed situations. You may be right that the laws of physics change in situations that can't be observed, but what's the point of speculating about that? Personally, I find it entirely plausible that the big bang occurred from the singularity inside a black hole. I think this because spacetime-development seems like a logical result of matter-energy in the singularity having no other means of expression. Thus I can fathom that it begins to "expand" internally in a way that is not noticeable in any way within the universe of the black hole it's expanding within. Nevertheless, that black hole could merge with others and capture all energy-matter in its universe, including any hawking radiation it emitted. In fact, I would guess that its gravitational field would be the last thing that it would begin to consume and when that began to fall into the black hole, the gravitation would initiate the expansion of spacetime within the singularity that allows it to expand (causing the internal big bang).

 

 

If our universe has 100bn galaxies each with 100bn stars each of which are 1 solar mass then our universe is 10²¹ solar masses and the biggest black hole we know of is only18bn solar masses, that blackhole would make a very small universe.

Small relative to what?

 

As for deus ex machina the same could be said about macro neutrons or blackholes inside blackholes, starting from axioms and seeing where they take you is one way of thinking but you have to work out all the rules first. Starting with the proposition that energy is infinite and working out how it came to be is not the same as saying a magic crystal exploded and infinite energy poured out of it deus ex machina.

Why would you start with the proposition that energy is infinite?

I just felt we were arguing for arguements sake, I didn't rule out the possibility people were getting bored with me.

Who cares who is getting bored with you? Are you having a discussion for your amusement or theirs?

 

 

[between3and26characterslon]

Well, maybe I had made something sound personal by using a tone based on some present state of mind I was in at the time, but I don't think I have anything against you personally. I was just trying to make the discussion interesting, as far as I know.

 

 

If all matter-energy ended up in the same black hole and developed into a new universe inside the black hole, wouldn't the new universe contain the same amount of energy as the universe that fell into that black hole?

 

'If' - I think you answered your own question there. Isn't current theory that the universe will end up in many blackholes all of which will, through Hawking radiation, evaporate to nothing. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and at some point in time distant regions of the universe will loose communication with each other. They will be receding faster than the SOL and so gravity will not be able to cause all matter in the universe to fall into one blackhole.

 

Empirically, you can only know what you can observe. Beyond that you can only presume to extrapolate hypotheses by extending knowledge you have from empirically observed situations. You may be right that the laws of physics change in situations that can't be observed, but what's the point of speculating about that? Personally, I find it entirely plausible that the big bang occurred from the singularity inside a black hole. I think this because spacetime-development seems like a logical result of matter-energy in the singularity having no other means of expression. Thus I can fathom that it begins to "expand" internally in a way that is not noticeable in any way within the universe of the black hole it's expanding within. Nevertheless, that black hole could merge with others and capture all energy-matter in its universe, including any hawking radiation it emitted. In fact, I would guess that its gravitational field would be the last thing that it would begin to consume and when that began to fall into the black hole, the gravitation would initiate the expansion of spacetime within the singularity that allows it to expand (causing the internal big bang).

 

Our laws of physics can be extrapolated to describe the interior of a blackhole, you're saying that if you were in a blackhole you would simply be in another universe. If this is true then either our laws of physics are wrong or the laws of physics are different inside a blackhole than they are in the universe that black hole is in.

 

Small relative to what?

 

A blackhole, in terms of its mass and energy, is small compared to the universe it is in.

 

 

[/i]

Why would you start with the proposition that energy is infinite?

 

You are making the assumption that all the energy of the universe will end up in one blackhole (which is contrary to current theory). You assume that the laws of physics are the same on the inside as they are on the outside of a blackhole even though you assert that different things are happening (which to me would suggest that the laws of physics are different) I can not then fathom a universe where the laws of physics are different and yet still creates a blackhole (this is not speculation, it's a logical arguement). You also assume that each blackhole contains a universe though there is no proof and no way of knowing and you are sidestepping the issue by not explaining which came first, the universe or the blackhole.

 

I start from 3 propositions/axioms

 

1) energy is zero

2) energy is finite

3) energy is infinite

 

any one of which I hold to be true and see where they go, I make no assumptions. This leads to 3 questions

 

1) if energy is zero because gravity and mass cancel then why are gravity and mass finite, or more broadly are they finite?

2) if energy is finite what caused it to be finite? In your model of universes in blackholes the energy of the universe is not constant and you haven't ruled out the possibility that energy is infinite.

3) if energy is infinite do we only experience a finite amount of it? one region of space can only be in communication with a finite amount of space, space itself though could be infinite.

[lemur]

'If' - I think you answered your own question there. Isn't current theory that the universe will end up in many blackholes all of which will, through Hawking radiation, evaporate to nothing. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and at some point in time distant regions of the universe will loose communication with each other. They will be receding faster than the SOL and so gravity will not be able to cause all matter in the universe to fall into one blackhole.

How do you know that matter-energy receding away from each other faster than the SOL won't curve around and reappear on new horizons of each other?

 

Our laws of physics can be extrapolated to describe the interior of a blackhole, you're saying that if you were in a blackhole you would simply be in another universe. If this is true then either our laws of physics are wrong or the laws of physics are different inside a blackhole than they are in the universe that black hole is in.

Not "simply in another universe." I said that the interior of a black hole could generate spacetime-expansion within its contents and that this could appear as a "big bang" of an independent universe from the perspective of an observer within that universe (assuming such an observer could/would be able to observe it).

 

A blackhole, in terms of its mass and energy, is small compared to the universe it is in.

Why does that matter?

 

 

1) energy is zero

2) energy is finite

3) energy is infinite

Which energy? In what context? If the universe is prone to irreversible fragmentation into regions unreachable from one another (as you said earlier), in what sense could energy be infinite?

 

1) if energy is zero because gravity and mass cancel then why are gravity and mass finite, or more broadly are they finite?

How can gravity and mass cancel each other? Are you just talking about variable in an equation or are you actually proposing that there is some physical mechanism where gravity and mass can cancel each other somehow?

 

2) if energy is finite what caused it to be finite? In your model of universes in blackholes the energy of the universe is not constant and you haven't ruled out the possibility that energy is infinite.

How can energy be infinite in any context if it is conserved in every context?

 

3) if energy is infinite do we only experience a finite amount of it? one region of space can only be in communication with a finite amount of space, space itself though could be infinite.

Each expression of energy in a physical manifestation is a finite amount of energy. The only way it could be infinite is if it somehow multiplies itself under certain conditions, like if somehow unbeknowst to anyone the sun was multiplying energy and radiating it endlessly. How else could energy be infinite? You can't rely on the whole transcending the parts. If energy is conserved in every observable part of any imaginable universe, how could it be infinite on a grander level?

 

 

[Sisyphus]

How do you know that matter-energy receding away from each other faster than the SOL won't curve around and reappear on new horizons of each other?

 

Recession is not motion, so that's impossible no matter what shape the universe has.

 

Not "simply in another universe." I said that the interior of a black hole could generate spacetime-expansion within its contents and that this could appear as a "big bang" of an independent universe from the perspective of an observer within that universe (assuming such an observer could/would be able to observe it).

 

What mechanism are you suggesting for that? What is it that you mean by "the interior of a black hole?"

 

Which energy? In what context? If the universe is prone to irreversible fragmentation into regions unreachable from one another (as you said earlier), in what sense could energy be infinite?

 

Presumably, in the whole.

 

How can gravity and mass cancel each other? Are you just talking about variable in an equation or are you actually proposing that there is some physical mechanism where gravity and mass can cancel each other somehow?

 

Mass is positive energy. Gravitational field energy is negative. If the density of the two are equal, then the total density is zero, and they "cancel out."

 

How can energy be infinite in any context if it is conserved in every context?

 

Each expression of energy in a physical manifestation is a finite amount of energy. The only way it could be infinite is if it somehow multiplies itself under certain conditions, like if somehow unbeknowst to anyone the sun was multiplying energy and radiating it endlessly. How else could energy be infinite? You can't rely on the whole transcending the parts. If energy is conserved in every observable part of any imaginable universe, how could it be infinite on a grander level?

 

It seems you're confusing "infinite" with "finite and endlessly increasing." That misunderstanding seems to be the basis for much of this thread, actually. Infinite does not mean increasing over time. It means right now, the amount is larger than any finite amount.

[lemur]

Recession is not motion, so that's impossible no matter what shape the universe has.

what is the difference between recession and motion from the perspective of the objects involved?

 

What mechanism are you suggesting for that? What is it that you mean by "the interior of a black hole?"

The part of the black hole where matter-energy goes and doesn't leave.

 

Presumably, in the whole.

So the whole just magically transcends the sum of the parts?

 

Mass is positive energy. Gravitational field energy is negative. If the density of the two are equal, then the total density is zero, and they "cancel out."

How is gravity negative energy? Gravity is force that accelerates objects centripetally; or you could say it curves spacetime so that objects in motion as a result of their own momentum follow curved trajectories. If gravity cancelled out "positive" energy, then there would be some type of star between an active energy-producing star and a black hole that would just completely disappear due to its energy and gravity annihilating one another.

 

It seems you're confusing "infinite" with "finite and endlessly increasing." That misunderstanding seems to be the basis for much of this thread, actually. Infinite does not mean increasing over time. It means right now, the amount is larger than any finite amount.

I no longer see the point of this. What does it matter whether matter-energy is infinite or finite? If it was finite instead of infinite, what parameters of a model of the universe would that affect?

[Sisyphus]

what is the difference between recession and motion from the perspective of the objects involved?

 

Recession, as in cosmic expansion, is an increase in the metric of space and thus overall decrease of the density of the universe. Motion is just rearranging of things within the universe. Or to put it another way, motion is travel from point A to point B. Recession is when point A and point B get farther apart.

 

From the perspective of the objects involved, this matters a great deal. For instance, it is impossible for any two objects to have a relative velocity of C or greater. However, objects can recede at faster than C, such that they are no longer causally connected, unless the rate of expansion slows. It creates a "horizon" for every point in the universe, beyond which no information can ever reach.

 

The part of the black hole where matter-energy goes and doesn't leave.

 

Ok, so beyond the event horizon then. But that region is not simply a bubble of disconnected space. In fact it's arguably not really "space" at all, inasmuch as space becomes time.

 

So the whole just magically transcends the sum of the parts?

 

Magically? I believe the suggestion of infinite energy was contingent on the universe itself being infinite, right? So, if the overall energy density of the universe is some finite quantity greater than zero, and the universe is infinite in size, then the total amount of energy in the universe is infinite.

 

How is gravity negative energy?

 

Here is an explanation:

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_gravitational_potential_energy_negative_for_the_equation_of_Ep_equal_-GMm_over_r

 

I no longer see the point of this. What does it matter whether matter-energy is infinite or finite? If it was finite instead of infinite, what parameters of a model of the universe would that affect?

 

Surely whether the universe is infinite or finite is a pretty fundamental aspect of the model? Anyway, I don't know. I was just trying to help clear up what seemed like a misunderstanding.