The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does the Universe have an Energy?  (Read 15210 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« on: 30/09/2009 18:27:47 »
I won't go into superfluous detail as i usually do, but i will posit two questions that should be answered by physics and physicists alike.

Does the universe have an energy?

How can the universe have an energy? I question this, because for a system to have a defined energy, there needs to be an observer. A couple of solutions can arise to the question, such as parallel universes - in this instance, there are an infinite amount of worlds, so a defined energy becomes ''less important'' when we invoke some kind of ultimate parallel universes where the line extends into infinity. It turns out from this picture, that every universe that can arise, would arise.

For the universe to have a defined energy [i.e. a specific quantity] - then according to the laws of quantum mechanics there needs to be an observer sitting outside of the realms of space and time. But no outside to the universe exists in relativity so a fundamental problem arises. Ultimately, all we can hope for at best so far, is to account for only a portion of the energy within the universe to be known within the boundaries of certainty with how much  energy at a time is involved.

Moving on, a greater problem arises concerning energy. There is the frozen time problem of relativity - according to theory, there is no past nor future. There is no sucession of past into future.

There is no time but the present time(s); which encompasses everything. In the frozen time model, energy faces another problem. Since Noethers Theorem shows that time has a mathematical conjugate partener taken as energy, we find the two are co-independant.

And so imagine if we where to consider a timeless universe as adopted by many growing number of physicists, we would actually present ourselves with more problems, such as energy. To define the energy in the universe, you would almost certainly need time since time and energy are actingconjugates under the Noether Theorem; though, mind you, and not intentionally trying to complicate things, but how could anyone measure the energy of the universe because you would need to be outside of it to do so... but without adding any more to the problems, it still remains true thatneglecting time in a final theory of quantum mechanics will degrade the chances of measuring energy at levels required for quantum synthesis exploration, maybe more mathematically than so much experimentally.

In fact, the problem of time is the adaptation of the Scrodinger equation to a diffeomorphism invariant context by a quantizing equation gives the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is an equation which governs the universe in a lifeless non-changing state, where time is essentially frozen, and the internal energy is non-changing. Everything should be best then to describe the universe which would be immutable.

But the universe does have an energy, just not one that can be well defined. Only a very small portion of this cloud will be condensed, and some of it we can observe measure in their various multi-particle systems to an approximation. But as expected, these problems concerning energy and timeare not alone. Without time, it is also contrary to our experience. Why would we seem to experience and represent something like a time if it was not in the manifold of space? Would evolution be audacious enough as to give us an experience of something so exotic it is not an extention of spaceitself, which would then imply that perhaps consciousness is not extention of space either? Consciousness and time are inexorably linked, and in many ways are the same. As i have already explained, remove time directionality, spice it up with a few negatives here and there as to allow it to notfollow a logical linear path, then our experiences in the world would be shortlived and perhaps even non-existent.

(I will recite any work required to uphold the statements made on request - or i will give a mathematical desription)


 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #1 on: 30/09/2009 18:32:25 »
Both are codependant, i mean... lol
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8680
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #2 on: 30/09/2009 19:41:18 »
The universe has a mass.
E=MC^2
The universe has an anergy.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #3 on: 30/09/2009 19:47:53 »
Did you get my essential points?
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #4 on: 30/09/2009 21:53:19 »
The thread title boils down to "Does energy exist?  And to answer that, you need to define energy.

You're also thinking of time as something distinct from space when the sort of answer you're looking for requires them to be unified.  The whole idea of a 'frozen' this, that or the many others is nonsensical, as by definition they would be static and unchangeable.  If there is no change, there is no physics, because nothing can happen.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #5 on: 01/10/2009 02:49:20 »
In relativity you cannot treat space and time as different entities.

Tell me, why do you think i have?
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #6 on: 01/10/2009 06:55:35 »
Mr S,

Your post seems to ask a lot of interesting questions. I like interesting questions about the nature of space because I have a hunch (only a hunch mind you!) that we are slightly clueless about the nature of space (I'll probably get some "heat" for even making that remark.)

Can you please try to slow down your questions/ideas enough to allow slower types, like me, to catch up and figure out where you are going? No need to if you don't want to, of course. Just a suggestion.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #7 on: 01/10/2009 20:57:06 »
I can certainly try. What parts are you finding difficult?
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #8 on: 01/10/2009 20:58:04 »
The simple answer to the question could well be no.  The universe as a whole does not have an energy because the positive energy of atoms and radiation that forms most of the universe we know could well be eaxtly (or almost exactly)  balanced by the negative energy of the gravitiational field.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #9 on: 01/10/2009 21:36:50 »
Now to return to the rest of your long initial posting.

Firstly your comments about the need of a real external "observer" seems to suggest a basic misunderstanding of this term used in quantum mechanics and the Schrodinger cat paradox this does not imply any external intelligent or directed process it just means that events have to happen to resolve the paradox by creating the measurements needed. These events can be totally internal to the processes.

Your problems with space and time appear to come from taking ideas to their extreme limit without looking at what happens before these limits are reached space, time, acceleration, velocity and gravity are clearly related through relativity.  however our understanding of what happens as limits are approached (but not necessarily reached) are far from complete and there is plenty of room for new supprises.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #10 on: 01/10/2009 23:24:13 »
Not at all.

Having an observer outside of spacetime has nothing to do with any ''intelligence'' - nor does it imply anything related to schrodingers cat.

I thought this much might have been realized. No, it implies the measurement of energy; or a specific eigenstate of the universe in this case. In order to measure the system for a well-defined energy, you require to observe the system. Much like the universe, you would need to be external of it to actually know its complete energy. It's well-understood that you cannot know the energy from within the system itself.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #11 on: 02/10/2009 23:21:01 »
We are therefore in a logical impasse unless you redefine what you mean by the term universe.  This is because the term universe means the total sum of everything that exists and therefore it is impossible for anything to be "outside" the universe.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #12 on: 03/10/2009 01:40:04 »
We are therefore in a logical impasse unless you redefine what you mean by the term universe.  This is because the term universe means the total sum of everything that exists and therefore it is impossible for anything to be "outside" the universe.

The universe in this context is under a Wheeler-de Witt analysis.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #13 on: 03/10/2009 09:28:36 »
Sorry I do not understand what you are saying. Please explain it to me in your own words using simple language.  I will Google that topic but I feel qite strongly that in these pages you should strive to use language that is easily understandable by most people and in particular explain things where they use specialist technical terms.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3826
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #14 on: 03/10/2009 13:42:55 »
The simple answer to the question could well be no.  The universe as a whole does not have an energy because the positive energy of atoms and radiation that forms most of the universe we know could well be exactly (or almost exactly) balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field.
I like the idea of the universe adding up to zero , I had this idea as a boy believing it was a matter of matter and anti-matter but of course your idea of an energy balance is more satisfying.
such a universe could pop into existence in the same manner as particle anti-particle pairs
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #15 on: 03/10/2009 14:24:50 »
I have now had a chance to look up this Wheeler De Witt equation and it appears to be a generalisation of the Hamiltonian (basic conservation laws) for a quantum universe in an unspecified number of dimensions where the wave functions are replaced by functionals over all possible spatial geometries and integrated over the entire volume of the multidimensional "space" (probably infinite and /or recursive).  As such it does not and cannot have any existence outside of it own domain (as I expected) and therefore any concept of observing the universe as defined by this equation from outside is totally invalid.

This seems a reasonable way to approach this problem but rapidly involves almost insuperable mathematical problems unless gross simplifications are accepted from the start and leads to an attempt to define all possible universes in the same way that string theory gets bogged down in billions of possibilities.

These techniques have created useful insights but are losing the baby in the pacific ocean! there are I believe simpler and more tractable approaches that can be taken but I have so far been unable to find anyone who is following them
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #16 on: 03/10/2009 17:13:45 »
Sorry I do not understand what you are saying. Please explain it to me in your own words using simple language.  I will Google that topic but I feel qite strongly that in these pages you should strive to use language that is easily understandable by most people and in particular explain things where they use specialist technical terms.

Don't be ridiculous. I cannot pipe down on ordinary termonology. If no one understands the terminology, then you might ask for a definition of the concept spoken about.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #17 on: 04/10/2009 23:05:55 »
I am not quite sure why you have posted this reply because I have done precisely this in my reply above on 3rd oct at 14:24:50.  Do you now accept what I have said there?

I am now rereading your original questions in the light of my additional studies and plan to post a more detailed reply in a day or two.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2009 23:10:38 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #18 on: 05/10/2009 09:15:28 »
Thank you.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #19 on: 05/10/2009 17:22:04 »
The best popular book that I know on the "tmeless" universe is "the end of time" by Bulian Barbour.  This shows that time and space as an emergent property of a universe that in effect explores all possible configurations of itself and finds that certin squential possibilities are more probable and this leads to the development of universes with space time properties like our own.

This does not mean in any way that our concepts of time are invalid in our environment.  The universe that we are aware of is a dynamic structure with energy and energy gradients.  it is logical that the total enery of the bulk (everything that exists) could well be zerom  any theoretiians suggest that our universe may have grown from a small "seed" universe and I have suggested elsewhere  (new theories) how tiss might be possible
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #20 on: 05/10/2009 21:57:32 »
The best popular book that I know on the "tmeless" universe is "the end of time" by Bulian Barbour.  This shows that time and space as an emergent property of a universe that in effect explores all possible configurations of itself and finds that certin squential possibilities are more probable and this leads to the development of universes with space time properties like our own.

This does not mean in any way that our concepts of time are invalid in our environment.  The universe that we are aware of is a dynamic structure with energy and energy gradients.  it is logical that the total enery of the bulk (everything that exists) could well be zerom  any theoretiians suggest that our universe may have grown from a small "seed" universe and I have suggested elsewhere  (new theories) how tiss might be possible

Oh, but many scientists do think it makes our description of time invalid. Mentioned by quite a few scientists i can think of, some including Marcopolini and Smolin, just to name a few, have raised the issue of the frozen time paradox of relativity with great speculation. Some scientists have already concluded the only answer can be some illusion within the psyche. The frozen time model of relativity is but one description which relies on our experience of time to be some kind of illusion. Another one has its roots soiled in quantum mechanics.

In quantum mechanics (contrary to our experience), time does not even have a flow. As a type of illusion, geometric time does not exist, and only fundamental time persists. This means that there cannot be a flow to time, but instead, time exists for starts and stops; almost instantaneous flashes and moments. So all this stuff concerning time, seems to indicate that how we experience time, may not actually be how time exists ''out there.''
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #21 on: 05/10/2009 22:32:04 »
I agree with you that space and time are a variable feature of our universe but I do not think calling it "an Illusion" implying that there are ways in which it may be possible to break the rules is a very likely probability. 
If it was our universe could not be stable.

My opinion is as I have said elsewhere our universe is one of a vast number of broadly similar universes that have "evolved" from the bulk (as defined earlier)  All these universes are essentially physically very small and contain a relatively small amount of energy as a seed but gain their space time and energy from the conservation of energy and angular momentum during their gravitational collapse.  Each universe can seed vast numbers of new universes almost without limit like a fractal.  The evolution process is favoured by others notably Lee Smolin who was probably one of the first to describe this concept in his book "Life of the Cosmos" ISBN 0 297 81727 2

The main evolutionary drive for universes is to gradually develop the physical laws to maximise the  existence in time and space of a universe because that makes such universes much more probable to detect in any random selection of universes most of which would only last for very brief periods in a very small area.

I am not in favour of the concept of totally random selection of physical laws during the spontaneous symmetry breaking during initial expansion of the space time dimensions the randomness is biased in directions defined by the end products of variations in the physical laws which because of quantum mechanical uncertainty become more diffuse at high energies.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #22 on: 05/10/2009 22:37:07 »
I agree with you that space and time are a variable feature of our universe but I do not think calling it "an Illusion" implying that there are ways in which it may be possible to break the rules is a very likely probability. 
If it was our universe could not be stable.

My opinion is as I have said elsewhere our universe is one of a vast number of broadly similar universes that have "evolved" from the bulk (as defined earlier)  All these universes are essentially physically very small and contain a relatively small amount of energy as a seed but gain their space time and energy from the conservation of energy and angular momentum during their gravitational collapse.  Each universe can seed vast numbers of new universes almost without limit like a fractal.  The evolution process is favoured by others notably Lee Smolin who was probably one of the first to describe this concept in his book "Life of the Cosmos" ISBN 0 297 81727 2

The main evolutionary drive for universes is to gradually develop the physical laws to maximise the  existence in time and space of a universe because that makes such universes much more probable to detect in any random selection of universes most of which would only last for very brief periods in a very small area.

I am not in favour of the concept of totally random selection of physical laws during the spontaneous symmetry breaking during initial expansion of the space time dimensions the randomness is biased in directions defined by the end products of variations in the physical laws which because of quantum mechanical uncertainty become more diffuse at high energies.

I don't really entertain multiple universes, to be quite honest. In fact, smolin recently rejected the multiverse theory, stating strongly that only one universe is ever in existence.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #23 on: 05/10/2009 22:41:46 »
 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/39306
He says:

1) There is only one universe. There are no others, nor is there anything isomorphic to it.

2) All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment.

3) Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the next or future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this process causing or implying future moments.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #24 on: 06/10/2009 21:21:18 »
I do not disagree with your quotation. This does describe what happens in our universe which is the only one we will ever be able to experience and/or receive information about.  The multiple universes I am talking about are entirely separated and never ever communicate with each other except that if you fall into a black hole in one you end up in a different universe for ever.

Multiverse concepts were developed to get round the problem of the extremely finely balanced nature of our physical laws in a an environment where physical laws could change as a result of the initial "set up" parameters of any particular big bang type universe.

My hypothesis is that like the ecosystems on this planet the physical laws have evolved through many generations of universes to be closely similar to those we see today in our universe because any universe seeds other universes with small quantities of it own matter.  gravitational collapse and the interplay of the laws of conservation of energy and angular momentum do the rest!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #24 on: 06/10/2009 21:21:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length