The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does the Universe have an Energy?  (Read 15124 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?
« Reply #25 on: 06/10/2009 21:35:29 »
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!

If parallel universes could not interact in any way, then there would be little point for the theories existence. In an Everett interpretation, universes are connected through actions made making the wave function collapse. Essentially, each time some kind of measurement is performed in any universe, the possibilities that may exist give rise to the birth of new universes. In this case, you could flip a coin a hundred times and create a little over 10^30 universes. In string theory, branes smashing and interacting through the gravitational force are also really big things.

If parallel universes could not give some explanation into these factors then they would just remain a superfluous detail.
 

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 #26 on: 07/10/2009 22:47:13 »
That is one way of looking at it.  It just depends how one defines the term multiverse or multiple universe and the particular theory of everything that one favours.  We will have to agree to differ on this one.
 

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 #27 on: 07/10/2009 23:27:37 »
In what sense should we leave this?

If the parallel universes in your theory do not interact in any way, does this not make the extra universes a superfluous detail?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #28 on: 07/10/2009 23:39:13 »
Awh, what a base discussion we have here :)

Consider light, size-less, distance-less, timeless so ethereal yet so real and always 'interacting' with Spacetime. The difficulty with it is if we should see it as a 'one way (interaction:)' or a two way. As I like to consider light to be one more of our possible 'singularities' I would like it to only have a 'one way' information arrow but as we define it as having both sources and sinks one can discuss that. Still if 'photons' are the 'smallest' instigators of 'change' inside Spacetime the possible 'multiple universes' will be limitless if you see my drift here :)

Then again, as I also see what we call 'photons' as immaterial rifts in spacetime 'localized/defined' by all thingies 'interacting' (the impact if you will:)for our 'multiple universes' we might need to 'step up' in size to find processes existing definable by us as 'existing' when we look away too. So that leaves 'particles/invariant mass' perhaps?

But those seems also to be 'shimmering objects' at a Quantum mechanic level? So where exactly are those divergent spacetime 'paths' thought to happen. If we allow spacetime to be a 'elastic whole' as described by Einstein and also admit to it being impossible to define any particle with absolute certainty as being 'there' at a QM level?
 

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 #29 on: 07/10/2009 23:43:40 »
Two-way interaction, as in time?

Then it would need to be so. Particles do not act alone in a causal manner. Particles with an angular momentum in the fermion family have alone a spin up and spin down. They also have a spoin sidewards, and in computer-terminology, these are called quibits.

Virtual particles violate the law of directionality all the time. They flow within negative values of time, and so oscillte throughout space and time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #30 on: 07/10/2009 23:55:31 »
Two-way interaction, as in time?


That's one of the problems :)

I differ between 'no way' (virtual particles/photons), 'two way' (quantum mechanical processes) and 'one way' (Spacetimes arrow of time).

But that's time, then I also discuss 'information flows' the same way, as having a one way flow (Black holes, entanglements, possibly tunneling too) or a two way flow as inside Spacetime mediated by f.ex. us talking, sending information electronically etc and what I would call 'no way information' relating to something undifferentiated existing as a 'whole' without any information-/time-arrow to it. But I'm not sure they work the same?

Consider if I was right in assuming that photons won't exist and that the only things we 'observe' is rifts in Spacetime as it wants to close them. Would I then be able to state that this is a 'communication'? I mean, it should be? But there is nothing there 'communicating' even though we have both a source (sun)as well as a sink (eye) receiving it?
 
« Last Edit: 07/10/2009 23:58:39 by yor_on »
 

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 #31 on: 08/10/2009 09:17:23 »
We are already reasonably well aware of things in our own universe that have zero or very limited communication with our own visible universe. 

Firstly black holes where outgoing communication is limited to hawking radiation.  Note high energy radiation from in falling matter does not count because that all occurs outside the event horizon.

Secondly if you subscribe to inflationary cosmology there is a vast area of our own universe with which we will never ever be able to communicate because the expansion means that it is receding from us faster than the velocity of light.

The fact that there could be a indefinite number of universes "out there" is unobservable but may be perfectly predictable by the final theory of everything.  You seem to be thinking in a very restricted way and are probably yearning for some weird possibility of communicating with other universes though wormholes or other silly non causal ideas.  Cosmology and quantum theory is weird enough without pushing the limits in this way
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #32 on: 08/10/2009 21:34:40 »
Interesting Soulsurfer.

Now, I liked hawking's idea better before he changed his mind and defined it as 'interacting with Spacetime'. I don't agree to that one by several reasons. The simplest one being that you won't have a singularity any more if that is correct. Also it disturbs my own ideas :) as I then would have to redefine what singularities should be as well as information obeying lights speed in a vacuum. That if we still trust a Black Hole to be an 'infinity'.

As for your other definition of inflationary cosmology to define limits for two way flows of information you might be right, but there is no singularity defined there as it more relates to a 'no way' flow than a 'one way' flow as I defines a singularity here.

And no matter how vast the 'distances' may seem there is only one 'Spacetime' to me. Otherwise you might consider two points just out of reach, information wise, from each other. then I move one point a little closer to the other and then the other a a little further away to keep them incommunicado. I can do this a infinite amount of times which then would create 'infinite amount of universes' incommunicado with each other but still visited by you as one of those 'points' if you get my drift here. That proofs to me that there is only one Spacetime even if we might not be able to communicate with all of it.
 

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 #33 on: 10/10/2009 18:46:58 »
And so now, i'm going to talk about another strange prediction behind the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Due to conservation laws, more notably the eternal sea of energy which exists not only in a Dirac Model, where particles like electrons arise from a negative value of energy within the vacuum of spacetime called the Dirac Sea, but also in a more modern approach, one invites the existence of the zero-point energy field, which is also a negative sea of energy which counteracts every positive (and real) peice of energy in the vacuum.

It's not just a sea of negative energy - its also a sea of particles which make this potential energy. In theory, corresponded to every real positive valued particle in the vacuum has a negative virtual particle within the vacuum which mathematically renormalizes it to zero. Mathematically, we call the energy of the entire makeup from a Hamiltonian expression of the energy-mass equivalance, restated as E= \pm Mc^2 - which is of course, energy equals not only a positive energy but also a negative energy. We may call the two expressions as two solutions given as Mc^2 and -Mc^2. Mathematically, adding the two together yields absolutely nothing! This means that mathematically, physicists have been aware that when you add the energy in the observable vacuum with a corresponding energy within the potential vacuum, and then you can caculate the energy of the whole universe; and it appears to come to a big fat zero.

So does the universe have an energy? Maybe according to the first lot of work i gave you, there are questions as to how quantum mechanics may manifest an energy description with so many ordeals... but here, just above, a difference can be evaluated. We say that every bit of positive energy can be cancelled out by some bit of negative energy within the vacuum; but there is an infinite amount of this negative energy, so in effect, we rid one, only to retain a massive amount of the other.
 

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 #34 on: 12/10/2009 15:50:31 »
Surely that's the result of basic gravitational collapse to a "singularity" gravitational field energy appears in the equations as negative energy which is released as positive energy as things fall inot it and increase the negative enrtgy in the field on contraction to a mathematical singularity this will increase without limit. 

There must be some sort of limiting process that restores a sensible equilibrium.

Evolutionary cosmology is a pair of my preferred ideas from a set of alternatives that I have generated that would avoid this problem. 

You appear to be searching for a staisis and arguing that our universe should not exist by the "laws" of quantum mechanics.  Our univere does exist so therefore these laws, or your understanding of them must be wrong. 

Why not stop beating your head on an impossibility and complain that others have got something wrong and use your thinking powers to look for something that works!
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #35 on: 12/10/2009 16:12:26 »
>Does the universe have an energy?

If you mean is the value of the total energy of the universe non-zero then nobody knows. Perhaps it is zero. I suspect that it is but can’t say for sure. If you mean is the large scale average energy density of the universe non-zero then no.

>How can the universe have an energy?

I don’t understand the question. To me that’s like asking “How can the Earth have mass?”

> I question this, because for a system to have a defined energy, there needs to be an
> observer.

If it were true then one cannot say that energy existed before observers existed and I disagree with that assertion. It is my opinion that the universe existed before man did.

>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.

This is one of those fuzzy areas of quantum mechanics. One who is well versed in the philosophy of quantum mechanics is in a better position to address your concerns. Two interesting articles on the subject are

Quantum Mechanics and Reality, by Bryce S. DeWitt, Physics Today, Sept. 1970 pages 30-35

Quantum Mechanics Needs No ‘Interpretation’ by Christopher A. Fuchs and Asher Peres, Physics Today, March 2000, pages 70-71

Otherwise I’ll take a shot at it – In my humble opinion an observer doesn’t need to be a conscious person. E.g. in Young’s double slit experiment one can consider the screen to be the observer. A collision of a photon on the screen can be considered an observation. In the first article referenced above DeWitt comments as follows in the first section of the article which is labeled Quantum Theory of Measurement
-----------------------
In the simples form the quantum theory of measurement considers a world composed of just two dynamical systems, a system and an apparatus. Both are subject to quantum mechanical laws, and hence one may form a combined state vector that can be expanded in terms of an orthonormal set of basis vectors ….
-----------------------

> But no outside to the universe exists…

So why can’t the observer be part of the universe? This is how it works in quantum mechanics where an observation is considered to be an interaction between different parts of a quantum mechanical system.

> in relativity so a fundamental problem arises.

In relativity the problem is not so much a conscious person as an observer. In fact in relativity an observer is defined as a coordinate system/frame of reference. And no person is required in order for such a frame to exist.
 

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 #36 on: 13/10/2009 00:25:12 »
>Does the universe have an energy?

If you mean is the value of the total energy of the universe non-zero then nobody knows. Perhaps it is zero. I suspect that it is but can’t say for sure. If you mean is the large scale average energy density of the universe non-zero then no.

>How can the universe have an energy?

I don’t understand the question. To me that’s like asking “How can the Earth have mass?”

> I question this, because for a system to have a defined energy, there needs to be an
> observer.

If it were true then one cannot say that energy existed before observers existed and I disagree with that assertion. It is my opinion that the universe existed before man did.

>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.

This is one of those fuzzy areas of quantum mechanics. One who is well versed in the philosophy of quantum mechanics is in a better position to address your concerns. Two interesting articles on the subject are

Quantum Mechanics and Reality, by Bryce S. DeWitt, Physics Today, Sept. 1970 pages 30-35



Let me explain the bolded part:

How can the universe have an energy?

I am probably being dramatic in the sense of my words. Essentially, the question is true. Energy in virtual superpositioned state (as you might understand from quantum mechanics) means that this virtual energy can come in the form of superpostioned states smeared over spacetime probabilistically.

This doesn't mean the energy we see everyday; this energy we see is in the form of real energy and real matter. The potential words of statistical probabilties run rife, but we don't see it. In a sense, measurement of energy in physics is essentailly important. If you study the energy eigenstate of a Hamltonian, you will find that observables are involved, and energy which has not been perturbed by measurement can remain in a ghostly superpositioned state.

In the very early universe, energy was not very well-defined. The question in the heading now changes, into how can the universe have a defined set energy? This is a truer statement because a large chunk of all the matter and energy in the universe must not b very well defined. Only a portion of the matter and energy we can observe (which covers only 1% of all spacetime) is the only small cloud of particles which have managed to decohere.

So - how can the universe have a defined energy is now backed up with why someone would need to be outside of spacetime to measure an energy, as much as energy appears as an observable in mathematics. The energy is undefined due to wave mechanics until such a resolution is transpired.
« Last Edit: 13/10/2009 00:27:47 by Mr. Scientist »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #37 on: 13/10/2009 12:53:27 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
This doesn't mean the energy we see everyday; this energy we see is in the form of real energy and real matter. The potential words of statistical probabilties run rife, but we don't see it. In a sense, measurement of energy in physics is essentailly important. If you study the energy eigenstate of a Hamltonian, you will find that observables are involved, and energy which has not been perturbed by measurement can remain in a ghostly superpositioned state.
We accept super position that solidifies into some reality at the time of observation as real now, almost without question. However we should question this every time we see it. We should question it because there is absolutely no experimental evidence that it is so. It is part of the magic you must accept if you consider Quantum Physics as representing reality.
 

Offline Homely Physicist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #38 on: 15/10/2009 02:50:34 »
'Sup dudes and dudettes.  [O8)]

I was trawling the web, looking for a site explaining (in more accessable terms than wiki-wackymath-pedia) how large astronomical distances are measured, when this site, and this debate, caught my eye. I hope I can contribute something worthwhile to it!

I've read through most of the posts concerning your 1st question, Mr Scientist, and I'd like to jump straight to it. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'does the universe have energy?' as there are conflicting answers depending on the aspect of the question you emphasise in different posts.

If you mean 'Is energy a property of the universe?' I'd say yes. Energy is the potential an object has to do work. As there exist paths the object can move along in the universe (by observation), and as there exist position-dependent forces (by observation), by E = ∫ F(x) dx energy exists insofar as it can be assigned a value. I'm not sure how much experience you have with calculus and path integrals; that equation's the first thought that popped into my mind!

However, if you mean 'Is the total energy of the universe zero?' I'd say no.

E^2 = (p^2)*(c^2) + (m^2)*(c^4)

The total momentum of the universe is zero, because it must be a constant (it's conserved) and we haven't yet observed any preferred direction to the universe. The total mass of the universe is positive* as we haven't observed negative mass; thus the total energy must be non-zero. You've mentioned virtual particles previously. Bear in mind that 'virtual' implies we cannot observe them, and that they suck the energy equivalent of their mass out of the ground energy state, adding nothing to the actual mass of the universe.

Yet again, if you mean 'Can I measure/observe/decohere all energy states in the universe from inside it?' I don't see why not, in principle. Measure almost every particle in the universe yourself; get a friend to measure those making up you. Having an observer making a 'time' measurement, though, would immediately muck up your data due to the energy-time uncertainty principle. I'm afraid going into a detailed discussion of what a 'time' measurement is would require at least a degree in physics and several reams of text; pretend you're measuring the position of every particle instead and that an observer mucks it up with a momentum measurement, allowing you to picture the effect of the space-momentum uncertainty principle.

Variance(x) * Variance(p) > 0

Incidentally, you'll never know the exact value anyways (for x and E, for the universe and each particle) as the variances cannot be 0. Each particle wavefunction will probably intermix and form superpositions straightaway anyway if you do these kinda measurements on a large scale, as gravity becomes important. No-one knows how 'fast' this happens, or what role gravity plays exactly, because as far as quantum mechanics is concerned time is a background upon which events play themselves (it's not an observable) and gravity doesn't exist!

If you find an answer to that, let me know  ;)


*Some theories posit that dark energy, the thing causing the expansion of the universe, may correspond to negative mass, but at the moment they're unproven and are thus speculative at best.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #39 on: 16/10/2009 19:10:03 »
Nice description mr homely :)
And I believe Pmb to be on the spot saying that everything in SpaceTime, with the exception of what I deem as 'singularities' a. k. a. one-way communication, to be just that, ah, observers 'interacting'. But as I'm not sure what this 'energy' refers to I won't dare to have an opinion, although I will just the same :)

Energy is what we observe 'doing work' as I understands it. We do that 'work' by manipulating what I see as SpaceTimes equilibrium. Do SpaceTime loose anything as we do so? Well, if we define it as a 'closed system' it shouldn't, do you agree? It should only 'transform' right? So no, I don't think SpaceTime loses any 'energy'. Perhaps one could see SpaceTime as our new shiny toybox with a lot of fun stuff in it. As we use the toys they become 'used' not new any more, and their batteries transforms becoming unusable for 'winding' up our toys. But we define 'energy' as some extraneous quality here it seems to me, and I'm not sure that this is the same as 'transformations'?
 

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 #40 on: 17/10/2009 15:03:54 »
'Sup dudes and dudettes.  [O8)]

I was trawling the web, looking for a site explaining (in more accessable terms than wiki-wackymath-pedia) how large astronomical distances are measured, when this site, and this debate, caught my eye. I hope I can contribute something worthwhile to it!

I've read through most of the posts concerning your 1st question, Mr Scientist, and I'd like to jump straight to it. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'does the universe have energy?' as there are conflicting answers depending on the aspect of the question you emphasise in different posts.

If you mean 'Is energy a property of the universe?' I'd say yes. Energy is the potential an object has to do work. As there exist paths the object can move along in the universe (by observation), and as there exist position-dependent forces (by observation), by E = ∫ F(x) dx energy exists insofar as it can be assigned a value. I'm not sure how much experience you have with calculus and path integrals; that equation's the first thought that popped into my mind!

However, if you mean 'Is the total energy of the universe zero?' I'd say no.

E^2 = (p^2)*(c^2) + (m^2)*(c^4)

The total momentum of the universe is zero, because it must be a constant (it's conserved) and we haven't yet observed any preferred direction to the universe. The total mass of the universe is positive* as we haven't observed negative mass; thus the total energy must be non-zero. You've mentioned virtual particles previously. Bear in mind that 'virtual' implies we cannot observe them, and that they suck the energy equivalent of their mass out of the ground energy state, adding nothing to the actual mass of the universe.

Yet again, if you mean 'Can I measure/observe/decohere all energy states in the universe from inside it?' I don't see why not, in principle. Measure almost every particle in the universe yourself; get a friend to measure those making up you. Having an observer making a 'time' measurement, though, would immediately muck up your data due to the energy-time uncertainty principle. I'm afraid going into a detailed discussion of what a 'time' measurement is would require at least a degree in physics and several reams of text; pretend you're measuring the position of every particle instead and that an observer mucks it up with a momentum measurement, allowing you to picture the effect of the space-momentum uncertainty principle.

Variance(x) * Variance(p) > 0

Incidentally, you'll never know the exact value anyways (for x and E, for the universe and each particle) as the variances cannot be 0. Each particle wavefunction will probably intermix and form superpositions straightaway anyway if you do these kinda measurements on a large scale, as gravity becomes important. No-one knows how 'fast' this happens, or what role gravity plays exactly, because as far as quantum mechanics is concerned time is a background upon which events play themselves (it's not an observable) and gravity doesn't exist!

If you find an answer to that, let me know  ;)


*Some theories posit that dark energy, the thing causing the expansion of the universe, may correspond to negative mass, but at the moment they're unproven and are thus speculative at best.
Ahhh... but the first law of conservation is not as true as we where once told - so even if i decided to count all the particles in the vacuum in one hypothetical instant, there may be more particles or less particles the second time around.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #41 on: 19/10/2009 22:21:35 »
[quote author] But as I'm not sure what this 'energy' refers to I won't dare to have an opinion, although I will just the same :)
[/quote]
My thoughts on that subject are on my website at
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/mech/what_is_energy.htm
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Does the Universe have an Energy?
« Reply #41 on: 19/10/2009 22:21:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums