[Tass (OP)]

Equal amounts of positive and negative charges are neutral, but not all things that are neutral necessarily contain electric charges. Something that contains no electric charges at all would also be neutral.

All things atomic contain electrical charge !

I don't believe there is any science anywhere that says the Higgs is not - and + charge ?

Why can't we view the field as an interwoven field of - and + ?

[yor_on]

Sure, everything existing is about interactions.
=

and if you want to take interactions to its extreme, then it becomes information. Information is split into two definitions, useful information versus information that you can't use at all.

[Bored chemist]

Let us first define what you mean by charge?
Solitons?

To me , electrical  charge is useful energy generated by quantum interactions .

To scientists, it isn't.
I think that may be part of the problem here.
Now, do you think it's more likely that you will
(a) convince the scientific world to change their use of the word, and rewrite all the textbooks
or
(b) learn what the word means?

[Kryptid]

All things atomic contain electrical charge !

The Higgs field isn't atomic. If you had done the prerequisite research, you would know that.

I don't believe there is any science anywhere that says the Higgs is not - and + charge ?

I just gave you a link stating that the Higgs boson is neutral.

Why can't we view the field as an interwoven field of - and + ?

Because there is zero evidence for it.

You really need to try harder than this, Thebox.

[yor_on]

Energy isn't split that way though. Energy is just energy.

[yor_on]

Then again. That's another discussable. As far as experiments you won't find it, well, as I know. Theoretically (mathematically) it may exist. https://scitechdaily.com/quantum-vacuum-negative-energy-repulsive-gravity/
=

solitons actually makes this understandable in a weird way, because you could see a soliton as a flaw. A 'flawed'universe :)

[Tass (OP)]

Let us first define what you mean by charge?
Solitons?

To me , electrical  charge is useful energy generated by quantum interactions .

To scientists, it isn't.
I think that may be part of the problem here.
Now, do you think it's more likely that you will
(a) convince the scientific world to change their use of the word, and rewrite all the textbooks
or
(b) learn what the word means?

''Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when placed in an electromagnetic field. ''

Or as I said a useful energy that is generated by quantum interactions which means the same thing but on a more technical note explaining the quantum mechanics of fields actions and kE ,

I am sorry but the Wiki version is a shortfall and doesn't even explain what charge is .  Charge is a property of matter but useful charge is a generation .

Additionally I was asked what charge meant to me , not what does it say on Wiki  , I answered the question correctly .

[Bored chemist]

Additionally I was asked what charge meant to me , not what does it say on Wiki  , I answered the question correctly .

I didn't say you answered incorrectly.
I said that your view was unhelpful  and asked what you might do about that..

You seem to have forgotten to answer.
TheBox did that a lot.

[Tass (OP)]

Energy isn't split that way though. Energy is just energy.

Energy is a generalised term , I prefer the term useful energy  . We could say everything that exists is a form of energy but not all energy is useful , especially when dormant and there is no interactions going on .  Useful energy is generated by interactions , energy is not just energy .

[yor_on]

Hmm, Tass, the way you split information is quantum based. Entanglements f.ex contain no useful information, defined mainstream.  all 'energy' I know of will be useful, although depending on your situation relative it. In entropy they talk about the 'heat death' of the universe, a state where all energy is diluted to a same degree. That means that entropy can't do any useful work, even though 'energy still exist. Defining it from a quantum mechanical perspective you find HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) in where 'interactions' still spontaneously can exist.

[Tass (OP)]

Additionally I was asked what charge meant to me , not what does it say on Wiki  , I answered the question correctly .

I didn't say you answered incorrectly.
I said that your view was unhelpful  and asked what you might do about that..

You seem to have forgotten to answer.
TheBox did that a lot.

TheBox??

Forgotten or not got around to answering the question yet ?

You say my view is not helpful and ask what I am going to do ?

I'm going to do nothing , I didn't ask you or anybody else to accept what electrical charge means to me . I am not a dictator !

I may eventually write a new theory when I have asked more questions .

Matter emits a quantum field , when this field interacts with a magnetic field it generates electrical charge .  Useful energy is generated by quantum interactions and no offence, I'll keep my better understanding .   

[yor_on]

Heh, nothing wrong with having a conviction. You just need to prove it.

[Tass (OP)]

Hmm, Tass, the way you split information is quantum based. Entanglements f.ex contain no useful information, defined mainstream.  all 'energy' I know of will be useful, although depending on your situation relative it. In entropy they talk about the 'heat death' of the universe, a state where all energy is diluted to a same degree. That means that entropy can't do any useful work, even though 'energy still exist. Defining it from a quantum mechanical perspective you find HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) in where 'interactions' still spontaneously can exist.

Well luckily for us our universe is expanding so the probability of our universe having a heat death is very low as the heat is expanding as opposed to being contained in a sealed volume , being more dense .  As long as the expansion continues , the ''core'' should retain a constant density of energy and the density should be quite evenly stretched out over the universe . All energy has potential to be  useful energy but dormant energy has no use , we have to ''wake it up'' .

[yor_on]

There are some theories about it Tess. One states that its all comes down to 'null', the origin as well as the end. Using that a accelerated expanding universe doesn't matter. If you want to use another idea you need to introduce something more, as f.ex this expansion lifting in more 'energy' than originally assumed.

[yor_on]

But in the end nothing, except, an idea in where it never stops contradicts entropy. and the only reason it would is then that this inflation has no end. And that just means that there will be no (set) end state to this universe. In that case entropy won't be able to reach a (again 'set') equilibrium.
=

But mathematically I think you could get it to work anyway, as in a equation, using those parameters. the point is that suns burn out, no more flows of energy, it all dilutes into a equilibrium. If that equilibrium change with a infinite universe inflating it doesn't matter. There is no more work done, except quantum mechanically.
=

and from the aspect of it all becoming 'null' the scale you use doesn't matter. We define all scales observer dependently, as 'locally'. doing so they hold. My cm is your cm, my second is your second.That's how we get to a repeatable experiment. Ignoring accelerations for it. but 'globally' defined there is no golden standard for anything.

[Kryptid]

Well luckily for us our universe is expanding so the probability of our universe having a heat death is very low as the heat is expanding as opposed to being contained in a sealed volume

You don't seem to know what "heat death" means. It means that the Universe's entropy is increasing over time. As it approaches maximum entropy, less and less energy will be available to do work. Once no more work can be done, the Universe will be "dead".

[Bored chemist]

the probability of our universe having a heat death is very low

The probability of our universe having a heat death is practically 1.
We do not know of any mechanism by which it can escape that fate.

[evan_au]

the probability of our universe having a heat death is very low as the heat is expanding as opposed to being contained in a sealed volume

As the universe expands, its overall temperature decreases.
- Today's Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has an effective temperature of 2.7K
- Todays CMBR started out as black-body radiation at a temperature of around 3000K, so the temperature has reduced by a factor of around 1000
- We can expect that the temperature of the CMBR will continue to reduce towards absolute zero (0K)

There is no contradiction between "the temperature of the universe is declining towards 0K" and "the universe is heading towards a heat death".
- Here on Earth, we are huddled around the 5500K temperature of the Sun, well above the CMBR temperature. We use the temperature difference between the Sun and CMBR to produce useful energy
- But the Sun will not maintain this heat output forever - eventually it will shrink to a dwarf star, and put out much less heat
- The Sun may eventually be swallowed by the galactic black hole, and put out even less heat
- Sometimes "the heat death of the universe" is called "the big freeze"

Here on Earth, we can produce useful energy out of electrical charges in the wall socket. It has only really been in the last century that we have known how to do this on a large scale.
- The universe as a whole is (pretty) electrically neutral
- So there is not so much useful energy that can be produced by electricity
- For us on Earth, at the bottom of a gravitational well, we can't produce much useful energy from gravitational fields (it takes a lot of energy to put something into orbit).
- In the universe, most useful energy over long distances can be produced by heat, and is subject to red-shifting by the expanding universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Big_Freeze_or_heat_death
 

[yor_on]

There is one thing I can't get my head around though. Mathematically 'negative energy' seems to be a very useful concept, you need it, as without it the universe can't come out as 'null'. But in reality I don't know any experiments proving the concept. As far as I know energy is energy, and it acts the same. In a spontaneous pair particle creation f.ex the annihilation should be of the same type of energy released as always, adding up. Then I read Annas explanation in where she find that conservation of energy demands negative energy to exist, but I don't see how she reach that conclusion, unless she uses it purely mathematically.

Potential energy f.ex is defined to be 'positive'. In a collision it adds up. But potential energy depends on your frame of reference.which then leads me to the conclusion that depending on frame it changes and in reality you can either define is as all possibilities existing simultaneously, or none of them, until one frame of reference takes over, as in a collision. Gravitational potential energy though is defined as negative, no matter your definition of a equilibrium (as in being far away from it) ? One reason might be the direction of 'flow' of gravity, in a negative manner 'attracting'. The other is purely mathematical as I understands it, depending on how you define a equilibrium, as a spring uncompressed.

but I seem to miss out on how conservation of energy leads us to negative

" In almost all frames negative energy exists, in the sense of conservation of energy, for example between potential forms and kinetic forms. Look at the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, for example, as a consequence of conservation of energy. It is only in the special and general relativity where the concept of "negative energy" becomes problematic, when it ties up with the mass energy equivalence. Otherwise, negative energy means that, from conservation of energy, positive energy also exists in the system, because of the energy conservation law. "    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233016/how-likely-is-negative-energy-to-exist

as for the argument differing a negative mass from a negative energy, that's a totally different mass of snakes, especially if you're of the understanding that it all comes down to energy, in which case a negative mass transformed into energy now should act as this ideal negative mass.  "      as it would move in the opposite direction from its momentum and accelerate in the opposite direction of an applied force. It would also warp space time in the opposite way from ordinary matter meaning that it would warp space time in such a way that it will produce repulsive Gravity. "

' All these are results from the existence of negative mass, not negative energy, which exists in all classical systems.'
=

Looked at another way the expansion becomes a purely geometrical thing. In effect, it has no meaning for us, the forces and constants keeping us together and existing. Saw a argument in where it was coupled to proper mass, stating that with a lower matter density (matter spread out) this expansion should slow down, presuming no other 'forces' acting. Calling this conclusion 'intuitively correct'. Another thing I didn't get :) Why should it? Gravity acts in a 'negative manner'. It attracts so with a lower matter density the intuitive assumption for me would be the opposite, as gravity weakens depending on mass distribution the expansion rate accelerates, or, you can't and shouldn't connect those two at all.

and presuming that a accelerating expansion exist, connecting it to a Big Bang, it doesn't seem to connect at all, the matter density relative this expansion. If you assume that it all comes to 'null' it becomes a even stronger argument for it, because then, if we stop calling it matter distribution, instead defining it as a 'energy' distribution the amount of energy should be the same no matter the geometries involved. And that one you can see two ways, either assume that 'new energy' comes to be, keeping the geometry in a same 'energy density' equilibrium no matter how fast it expands, or that  this 'energy' becomes diluted (red shifted) with the geometry expanding. One of those is experimentally confirmed, namely the redshift, the other? It depends on how you define it I guess.

Then again, it depends on how seriously you define energy to be able to be 'negative'. If it exist a annihilation of a 'negative' particle colliding with a 'positive' should mean that there are no release of energy from them. They just 'disappear' from the universe's balance sheet, creating a deficit globally defined, assuming we define the universe as consisting of both. Does that make sense?

( I will assume that doing it shouldn't change a universe equilibrium though, as it steals equally from both sides of this 'number scale' ( negative--positive), letting the overall proportion and balance stay the same. But I think it should be noticeable as it happens.)

[Tass (OP)]

New theories ?  Can somebody explain why a mainstream question thread has been put into new theories ? 

I have made no new theory suggestions