Energy cannot be created. Then where did it all come from?

[ChrisVer]

Sort of; there is a speculative hypothesis that baby universes could be created at the centers of black holes, and that this would be what prevents an actual singularity from forming there (instead of disappearing, the matter and energy that would fall into the singularity goes into the baby universe). Our own universe, according to this speculation, could have been formed the same way, as a baby universe spawned from a black hole in some other universe.

If thhat is correct, then our universe should still have some cconnection to that "other" universe, and continuously be pumped with extra matter...
A way out would be the existence of wormholes, but we haven't seen anything like that in our universe, even though it's "allowed". Why there should be a wormhole that would be able to bring here our whole universe?

 

[OCR]

Why can't energy be created?

Thanks
Bill

Lol, Bill... You're not a Star Trek fan... ?

Sloppy posting on my part... I'll change the wording a bit.

Energy cannot be created. Then where did it all come from?

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/3/3f/Q_in_2364.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140811135410&path-prefix=en... energy can be created, and I created it ! !

Q created the Universe, Bill... I'm sure of it... well, kinda... ... lol

 

[Chronos]

If energy, space and time are emergent properties of the universe [as widely suspected], their spontaneous emergence would be difficult to categorize as anything less than a 'creation' event. Causal set theory is one approach to explore this possibility. Rafael Sorkin used it in the late 1980's to predict the existence and magnitude of dark energy, which was confirmed a decade later. A rather remarkable accomplishment by any standard, I would say.

 

[PeterDonis]

Why can't energy be created?

Energy can be created (in a spacetime without time translation symmetry), but stress-energy can't.

 

[PeterDonis]

If thhat is correct, then our universe should still have some cconnection to that "other" universe

In the simplest model, where the baby universe is spawned in place of the singularity at the center of an eternal black hole in the previous universe, yes, it should in principle be possible for matter from the previous universe to continue falling into the black hole forever (with respect to the previous universe--see below), and thereby coming through into our universe.

However, that does not mean the matter would continuously "appear" in our universe. From the standpoint of our universe, anything that falls into the black hole in the prior universe, no matter what time in the prior universe that happens, would appear in the Big Bang of our universe. "Time" is not the same in the two universes.

 

[Pebri]

As the second article Bandersnatch linked to says, it depends on how you define "energy" and how you define "conserved". These terms aren't as simple as you and the article you have linked to appear to believe.

I strongly recommend reading both of Bandersnatch's links, but the basic error the article you linked to makes is to assume that "gravitational potential energy" is a well-defined term for the universe as a whole. It isn't; it is only well-defined in a stationary spacetime, and the universe is not stationary because it is expanding. (The first article Bandersnatch linked to goes into this in some detail.) So the analogy the article makes between analyzing the orbits of satellites around the Earth, and analyzing the universe as a whole, is not really valid.

It turns out that, for a closed universe, you can finesse this point by coming up with a way to define "gravitational potential energy" that works similarly enough to the orbiting satellite scenario to make the analogy valid. However, note that I said "a closed universe"; the article you linked to says this too. According to our best current model, our actual universe is not closed, so this way out doesn't work.

Btw, I should emphasize that I am in sympathy with the desire of the writer of the article you linked to, to not give religious people an excuse to say that the Big Bang theory requires something to be created out of nothing. But there is a much simpler way of doing that, which the article doesn't mention: point out that the law of conservation of energy is really a local law, not a global law: it says that energy can't be created or destroyed in any small volume of spacetime. Our current theories obey this law: in General Relativity it shows up as an identity, the Bianchi identity, which is obeyed by the Einstein Field Equation.

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

 

[julcab12]

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274

"I'll say this: if the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn't expanding into anything; instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being "stretched", but the overall size of the universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe's size doesn't change, and therefore it doesn't expand into anything. If, on the other hand, the universe has a finite size, then it may be legitimate to claim that there is something "outside of the universe" that the universe is expanding into. However, because we are, by definition, stuck within the space that makes up our universe and have no way to observe anything outside of it, this ceases to be a question that can be answered scientifically. So the answer in that case is that we really don't know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into... Well. We have 2 "scenario" according to data. 1 is extremely flat and the other is (very) slightly curved -- sphere, Depending on the shape. It can be finite or infinite.

 

[PeterDonis]

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

There doesn't have to be anything for the universe to expand into. Our models of the expanding universe (including both those in which the universe is spatially infinite, and those in which the universe is spatially finite) are perfectly well-defined and self-consistent without having to include anything for the universe to expand into. And we don't have any observations that suggest there is anything for the universe to expand into. So the best answer we have right now is, there's nothing the universe is expanding into. It's simply a self-contained spacetime that happens to have "expansion" as one of its properties.

 

[Pebri]

Thankyou Peter, for your gracious response.

We appear to be trying to grasp what's inherently incomprehensible to our current thought processes.

Not for an instant do I pretend to understand what's going on, however I have come to feel that we are not seeing space as it really is and then interpreting it aright.

I believe that there is no such "thing" as matter in any form, anywhere, or that there ever was any.

So where to from here? I just don't know.

 

[EpicAll Rounder]

Quantum theory doesn't say this. When people talk about "quantum teleportation", they only mean "teleporting" a quantum state; no actual energy or matter is teleported.
I don't think physicists actually believe this; rather, they believe that GR, as a theory, must break down before the singularity at the center of the black hole is reached. The prevailing opinion seems to be that we will understand better what happens then when we have a workable theory of quantum gravity.
Sort of; there is a speculative hypothesis that baby universes could be created at the centers of black holes, and that this would be what prevents an actual singularity from forming there (instead of disappearing, the matter and energy that would fall into the singularity goes into the baby universe). Our own universe, according to this speculation, could have been formed the same way, as a baby universe spawned from a black hole in some other universe.

However, it is not really correct to call this a "break in spacetime"; spacetime itself would be continuous through the whole process. Nor is it really correct to call the baby universe "another dimension"; it would still be part of an overall 4-d spacetime that contained our universe and all the other universes that had been spawned. (It's perfectly possible for the universes to not be able to communicate with each other and still be part of a single overall 4-d spacetime; a 4-d spacetime can be very big and can have any number, even an infinite number, of causal boundaries.) Whether or not the laws of physics could change through the process depends on whose speculations you are looking at. In any case, all of this is purely speculative; we have no way of testing any of it now or in the foreseeable future.

You are completely correct. As you said, this is entirely speculative and I have no real proof of this theory, but it is something interesting to think about. Then again, with the amount of space the universe, and how it's enlarging, with the universe at googolplex metres across would make even the impossible certain as the amount of planets etc would reduce the possibility ratio down to such a level that it would become 1:1. (What a mouthful!) E.g. Pretend that a chance of having a planet EXACTLY as it is when you're reading this was 1:10000000*10, and each planet in the universe is worth one unit, if you had 1000000*10 planets, then it was impossible to not have an exact Earth out there; but of course we wouldn't live that long to know if there was or not because the sun would explode. :D So technically as time goes on and the universe grows, the possibility of having a black hole which has a big enough "hole" that can be entered and tested would be certain. Again, this is all extremely speculative, so this isn't necessarily "fact"

But, it's still really interesting to think about!
Thanks Peter for your contribution.

 

[bhobba]

We appear to be trying to grasp what's inherently incomprehensible to our current thought processes.

Its perfectly comprehensible but written in the language of math like a lot of things in physics.

Imagine a balloon expanding. You can describe the surface mathematically devoid of the model that spawned it. Its known as Riemannian geometry and fundamental to it is the thing called the metric - that changes with expansion. GR extends that to what is called Pseudo Riemannian geometry. Its the abstraction process found in math all the time.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I believe that there is no such "thing" as matter in any form, anywhere, or that there ever was any. So where to from here? I just don't know.

There are speculative conjectures along those lines eg matter is sort of a knot in space-time.

The thing is science has a very tough standard - namely correspondence with experiment. And on that basis they have led no-where.

Where to from here?

I suggest three books to start with:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471827223/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465075681/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465036678/?tag=pfamazon01-20

There are also video lectures:
http://theoreticalminimum.com/

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

Why is God not even considered? It is a bit closed minded to leave Him out totally. I don't see a reason it could not be God, and every reason for it to be God. Not to be a Christian trolling, just saying, there is no reason to exclude Him from academic and intelligent discussion. If God exists (which I believe He does), and we dance around Him, then we may get possibilities, and may never get an answer, or the truth. So why can't God, who is omnipotent create the universe. Why can't there be a super nature (supernatural) outside the universe instead of nothing? It does not mean it is, or contains God, it could contain "supernatural" particles, abstract objects, or things that can not exist in the natural world, supernatural does not have to have its normal connotations. Furthermore, why can't it be possible for that nature in itself to have a consciousness, like taking a derivative (except in the opposite direction, but not an integral since data would be added) of nature, and yielding a nature with consciousness (which does not have to be the case), if it does why is that not God, or why can it not contain God? Just saying, why do we not consider these things and exclude them simply discrediting people who believe in a God without giving them proper consideration. We can come up with scientific theories of how it could work, but it does not mean it is the truth (it does not mean they aren't either). If by nature we can't understand the creation of the universe, and we can not understand God, don't these two things fall into the same category of thought at times, and deserve consideration? I understand the majority of physics people are atheists and agnostics, but I don't see why a deity, or a super nature can not be considered.I don't mean to troll, I am just wondering why physisits can not consider a super - nature, or a God.

 

[bhobba]

Why is God not even considered?

We discuss science here - not theology.

Science is a process of test, hypothesise, test, hypothesise over and over. Its got nothing to do with God - or rather no one has ever been able to come up with a test, experiment, observation, whatever you want to call it that can decide the issue one way or the other.

Of course that in no way demeans the deep felt religious beliefs of some - its just not science.

Nor does it stop some scientists like Hawking and Dawkin's from speculation on such things - but its not science.

For what its worth I personally believe in the god of Spinoza as Einstein did - but that's just me and, to bemoan the point, its not science.

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

Thanks for the reply. I am not offended, but what I am saying is that if there is something science can not explain, then why try to explain it with science. If there is both theology, and science in the world, then why just go off science and not consider theology?

 

[bhobba]

Thanks for the reply. I am not offended, but what I am saying is that if there is something science can not explain, then why try to explain it with science. If there is both theology, and science in the world, then why just go off science and not consider theology?

In science one has hypothesis. If you explain those hypothesis it is always by others. There is always, and always will be things science can't explain by the very nature of science. So seeking ultimate answers in science is a chimera. Some find consolation in religion because of that - and I have no issue with it - two very good friends of my youth became Jesuit priests and I am only too well aware of their heart felt personal relation with God.

If you want to consider theology - be my guest - but here we discuss science so another forum would be more appropriate.

Still, since you are interested in such things you may wish to become acquainted with the deepest revelation of modern physics, and incorporate it in your world view:
http://www.pnas.org/content/93/25/14256.full

Its why I personally believe in the God of Spinoza.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Chronos]

Scientists prefer causal explanations over supernatural ones. A scientific model has more utility than an undefined set of magical rules. Science attempts to impose order on the universe in terms of rules with predictable consequences. God is not bound by rules, hence not a proper subject of investigation by science.

 

[cgreeley]

Thank you for the reply. Thats awesome! Glad to hear, I don't mean to argue or push too much, but I'm still not sure why scientists can't consider that which is outside of science to be the explanation of derivative science, and why hypothesis can't be based off of the premise that God, or something outside of science exists. I suppose my question is, if there is something outside of science that science can not explain, God or not, why ignore it, and explain that which is not explained by science with science, without making the determination as to weather or not something like the big bang can be explained by science? Why does science not take into consideration that which is not science? Or more simply, can science explain the big bang, does it, and are there other agents? For example, I could say there are just quantum fields, but that would be unscientific for me to assert that quantum fields can just exist.

 

[Pebri]

Why is God not even considered? It is a bit closed minded to leave Him out totally. I don't see a reason it could not be God, and every reason for it to be God. Not to be a Christian trolling, just saying, there is no reason to exclude Him from academic and intelligent discussion. If God exists (which I believe He does), and we dance around Him, then we may get possibilities, and may never get an answer, or the truth. So why can't God, who is omnipotent create the universe. Why can't there be a super nature (supernatural) outside the universe instead of nothing? It does not mean it is, or contains God, it could contain "supernatural" particles, abstract objects, or things that can not exist in the natural world, supernatural does not have to have its normal connotations. Furthermore, why can't it be possible for that nature in itself to have a consciousness, like taking a derivative (except in the opposite direction, but not an integral since data would be added) of nature, and yielding a nature with consciousness (which does not have to be the case), if it does why is that not God, or why can it not contain God? Just saying, why do we not consider these things and exclude them simply discrediting people who believe in a God without giving them proper consideration. We can come up with scientific theories of how it could work, but it does not mean it is the truth (it does not mean they aren't either). If by nature we can't understand the creation of the universe, and we can not understand God, don't these two things fall into the same category of thought at times, and deserve consideration? I understand the majority of physics people are atheists and agnostics, but I don't see why a deity, or a super nature can not be considered.I don't mean to troll, I am just wondering why physisits can not consider a super - nature, or a God.

Greetings cgreeley,

I understand your point of view and have long wondered why the scientific academics can't see what we see.

There is Physics, we know that well, but there is also Metaphysics, that is, that which is above physics.

I abhor religion as religion is just the rantings of those who don't really know but pretend they do for their own devious purposes.

I seek the truth and I believe the better physicists will eventually discern it and acknowledge the validity of what you say.

 

[bhobba]

Thank you for the reply. Thats awesome! Glad to hear, I don't mean to argue or push too much, but I'm still not sure why scientists can't consider that which is outside of science to be the explanation of derivative science, and why hypothesis can't be based off of the premise that God, or something outside of science exists.

They can.

The issue is does it have testable predictions. If not then its not really science.

Like I said before no one has been able to figure out how to test it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

Thank you both. I am just not sure if such things can be tested, at some point I think we have to go off of not knowing (as a Catholic who belies in an active God, I think it was God), and just test what we can, personally I am in doubt we can comprehend our universe, never the less what is outside it.

 

[bhobba]

can science explain the big bang, does it, and are there other agents? For example, I could say there are just quantum fields, but that would be unscientific for me to assert that quantum fields can just exist.

That assertion is not unscientific.

And we have explanations for the big bang and in principle they are testable - in fact measurements of the CBMR are now testing the inflation model.

God however is another matter. If you don't agree describe, definitively, how you would test for the existence of God?

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

I don't know if you can. Because God is outside of our understanding, and outside the universe, and supernatural, it very well be impossible to test especially with naturalistic tools and methods of thought, all we know is what He tells us, and all we can do is reason with what He tells us. If you prefer the Christian God, He also comes right out and commands that we shall not test Him, so He very well may make it impossible even if we found a way. To comment on the quantum field, even if scientist are able to replicate one, it does not mean it is the explination, for example, I can use the laws of physics to describe an event, or an event that lead to another event, and using the laws of physics I can replicate my theory, but it does not mean it is the truth. Similar to how I can write a computer program to do something using the laws of programming, but it does not mean it described a historical event, such as how a file got on my computer, it just means it is a possible explanation. I could find evidence that it is a historical event, but that does not mean it is either, for example, if I saw a note on a table, theorized it was my friend who left it there, saw them walking away, and thought it was them when it was actually someone else, my explanation seems logical, but is not the truth. Just because we find a method to make a universe with what we have in our universe, does not mean there were external factors in the initial creation of our universe. Like I said again, my point did not have to be God, though I think it was.

 

[bhobba]

I don't know if you can. Because God is outside of our understanding, and outside universe, and supernatural, it very well be impossible to test especially with naturalistic tools and methods of thought, all we know is what He tells us, and all we can do is reason with what He tells us.

That's why its not science.

But I do know for a fact some people have a very personal relationship with God, and we all, believers, non believers, people like Hawking and Dawkings, everyone, needs to be respectful of that.

That all knowledge is provisional, and we must respect others views because they may indeed be correct, is one of the deepest and most profound lessons of science.

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

That's why its not science.

But I do know for a fact some people have a very personal relationship with God, and we all, believers, non believers, people like Hawking and Dawkings, everyone, needs to be respectful of that.

That all knowledge is provisional, and we must respect others views because they may indeed be correct, is one of the deepest and most profound lessons of science.

Thanks
Bill

I am glad you see it that way :)

Its true, I am just saying, if non - science happened, or it is not outside the realm of possibility to theorize that non - science could have happened, why don't scientists take it into account, or measure what can be measured by science?

 

[bhobba]

I am glad you see it that way :)
Its true, I am just saying, if non - science happened, or it is logical the theorized that non - science could have happened, why don't scientists take it into account, or measure what can be measured by science?

Its a bit tautological. To cut it scientists usually just consider what the scientific method dictates.

Its why I get a chuckle about this evolution taught in schools thing and the too and fro about the issue. If either side was being 'scientific' they would show a bit more tolerence and have classes in evolution talk about why some believe in the hand of god and have religious instruction classes discuss its relation to what science tells us. But its pretty obvious there is more at work than mere education about the issue.

Thanks
Bill

 

[cgreeley]

Its a bit tautological. To cut it scientists usually just consider what the scientific method dictates.

Its why I get a chuckle about this evolution taught in schools thing and the too and fro about the issue. If either side was being 'scientific' they would show a bit more tolerence and have classes in evolution talk about why some believe in the hand of god and have religious instruction classes discuss its relation to what science tells us. But its pretty obvious there is more at work than mere education about the issue.

Thanks
Bill

I guess that is where we differ. I agree with you on evolution in the classrooms. Thanks for putting up with my non - physicistness (well first year student) :p :-)

 

[Chronos]

You are failing to see the line that divides science from superstition.

 

[PeterDonis]

if non - science happened, or it is not outside the realm of possibility to theorize that non - science could have happened, why don't scientists take it into account, or measure what can be measured by science?

It's not really a question of "taking it into account"; it's a question of what science can address vs. what it can't address. As bhobba said, science can only address questions that can be tested by experiment. It's perfectly possible that there are "real" things that can't be tested by experiment; if so, science cannot address those things. But "cannot address" means "cannot address"; there's no way to build such things into a scientific theory, because a scientific theory has to be testable by experiment. So there's no way for science to take into account things that cannot be tested by experiment. Individual scientists can, of course, in their personal beliefs; but science, as a field of study, cannot.

 

[russ_watters]

...if there is something science can not explain, then why try to explain it with science.

Because scientists don't know they can't explain it with science until they've exhausted all possible areas of investigation -- which is to say, they will never reach the point of having investigated and ruled out everything. And history is littered with examples of phenomena that were chalked up to religion or magic until science found the answers.

If there is both theology, and science in the world, then why just go off science and not consider theology?

Because scientists don't study theology and even if they did it wouldn't have any value for them in their investigations. So they leave that to the theologians. But again, when theologians have thought they knew something that science didn't, they've almost always been wrong (and science isn't finished yet...).

 

[Drakkith]

Why is God not even considered?

Which god? And how would we decide which god is the real explanation instead of another god?

 

[Chronos]

It's not about god, it's about science. We cannot experiment on god, so the point is moot. I have no objection to god, i kinda like the guy. But, that does not force god to submit to science.

 

[Ken G]

Still, since you are interested in such things you may wish to become acquainted with the deepest revelation of modern physics, and incorporate it in your world view:
http://www.pnas.org/content/93/25/14256.full

That's a pretty interesting article, thanks for posting it. I think one especially important point is whether we should regard the symmetry as what Gross calls the input ("beauty in") and the broken symmetries the output ("garbage out"), or the opposite. If I had to guess, I'd say that neither is right, because we might take a lesson from all the dualities we are encountering to imagine that when a symmetry at one energy scale is associated with the breaking of that symmetry at the opposite energy scale, we may find that symmetries and their breaking are dual to each other. By that I mean, a symmetry that is completely broken everywhere is indeed garbage, and a symmetry that is completely preserved everywhere is boring and ignorable, so physics rests in the duality between a symmetry and the ways it breaks. In other words, neither is beautiful or garbage, the beauty of a symmetry is that it is sometimes broken, but not always. Does that help us see why symmetries crop up so much lately? Possibly it is just the current way we are looking at things, I see it as a great advance but still not the final perspective-- especially since I doubt there is any final perspective. We might just be saying that at present, we are noticing that the laws of physics can be fruitfully regarded as a study of all the near symmetries, and all the ways they are constrained to break, which together condition reality to be not just an anarchy of randomness, but also not a lock-step march of endless repetition of nothing interesting, neither of which would allow the richness of us being here studying it.

 

[phyti]

The issue involves how science works, which has already been introduced. Science uses measurement for validation of theories.
In the case of something from nothing (before the big bang singularity, or any simiilar theory), there is literally nothing to measure. This is therefore outside the realm of science. Imagine asking science to determine how much love will a liter hold.

 

[Garth]

Why is God not even considered?

I understand the majority of physics people are atheists and agnostics, but I don't see why a deity, or a super nature can not be considered.I don't mean to troll, I am just wondering why physisits can not consider a super - nature, or a God.

If you have a phenomenon in science that you cannot explain and you are a religious person then you might say, "There is no scientific explanation because 'God did it.'"

The problem is that this is both bad science and bad theology.

It is bad science because you then give up seeking a scientific reason for the phenomena and if everybody took this view scientific progress would be halted.

It is bad theology because as soon as somebody else finds a scientific explanation for that phenomena it seems that your god has diminished, or even disappeared.
This 'god-of-the-gaps' (the god used to 'fill in' the gaps in scientific knowledge) is always in retreat from the advance of science. [Note I personally believe in the God of science, the author and guarantor of the laws of science, rather than the god of the gaps in science.]

Garth