the total energy in the universe in the universe is zero

[bishnu]

I found this article online and im too laztto summarize it, anyway ic ouldnt explain it better if i tried....
Today scientists are studying the problem of creation.
Science does not address the question of who created the
universe. Scientists have rules that they work by called
conservation laws. Some of these conservation laws are the
conservation of momentum, energy, and charge. Science
addresses the question of how the universe formed within
the framework of possibilities allowed by these laws.
According to current theory and experimental evidence these
conservation laws always hold true. In more precise
language, they are invariant with respect to time and
location.
The scientific principle of the conservation of
energy simply restates the old idea that something cannot
come from nothing. According to the accepted theory of
the big bang the universe sprang from nothing 15 billion
years ago. In 1973 the great contemporary scientific
thinker Edward P. Tryon demonstrated how the universe could
have formed without violating the principle of the
conservation of energy. He said that the total energy of
the universe is zero.
1
He said that the positive energy of the things we observe
is balanced by a negative gravitational energy. Therefore
the creation was formed without violating the principle of
the conservation of energy. Let's explore his idea. When
something falls it loses gravitational potential energy.
The relationship between potential energy and position, in
a force field, is given by equation #1.
(NOTE: In case your mailer does not line the text up like
mine does the following equations are only simple integrals.)

/
| -> ->
/\ PE = W = - | F . dr Eq #1
g | g
/


According to Tryon's theory if an object were to fall into
the universe from an infinite distance away the
gravitational potential energy the object lost would equal
the total mass energy of the object. This is stated
mathematically in equation #2:

/ rad of univ
2 | -> ->
mc = - | F . dr Eq #2
| g
/infinity

Assuming that the universe is spherical with an isotopic
mass distribution, the amount of gravitational potential an
object will lose upon falling to the edge of such a
universe is given by equation #3.



/ rad of univ
2 | 2
mc = -(G)(M)(m) | (1/r ) dr
|
/infinity


Given a radius of the universe is 15 billion light years
26
(1.42x10 meters) and the known gravitational constant G,
the mass of the universe may be determined.

53
M = 1.91 x 10 KG

If this is the mass of the universe then the total energy
of the universe is zero. To check this result the mass of
the universe was calculated from its density and volume.
The universe was considered to be a sphere. This sphere
has a radius of 15 billion light years and is filled
with matter of the same density as the density of space
in our galactic neighborhood. This "local" density is
equivalent to one proton of ordinary matter and nine
protons of "dark" matter per cubic meter.
3
Given that the volume of a sphere with a radius of 15
79 3
billion light years = 1.2 x 10 M

Please note that at one proton mass per cubic meter this
is also the number of protons in the universe. The mass
of the universe was derived from its volume and density in
equation #4.

3 3
M = ((1 proton/m )+(9 proton masses dark matter/m ))(vol)
Eq#4

The mass of the universe according to this second argument
is:

53
M = 2.00 x 10 KG

Amazingly the resultant masses agree even though they were
determined by two entirely different methods. This
agreement indicates that the universe has a total energy of
zero and that it formed without violating the principle of
the conservation of energy. There is something very
profound in what Edward Tryon said.

 

[bishnu]

srry the intergral signs got messed up....srry about the thread title too i need to learn to proof read

 

[The Archangel Aethariel]

Uh, I'm not really at all sure what you said, because it was written in such a confusing style, and the math was presented so poorly...

However, the universe cannot currently have a 'total of zero energy.' If this were the case, nothing would be doing anything, and heat would be uniform-- this is the 'heat death' that seems to follow from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As far as I know of, there is no such thing as negative energy-- an object either has energy (potential or kinetic), or it does not. Given that objects clearly have these kinds of energy, and that heat differences clearly exist, any claim that the universe has a 'total of zero energy' is just nonsensical.

Unless I'm overlooking some Enlightened and Sublime Principle of Physics, which is hidden from my undergraduate eyes...although at the moment, I'm doubting it.

~AA

 

[Shimmerstar]

Perhaps something didnt have to come from nothing in the first place, because something was always there

 

[lucaspa]

Uh, I'm not really at all sure what you said, because it was written in such a confusing style, and the math was presented so poorly...

However, the universe cannot currently have a 'total of zero energy.' If this were the case, nothing would be doing anything, and heat would be uniform-- this is the 'heat death' that seems to follow from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

yes, the total or net energy of the universe is zero. It's divided into positive and negative energy. Add those together and the energy is zero. Those in turn are divided such that there is energy available to do work and energy that is not available to do work. And it is energy in the form available to do work that lets things happen.

As far as I know of, there is no such thing as negative energy-- an object either has energy (potential or kinetic), or it does not.

Gravity has one action while the cosmological repulsive force has another. These are two types of energy that work against one another. That is part of your "positive" and "negative" energy.

Here is the part of the post you missed
"He said that the positive energy of the things we observe
is balanced by a negative gravitational energy. Therefore
the creation was formed without violating the principle of
the conservation of energy. Let's explore his idea. When
something falls it loses gravitational potential energy."

Matter is positive energy, the attraction of them in gravity is negative. It's good that you qualified it as "as far as I know".

 

[lucaspa]

Perhaps something didnt have to come from nothing in the first place, because something was always there

Possible.

Equally possible that the universe did come from nothing.

Until we get more data, we can't know which of these possibles actually happened.

 

[The Archangel Aethariel]

Well, there are some things I don't know

~AA

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Zero is not nothing, neither is a vacuum. BOth have properties that make the "something" . A more appropiate term would be 'void". The universe was spawned from some kind of void - of which we are pretty well ignorant. But it had to have some kind of properties which would allow the universe to come into existance.

Nothingness, absoulute nothingness, cannot exist. I guess you could say Nothing is Impossible.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, there are some things I don't know

~AA

LOL! Join the club! Fortunately, there are sources to correct our ignorance.

 

[lucaspa]

Zero is not nothing, neither is a vacuum. BOth have properties that make the "something" . A more appropiate term would be 'void". The universe was spawned from some kind of void - of which we are pretty well ignorant. But it had to have some kind of properties which would allow the universe to come into existance.

Nothingness, absoulute nothingness, cannot exist. I guess you could say Nothing is Impossible.

I question that last statement. What we call "something" is the universe. It is matter/energy and spacetime. Yet prior to the Big Bang, there was no matter/energy, which is pretty easy to understand. But there was also no spacetime. All of our ideas that "nothingness cannot exist" seems to revolve around our inability to imagine a lack of spacetime. Particularly space. Even in your post the word "void" conjures some type of space. An empty 3D space, but still space. But the data says that is not so.

I dislike claims without data. And the last two sentences are claims without data. They may seem logical to us, but logic alone doesn't cut it.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I question that last statement. What we call "something" is the universe.

I don't agree with that. There very well could be something "beyond" the observable universe. Of course, by this definition, that something is unobservable.

It is matter/energy and spacetime. Yet prior to the Big Bang, there was no matter/energy, which is pretty easy to understand. But there was also no spacetime.

Agreed

All of our ideas that "nothingness cannot exist" seems to revolve around our inability to imagine a lack of spacetime. Particularly space.

Agreed. A limitation of the human mind.

Even in your post the word "void" conjures some type of space. An empty 3D space, but still space.

Lack of a better word.

But the data says that is not so.
Agreed. Whatever is "beyond" the observable universe is uncharted and perhaps even unimaginable.


I dislike claims without data. And the last two sentences are claims without data. They may seem logical to us, but logic alone doesn't cut it

I am not ususally a fan of specualtion either. But this topic has a certain appeal to me. Inspite of a lack of data

 

[bishnu]

what the article says is the rest energy of an object(e=mc^2) is equal to its gravitional pe(which is negative). It then gives mathmatical proofs of this. It then shows the mass of the universe is equal to the gravitional pe inside of it.