Jong: "Eternal Recurrence Theory: Debunking the Infinite Universe Hypothesis

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sauwelios
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Recurrence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of finite space, energy, and matter in relation to the infinite time theory, exploring implications for the nature of the universe. Participants engage in a debate about the conservation of energy and other physical quantities, as well as the philosophical implications of these ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical exploration

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the universe consists of a finite amount of energy that flows in an infinite stream, suggesting a model of the universe that is finite in space but infinite in time.
  • Others argue that measurements indicate the net energy of the universe is zero, along with other conserved quantities such as charge and momentum.
  • A participant questions whether the discussion belongs in the realm of physics or philosophy, indicating a potential divide in the interpretation of the topic.
  • There is a challenge regarding the definition of volume, with a participant noting that it is not a conserved value.
  • Some participants discuss the nature of reality, suggesting that conventional understandings of properties like sweetness or bitterness do not reflect the underlying atomic or field-based reality.
  • One participant expresses a distinction between "net" energy and the total energy of the universe, indicating a nuanced view on the topic of energy conservation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of energy in the universe, with some asserting that the net energy is zero while others challenge this perspective by discussing the total energy concept. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made regarding energy conservation and the definitions of physical quantities, which are not fully explored in the discussion.

Sauwelios
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Lectori salutem.

Can anyone refute the finite space/energy/matter in infinite time theory?

Finite space/energy/matter implies that the universe is not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force.

Infinite time implies that it has never begun to become and will never cease from passing away.

This means that the universe consist of a finite amount of energy (in whatever manifestation) that flows on in an infinite stream - not infinitely deep or wide, but infinitely long.

Thanks in advance!

Sauw
 
Space news on Phys.org
You should probably post this on the Philosophy board.
 
And why is that - is it beyond the grasp of physics?
 
Originally posted by Sauwelios

This means that the universe consist of a finite amount of energy (in whatever manifestation) that flows on in an infinite stream - not infinitely deep or wide, but infinitely long.


Sauw

So far all measurements show that net energy of universe is zero. Same for all other conserved values (charge, momentum, etc).
 


Originally posted by Alexander
So far all measurements show that net energy of universe is zero. Same for all other conserved values (charge, momentum, etc).

Volume?
 
Volume is not a conserved value.
 


Originally posted by Eh
By convention there is sweet, by convention there is bitter, by convention hot and cold, by convention colour; but in reality there are only atoms and space.


Actually not even atoms.
 
Oh, conserved. My bad.
 


Originally posted by Alexander
Actually not even atoms.

Fields only then? Well, it was a pretty close guess, considering it was made thousands of years ago.
 
  • #10


Originally posted by Alexander
So far all measurements show that net energy of universe is zero. Same for all other conserved values (charge, momentum, etc).


I am not interested in "net" energy. Of course the net energy is zero: otherwise it should have a positive or negative charge in relation to something else. But I am talking about the whole universe.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
58
Views
14K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
12K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
26K