Infinite universe and energy/matter boundaries

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of an infinite universe model versus a finite amount of energy and matter. Participants assert that assuming an infinite universe while positing finite energy contradicts fundamental principles of physics, particularly the laws of conservation of energy. They reference the inflation theory and the work of physicists like Phil Gibbs and John Baez, who debate the applicability of energy conservation in general relativity. The consensus indicates that while the universe appears flat and possibly infinite, definitive conclusions about its overall geometry remain elusive due to observational limitations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and its implications on energy conservation.
  • Familiarity with cosmological models, particularly the flat and infinite universe theories.
  • Knowledge of observational cosmology, including concepts like the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO).
  • Basic grasp of the inflation theory and its relevance to the universe's curvature.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "General Relativity and Energy Conservation" to understand the nuances of energy definitions in cosmology.
  • Explore "Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Data" to learn how it informs our understanding of the universe's geometry.
  • Investigate "Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO)" and their significance in measuring cosmic distances.
  • Study "Inflation Theory" to comprehend its role in the universe's expansion and curvature.
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, physics students, and anyone interested in the fundamental nature of the universe and its energy dynamics.

  • #31
Clayjay said:
Cosmology indicates there does not seem to be a finite amount of energy but instead, because of Dark Energy energy, an increasing energy

Increasing in the sense of its effect on spacetime (that it increases its expansion) or increasing in the sense that it is permanently increasing in "quantity" or value, inherently?

Thank you all for your answers! I think I must read more about topology.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
phinds said:
Sounds like you need to brush up on your knowledge of fundamental particles. The atom is not even close to being the smallest constituent of matter. It is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, of which only the electron is a fundamental particle. Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks.

The smallest practical is an atom in classical physics. A subatomic particle is considered a particle-wave. That is not a classical concept but the beginning of quantum mechanics. Context controls meaning. When is a particle not a particle - when it is a quantum particle. Duality is trademark quantum mechanics.

Sounds like you need to bush up or start leaning the formal rules of logic and meaning making as a separate field of study from science. Science is much more understandable when the foundation of science is understood. Science is a context before it has content that expresses knowing or understanding. Knowing the context of science greatly enhances understanding the content of science.

I think we view things from different vantage points but we share data points. Thanks for pointing out particle in a subatomic context. Partial is a term used in both contexts but the idea is different. Reality was solid in a classical way but in a quantum way reality hardly exist at all. The atom is .9999% empty - who knew :-)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
8K