Infinite universe and energy/matter boundaries

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of an infinite universe and its implications for energy and matter conservation. Participants argue that assuming an infinite universe contradicts the notion of finite energy and matter, as energy conservation laws may not apply on cosmological scales. The debate highlights the complexity of defining energy in general relativity, with differing opinions on whether energy conservation is valid in this context. Observational data suggest the universe is flat and possibly infinite, but the limitations of measuring beyond the observable universe complicate conclusions about its overall size. Ultimately, the conversation reflects ongoing uncertainties and differing interpretations within cosmology regarding the nature of the universe.
  • #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
1K
  • · 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
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K