Is Matter/Energy Eternal? Mechanisms for an Endless Universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Deepak K Kapur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether matter and energy can be eternal, exploring mechanisms for an endless universe. Participants examine the implications of conservation laws, the nature of time, and the beginnings of the universe, with references to theories and quotes from physicists like Lawrence Krauss.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the definition of "eternal," suggesting it implies something that does not require a beginning.
  • Others argue that while matter and energy are conserved, this does not necessarily mean they are eternal in the sense of existing without a beginning.
  • A participant proposes that matter and energy could transform into forms that are not defined as such, especially in scenarios involving cosmic events like a big crunch.
  • There are claims that conservation laws may not have existed in the same form at the beginning of the universe, suggesting a potential evolution of these laws over time.
  • Some assert that the concept of time began with the Big Bang, making discussions about "before" the Big Bang nonsensical.
  • It is noted that energy existed from the beginning of the universe, but questions arise about whether it is the same energy we observe today.
  • Participants express skepticism about speculative ideas regarding what existed before the Big Bang, emphasizing the need for empirical evidence.
  • One participant mentions that the conservation of mass and energy has always been maintained, while another challenges this assertion, suggesting a misunderstanding of the conservation laws.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of eternal matter and energy, with multiple competing views and ongoing debates about the implications of conservation laws and the definition of time.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying interpretations of "eternal," the dependence on definitions of time and conservation laws, and unresolved questions regarding the state of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe.

Deepak K Kapur
Messages
164
Reaction score
5
I was listening to Lawrence Krauss. I quote roughly what he said,

'Our universe had a beginning. But it is not required, though. It could well have been eternal.'

My question is,

Can matter/energy be eternal? If yes, has any mechanism been proposed for such an existence?
 
Space news on Phys.org
I am not sure what you mean by eternal, but matter and energy are conserved. This means that although they may change forms and states, the total energy and the total mass in the universe taking into accounts all forms and states of energy and matter, remains the same.

If by eternal you mean not to change form and states, for example if we have the human body, how can we make it not to change form and state and remain always young, then i simply don't know the answer.
 
When time goes to infinity, it is possible that matter and energy will turn into something which we do not define as energy nor matter anymore. For example what if another universe collided with ours, created a big crunch and changed all the laws of physics somehow? Just a random idea.

Matter is definitely not eternal since it can exit whatever state it has within the particle resulting into an increase of what we define as energy.
 
By eternal, i mean,

Something that does not require a beginning ( see lawrence's quote).
Something that always exists.
 
Deepak K Kapur said:
By eternal, i mean,

Something that does not require a beginning ( see lawrence's quote).
Something that always exists.

As far as I know the laws of physics were different in the beginning of the big bang. Thus it has a beginning. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Deepak K Kapur said:
I was listening to Lawrence Krauss. I quote roughly what he said,

'Our universe had a beginning. But it is not required, though. It could well have been eternal.'

My question is,

Can matter/energy be eternal? If yes, has any mechanism been proposed for such an existence?

As Delta2 has eluded to, you need to first figure out what "conservation laws" means. And then figure out if your idea of something being "eternal" matches the concept of these conserved qualities/quantities.

I strongly suggest, unless people want this thread to run into trouble with the Mentors, that we do not make speculation of what might happen on the outer edges of time.

Zz.
 
I am not asking for speculations. I just want to know if there is a well developed scientific model for eternal material existence?
 
Deepak K Kapur said:
I am not asking for speculations. I just want to know if there is a well developed scientific model for eternal material existence?

And you seemed to be ignoring the REST of my post regarding conservation rules. Can you explain why?

Zz.
 
It should be noted that "time" is currently understood to have started with the Big Bang. As such, the matter and energy in this universe is indeed eternal in that sense.
 
  • #10
@ZapperZ

Actually, i didnt want to argue with a person who has such a huge number of posts to his credit...

Since u have asked...

I think, conservation laws are 'relations' between already existing entities. So, they come somewhat later in the explanation of eternal existence.
 
  • #11
rumborak said:
It should be noted that "time" is currently understood to have started with the Big Bang. As such, the matter and energy in this universe is indeed eternal in that sense.

So, does it mean there was really 'Absolutely Nothing' prior to Big Bang...
 
  • #12
"Prior" is a something that presumes a time line. If you assume the correctness that time originated at the Big Bang (which might or might not be actually true), then the question "what was before Big Bang" is a nonsensical question.
 
  • #13
Deepak K Kapur said:
I think, conservation laws are 'relations' between already existing entities. So, they come somewhat later in the explanation of eternal existence.

What does that mean? What is this point that they come in "later"? Later than what? Later in what?

Are you saying that conservation of mass/energy didn't exist at some point in our universe, and then it appeared suddenly? The same with conservation of charge and momentum, etc?

Zz.
 
  • #14
ZapperZ said:
What does that mean? What is this point that they come in "later"? Later than what? Later in what?

Are you saying that conservation of mass/energy didn't exist at some point in our universe, and then it appeared suddenly? The same with conservation of charge and momentum, etc?

Zz.
I have read (may be wrongly) that mass, charge etc. originated some time after the big bang happened. If they can originate at a later time, it is possible that the laws that govern inter-relations between mass, charge etc. emerged even later.
 
  • #15
Matter indeed wasn't immediately there after the Big Bang, it came shortly after. But the energy that those particles came from (since particles can be created from energy, and vice versa) existed right from the beginning.
 
  • #16
rumborak said:
"Prior" is a something that presumes a time line. If you assume the correctness that time originated at the Big Bang (which might or might not be actually true), then the question "what was before Big Bang" is a nonsensical question.

But...we know only of our time. What if some other kind of time existed prior to bigbang.

If such is the case, i think, indeed 'eternal material existence' has some kind of different meaning to it.
 
  • #17
Deepak K Kapur said:
But...we know only of our time. What if some other kind of time existed prior to bigbang.

If such is the case, i think, indeed 'eternal material existence' has some kind of different meaning to it.

But that is pure speculation, there is no evidence for something like that. Keep in mind, Physics works off empirical evidence. The rest is metaphysics.
 
  • #18
rumborak said:
Matter indeed wasn't immediately there after the Big Bang, it came shortly after. But the energy that those particles came from (since particles can be created from energy, and vice versa) existed right from the beginning.
Is it known for sure that the energy that existed at the very first instant of big bang is the same energy we witness today?
 
  • #19
The energy conservation has never been seen to be violated.
 
  • #20
rumborak said:
It should be noted that "time" is currently understood to have started with the Big Bang. As such, the matter and energy in this universe is indeed eternal in that sense.

While time is how we relate to movement of space, saying that time began at the big bang means that the structure of space came to be at that point. That does not mean that whatever existed before the big bang could not change. Nor do I believe that energy can be defined without time or space. Thus according to OP's definition of eternal, energy is not eternal since it requires the beginning of space and time to fit its definition.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Deepak K Kapur said:
I have read (may be wrongly) that mass, charge etc. originated some time after the big bang happened. If they can originate at a later time, it is possible that the laws that govern inter-relations between mass, charge etc. emerged even later.

This is severely wrong. The conservation law here is mass+energy. That has always been maintained, along with other conservation laws.

Besides, you care about "eternity", aren't you? As of now, we have such conservation laws and into the future based on our current physics. Doesn't that already answer your question?

Somehow, I sense that this is hopeless and going nowhere. So I'm out!

Zz.
 
  • #22
Not even nothing is eternal.
The Big Bang put an end to that.
How could this happen if there was no time?
 
  • #23
One is mindful of that picture of the Pope kneeling in front of Stephen Hawking's chair. He, the Pope, said something along the lines of it was okay to model back to the big bang but please don't theorize on a time before that. The professor said later that he didn't let on that he and others had already given quite a lot of thought to just what preceded the Big Bang.
 
  • #24
Oly. The cosmologist really don't know. That's the best answer. All other suggestions are guess work at best and lying at worst.
 
  • #25
ZapperZ said:
Somehow, I sense that this is hopeless and going nowhere. So I'm out!

Indeed. Thread locked.
 

Similar threads

High School Questions regarding pre Big Bang
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad Methods for energy harvesting in expanding universe?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
High School Why doesn't cosmic inflation violate conservation of energy?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
High School Conflict between the conservation of matter and the rapid expansion of our universe
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
High School Dark Energy, Dark Matter and the Speed of Light
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Graduate Is Inflation Eternal Into the Past?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
High School Discussion on the source or cause of Dark Energy Dark Matter et al
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad No symmetries in the Universe at the Big Bang...?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
High School Does Roger Penrose's Big Bang cyclic-universe thing make sense?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad Is there a mechanism for creation of negative energy density
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K