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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sauwelios
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Recurrence
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of finite space, energy, and matter existing within an infinite time framework. It posits that the universe is not infinitely expansive but rather contains a finite amount of energy that persists over an infinite duration. Participants debate the implications of this theory, with one contributor noting that current measurements indicate the net energy of the universe is zero, along with other conserved quantities like charge and momentum. Another participant emphasizes that while energy is conserved, the universe's total energy must be considered as a whole rather than in net terms. The conversation also touches on the nature of reality, suggesting that conventional understandings of attributes like color and temperature are merely perceptions, with the underlying reality consisting of fundamental elements such as fields rather than atoms.
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
 
Physics 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.
 
Back
Top