- #1
Curious6
- 184
- 0
Is it really zero, as suggested by some scientists, or it is slightly more or less? Any papers published on this topic?
Blueplanetbob said:Simply put then, doesn't it just mean that that all the changing energies in the universe are in balance, giving a stable universe?
Chronos said:.
for a brief discussion: http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
.
nenorse said:I'm not a scientist - but this subject interests me. It seems to me that if the universe is infinite, then the total energy must be zero as
e=mc2
thererfore to work out the energy we can say
mc2
____________ = 0
infinity
As anything over infinity tends to 0 - what's my flaw here?
marcus said:Chronos this is a very good link. If you did not put it on the A&C Sticky thread (for handy references) already then I will
I have heard Alex Filippenko lecture---he is outstanding, with good slides clear explanations humor and verve----the co-author Jay Pasachoff is
a very successful textbook writer in general astro, with many books.
I was worried that we didnt seem to come to grips with this zero energy puzzle in Curious other thread (Closed Flat or Open?) where Curious asked it as a follow up question.
but now the question has been addressed.
BTW it is still not completely clear to me how the U does this. but it is gradually getting more clear
(I remember hearing Alex say this free lunch thing around 1990-1992
but still have difficulty picturing it)
Curious6 said:Is it really zero, as suggested by some scientists, or it is slightly more or less? Any papers published on this topic?
James S Saint said:he very definition of "energy" voids the possibility of "zero energy" (Hawkings is a media clown). In fact, you can't even have negative energy.
Haha.. surely, you aren't serious?nicksauce said:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html#ui
Notice the negative sign for gravitational potential energy...
Was that rhetorical?Nabeshin said:Casamir effect?
James S Saint said:I can't believe you guys are seriously arguing about this stuff. The very definition of "energy" voids the possibility of "zero energy" (Hawkings is a media clown). In fact, you can't even have negative energy. What would negative energy be? - "The ability to undo work?" Which would BE work, of course.
Credibility is subjective to you. Logic is the issue. Negative energy, required to obtain a "zero energy", is the same concept as "negative existence". Something either exists or it doesn't. There is no "negative" to existence other than an existence having reverse properties nominally declared "negative". But the reverse properties of energy, the ability to do work or make change, would not be merely the inability to do work or make change, but the ability to un-work and un-change. But un-working is working and un-changing is change, merely in a different direction at best and thus it is the same abstract concept. There is no "un-working" concept. You either cause change or you do not. There is no negative concept to change.WhoWee said:What is your credibility to make such a statement?
Antiphon said:Jimmy, you would love physics if you got to know it a bit better.
Negative energy particles are falling into black holes by the trillions that's the only way to pull mass out of them. And yes it uncauses the original matter to unexist an undo itself. Even a "clown" who hold's Newton's chair knows that.
Brett13 said:So I am only in high school and all of you are a lot smarter then I, But when we do total energy changes in chemistry..we sometimes end up with a negative energy value... maybe its a different type deal, but the law of conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, so how could there be "negative" energy. Maybe I shouldn't even be replying to this thread...haha... . ..
The total energy in the universe refers to the sum of all forms of energy, including matter, radiation, and dark energy, present in the entire known universe.
The total energy in the universe is calculated through various methods, such as measuring the gravitational effects of matter, analyzing the cosmic microwave background radiation, and studying the expansion rate of the universe.
The total energy in the universe is believed to remain constant, according to the law of conservation of energy. However, the distribution and form of energy may change over time due to various processes, such as the expansion of the universe and the conversion of matter into energy.
The understanding of the total energy in the universe is crucial in understanding the fundamental laws and processes governing the universe. It also helps in studying the evolution of the universe and predicting its future.
Currently, scientists can only estimate the total energy in the universe, as it is challenging to measure all forms of energy present in the vast expanse of the universe. However, advancements in technology and research continue to improve our understanding and measurement of the total energy in the universe.