Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By KJW
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Farsight
  • 1 Post By Jilan

Thread: My universal theory

  1. #1 My universal theory 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1
    I have recently, after attending a BBC show on the topic of the universe, comprised my own theory on the origins and, perhaps, the future of the universe. Please bear in mind that I have barely started my a levels, so there is potential for my theory to be highly flawed. Here it goes:
    I believe that our universe is first of all not infinite. For it to be infinite, it would need an infinite amount of energy. However, if there is to be an infinite amount of energy, an infinite amount of energy would need to be created, which breaks the laws of physics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed). Therefore, the universe cannot be infinite. This leads me on to the origins of the universe. Since energy cannot be created, there will always be the exact same amount of energy in the universe. This means that there could not have been "nothing" before the universe. So instead of there being nothing before the universe, what was there? I believe that the universe has always been here. (This is where my theory might get a little farfetched). After the Big Bang, the universe expands. This expansion must use energy, as it is effectively the growth of the universe. But, because there is only a limited amount of energy, there will not be enough energy for the universe to expand beyond a certain point. This will cause the universe to collapse in on itself. The resulting collapse will potentially compress all energy into a single, tiny area. This massive amount of energy could (if at all possible) create a wormhole, which could potentially "reset" time. Since for there to be existence there has to be time, this would mean that there has always been, and always will be time. This would mean that the universe never really "began" as such, but begins after every cycle of this expansion and collapse. This would also mean that time itself will never end, only start from the beginning an infinite number of times.

    Thank you for taking an interest in this. I understand that there are probably a fair few things in this that I have left unexplained. Please give your opinions on my theory so that I can maybe fine-tune it for it to comply completely to the laws of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Moony - Welcome to the forum.

    This sub forum is not the right one to post your theory. Those go in Personal Theories and Alternative Hypothesis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Moderator Note: Moved
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Moony View Post
    I believe that our universe is first of all not infinite. For it to be infinite, it would need an infinite amount of energy. However, if there is to be an infinite amount of energy, an infinite amount of energy would need to be created, which breaks the laws of physics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed). Therefore, the universe cannot be infinite.
    This reasoning is flawed. You are attempting to use the law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed to distinguish between a finite and infinite universe. Even if there is only a finite amount of energy, this finite amount of energy would still need to be created and therefore would still break the law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. In other words, the law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed does not distinguish between a finite and infinite universe.
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37
    Look up Steinhardt and Turok's theory of the origin of the universe. I think you'd enjoy it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Moony
    I believe that our universe is first of all not infinite. For it to be infinite, it would need an infinite amount of energy. However, if there is to be an infinite amount of energy, an infinite amount of energy would need to be created, which breaks the laws of physics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed). Therefore, the universe cannot be infinite. This leads me on to the origins of the universe. Since energy cannot be created, there will always be the exact same amount of energy in the universe. This means that there could not have been "nothing" before the universe. So instead of there being nothing before the universe, what was there? I believe that the universe has always been here. (This is where my theory might get a little farfetched).
    You're not taking into account the energy contribution from gravity which is negative. That means that an infinite universe can have a finite mass. In the second part you're assuming that the universe has non-zero energy contrary to the zero-energy universe hypothesis which states the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. See Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Moony
    After the Big Bang, the universe expands. This expansion must use energy, as it is effectively the growth of the universe. But, because there is only a limited amount of energy, there will not be enough energy for the universe to expand beyond a certain point. This will cause the universe to collapse in on itself.
    Where did you get such ideas from? Have you ever heard of escape velocity? If you through a stone fast enough from the surface of a planet it will escape the planets gravitational field to infinity. In real life there is something called dark energy which accelerates that action by causing all galaxies to accelerate away from each other, kind of like repulsive gravity or antigravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Moony View Post
    I have recently, after attending a BBC show on the topic of the universe, comprised my own theory on the origins and, perhaps, the future of the universe. Please bear in mind that I have barely started my a levels, so there is potential for my theory to be highly flawed. Here it goes:
    I believe that our universe is first of all not infinite. For it to be infinite, it would need an infinite amount of energy. However, if there is to be an infinite amount of energy, an infinite amount of energy would need to be created, which breaks the laws of physics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed). Therefore, the universe cannot be infinite. This leads me on to the origins of the universe. Since energy cannot be created, there will always be the exact same amount of energy in the universe. This means that there could not have been "nothing" before the universe. So instead of there being nothing before the universe, what was there? I believe that the universe has always been here. (This is where my theory might get a little farfetched). After the Big Bang, the universe expands. This expansion must use energy, as it is effectively the growth of the universe. But, because there is only a limited amount of energy, there will not be enough energy for the universe to expand beyond a certain point. This will cause the universe to collapse in on itself. The resulting collapse will potentially compress all energy into a single, tiny area. This massive amount of energy could (if at all possible) create a wormhole, which could potentially "reset" time. Since for there to be existence there has to be time, this would mean that there has always been, and always will be time. This would mean that the universe never really "began" as such, but begins after every cycle of this expansion and collapse. This would also mean that time itself will never end, only start from the beginning an infinite number of times.

    Thank you for taking an interest in this. I understand that there are probably a fair few things in this that I have left unexplained. Please give your opinions on my theory so that I can maybe fine-tune it for it to comply completely to the laws of physics.
    The law of energy conservation applies only to limited scale, does not apply at the scale of the universe. Therefore, you reasoning, is flawed making your theory DOA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    The law of energy conservation applies only to limited scale, does not apply at the scale of the universe. Therefore, you reasoning, is flawed making your theory DOA.
    How so? Where does scale come into it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    How so? Where does scale come into it?
    See Noether's (first) theorem. Energy conservation relies on temporal invariance (temporal symmetry). There isn't a way to evaluate temporal symmetry when the "accounting" spans such a large volume that such symmetry doesn't hold (or you can't tell). That's why, e.g., redshift does not imply a failure of energy conservation. The source and receiver are in two different frames, and there is no one frame that exists to resolve the issue. Energy conservation is thus a local law.

    There's a highly accessible discussion here: Is the Universe Leaking Energy? - Scientific American

    And a more accessible one, in a practical sense, here: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/downloa...iAm_Energy.pdf
    x0x likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    tk421, I was aware that energy is a frame dependent concept. I've never heard of it being scale dependent though. Would that not imply a lack of gauge invariance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist View Post
    You're not taking into account the energy contribution from gravity which is negative. That means that an infinite universe can have a finite mass. In the second part you're assuming that the universe has non-zero energy contrary to the zero-energy universe hypothesis which states the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. See Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I'm sorry Physicist, but this zero-energy universe idea is wrong. Gravitational field energy is positive, not negative. On page 185 of the Doc 30 Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity you can read Einstein saying this: "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". Whilst we ought to talk of systems, it's simpler to talk about one body: when you drop a 1kg brick, some of its mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy, which is radiated away after impact. The brick's mass is then reduced, and it now has a mass deficit. But conservation of energy applies. Energy has not been destroyed. It isn't a zero-sum game.

    Moony: I think you idea is pretty good, but I don't share your view about the universe collapsing back in on itself.

    Jilan: energy exists. Matter is made of it. A frame is just an abstract thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I'm sorry Physicist, but this zero-energy universe idea is wrong. Gravitational field energy is positive, not negative. On page 185 of the Doc 30 Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity you can read Einstein saying this: "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". Whilst we ought to talk of systems, it's simpler to talk about one body: when you drop a 1kg brick, some of its mass-energy is converted into kinetic energy, which is radiated away after impact. The brick's mass is then reduced, and it now has a mass deficit. But conservation of energy applies. Energy has not been destroyed. It isn't a zero-sum game.

    Moony: I think you idea is pretty good, but I don't share your view about the universe collapsing back in on itself.

    Jilan: energy exists. Matter is made of it. A frame is just an abstract thing.
    Farsight you don't believe negative ennergy exist. Why? I think this was mostly accepted nowadays. It also explained hawking radiation which is something real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    tk421, I was aware that energy is a frame dependent concept. I've never heard of it being scale dependent though.
    This is not what we've tried to teach you. We've tried to teach you that energy CONSERVATION is scale dependent. Get the difference?


    Would that not imply a lack of gauge invariance?
    Please stop throwing around terms that you clearly do not understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv View Post
    Farsight you don't believe negative energy exist. Why?
    Because everything that exists is made of energy, and it's always positive.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv
    I think this was mostly accepted nowadays.
    Negative energy is accepted in that people talk about binding energy as negative energy. But the objects that are bound consist of positive energy. There's just less of it. It's something like length. We can talk about a lesser length, and we're comfortable with the idea of -2m. But there isn't anything that actually exists with a length less than 0m.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv
    It also explained hawking radiation which is something real.
    Nobody has ever seen Hawking radiation. It remains hypothetical, after forty years. The "given" explanation for it, where a negative-energy particle falls into the black hole is badly flawed. There are no negative-energy particles.

    Jilan: energy isn't just some frame-dependent concept. You can actually make matter out of it. Matter exists, energy exists, in a very real sense. What doesn't exist in any real sense, is a frame. You cannot point up to the clear night sky and say "there's a reference frame". It's little more than your state of motion.
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Jilan: energy isn't just some frame-dependent concept. You can actually make matter out of it. Matter exists, energy exists, in a very real sense. What doesn't exist in any real sense, is a frame. You cannot point up to the clear night sky and say "there's a reference frame". It's little more than your state of motion.
    I agree that matter exists, but it defines it's own rest frame. Other forms of energy seem to a function of the state of the oberver e.g kinetic energy, photon energy etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    This is not what we've tried to teach you. We've tried to teach you that energy CONSERVATION is scale dependent. Get the difference?

    Please stop throwing around terms that you clearly do not understand.
    Do you believe that the laws of Physics should be gauge invariant? If so energy conservation should hold regardless of scale. I don't say this lightly as lots of people over many years have gone to much trouble to ensure our formulations are gauge invariant. If it all goes out of the window at cosmological scales that's well and good, but our physical laws would need to change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    I agree that matter exists, but it defines it's own rest frame. Other forms of energy seem to a function of the state of the observer e.g kinetic energy, photon energy etc.
    They seem to. If you accelerate towards a photon its E=hf energy appears to have increased. But it didn't change. Instead you did. Because you moved. It's the same for a cannonball just sitting there in space. If you accelerate towards it such that you're moving at 1000mph, it appears to acquired some kinetic energy. But what actually happened, is that you changed your state of motion relative to it. Note how it always comes back to motion?

    See Compton scattering. You can partially convert a photon into the motion of an electron. You could then do another Compton scatter on the residual photon, and repeat ad infinitum. In the limit the photon has been entirely converted into the motion of electrons. Into kinetic energy. But you could also put that photon through pair production and turn it into an electron (and a positron). In a sense, electrons are made out of kinetic energy. Or motion. How cool is that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    Do you believe that the laws of Physics should be gauge invariant? If so energy conservation should hold regardless of scale.
    But it doesn't, as explained to you by both me and tk421.

    I don't say this lightly as lots of people over many years have gone to much trouble to ensure our formulations are gauge invariant. If it all goes out of the window at cosmological scales that's well and good, but our physical laws would need to change.
    Give it a rest, you really don't know what you are talking about. The Laws of physics don't need to change, your understanding of the conditions for their covariance needs to. But for that , you need to start learning rather than making wild assertions. Noether's theorems would be a good place to start. Or you can continue "learning" from your buddy, Dudffield.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    They seem to. If you accelerate towards a photon its E=hf energy appears to have increased. But it didn't change. Instead you did. Because you moved. It's the same for a cannonball just sitting there in space. If you accelerate towards it such that you're moving at 1000mph, it appears to acquired some kinetic energy. But what actually happened, is that you changed your state of motion relative to it. Note how it always comes back to motion?

    See Compton scattering. You can partially convert a photon into the motion of an electron. You could then do another Compton scatter on the residual photon, and repeat ad infinitum. In the limit the photon has been entirely converted into the motion of electrons. Into kinetic energy. But you could also put that photon through pair production and turn it into an electron (and a positron). In a sense, electrons are made out of kinetic energy. Or motion. How cool is that?
    Yes it's very cool indeed. But if by virtue of my motion I can observe events that you never can, where does that leave relativity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    But it doesn't, as explained to you by both me and tk421.

    Give it a rest, you really don't know what you are talking about. The Laws of physics don't need to change, your understanding of the conditions for their covariance needs to. But for that , you need to start learning rather than making wild assertions. Noether's theorems would be a good place to start. Or you can continue "learning" from your buddy, Dudffield.
    You didn't explain anything, you made a statement and tk421 referenced an article, which also explained nothing. I am well acquainted with Noether's theorum,and appreciate all the symmetries that underpin our descriptions of the world. If energy is not conserved on a large scale I would be interested to learn how the symmetry is broken. Do you know?
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    Yes it's very cool indeed. But if by virtue of my motion I can observe events that you never can, where does that leave relativity?
    It doesn't matter who sees them. Events either happen, or they don't. Relativity is just fine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #20 post.

    "HUZZAH" for Jilan!


    Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    It doesn't matter who sees them. Events either happen, or they don't. Relativity is just fine.
    Farsight the situation you were describing in #17 would suggest that in one reference frame there would be sufficient energy to create particles, but in another there may not be. That is what I meant by the statement that I might be able to observe events that you couldn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    You didn't explain anything, you made a statement and tk421 referenced an article, which also explained nothing. I am well acquainted with Noether's theorum,and appreciate all the symmetries that underpin our descriptions of the world. If energy is not conserved on a large scale I would be interested to learn how the symmetry is broken. Do you know?
    The article explains the situation very well, in my opinion, so I suggest that you reread it carefully. The piece that you seem to keep missing is precisely what the entire article is about: There is no single frame that contains the source and receiver, when considering the scale of the universe. You've already acknowledged that energy is a frame-dependent quantity. So, how can you perform the accounting, when there is no single frame within which to perform the accounting?

    Your misapprehensions about what covariance means should disappear once you appreciate Dr. Davis' article in more profound detail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to FarSight, re: your #17 post.

    Consider this...photon/electron energy states are at their maximum threshold at all times. They cannot "take in" more energy than they would have at a rest-state. If so, then it follows the

    energy is always present within the particle. The conclusion of this? The "energy" is a separate entity, a continuum of potential. The potential of energy is made manifest by the actions

    of matter and mass...matter "enables" the potential of energy to become manifest. <(this seems to explain many confusing issues)


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Tk421, I had another look at the article (which I had already read pretty carefully) and noticed the Editors Key Concepts on the first page which don't tie up with what you are reading into it. Have they got the wrong end of the stick, or did you not read it to the end?

    http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/downloa...iAm_Energy.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #27  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #26 et al. post.

    Stand your ground, "J". I read the article also, but I'm uncertain what the implications are! "Energy lost over time/distance?" NO...I wouldn't buy this for a "ha'pence" if they are still floating

    about! Energy cannot be "lost" or be made "used up", no matter the circumstance. (no matter how "weak" a wave-function may seem...it is still "there")

    Attenuation is not "loss", it is attenuation...following the dictates of Relativity.


    (Thanks for reading!) later!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #28  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    Farsight the situation you were describing in #17 would suggest that in one reference frame there would be sufficient energy to create particles, but in another there may not be. That is what I meant by the statement that I might be able to observe events that you couldn't.
    There's either enough energy to create the particles or there isn't. Note that energy is real, and particles are real, but reference frames aren't. I can say there, that's an electron. It exists. Matter is made of it and other things like it. Try doing the same for a reference frame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •