Assuming that mass and energy are completely interchangeable inferred by mc^2, is the total energy (i.e. sum of energies of normal matter plus dark matter plus dark energy) today in our visible Universe (EVU) larger, smaller or the exact same value as the energy released at the BB (EBB)?
Case study related questions:
**1. EVU > EBB (Big RIP end?)**
a. Does this mean that energy is constantly added (i.e. Dark Energy?) in our VU and if yes what are the sources?
b. Does this infer that empty space was there before the BB which filled it with energy during inflation and that the BB does not created empty space but rather filled it with energy?
c. Does the above inequality disprove the current BB theory in some way?
d. Assuming above assumption (b) holds, can it be that the BB was a phase transition of our vacuum space (i.e. Higgs field?) which could imply that vacuum space is a kind of exotic superfluid medium (e.g. SVT theories) and an unknown matter-energy phase?
e. If (d)&(a) above assumptions hold, could this vacuum space phase transition be still ongoing today and be the main source for the dark energy and responsible for the accelerating expansion effect of our visible Universe?
h. Are there measurements or theoretical predictions?
**2. EVU < EBB (Big Crunch end?)**
a. Does this mean our VU is loosing energy? and if yes where does this energy go out?
b. Are there measurements or theoretical predictions?
**3. EVU = EBB** (has no end? Although that does not mean that it can support life forever)
a. Our VU is in a state of energy equilibrium since the BB and all its changing space-time characteristics (i.e. expansion of space) are merely due normal energy-mass transformations with the total energy however remaining at a fixed value?
b. If (a) above is correct then would that mean that our VU is an isolated closed-system?
c. Are there measurements or theoretical predictions?
in the formula e = mc^2, m is the rest mass. so i never understood how one can equate the energy of a particle of rest mass zero with the restmass m in the formula above.
You are correct depends on the frame of reference.
Nevertheless, by E=mc^2 I meant to emphasize the principle of conservation of energy in a closed-system. If the energy of our visible universe EVU today is bigger than the energy relaeased at the Big Bang, EBB, then that would that our visible universe is not a closed-system and energy is added from outside or from within, vacuum energy.
The STOE suggests that because the measured CMB temperature is slightly greater than 2.718 K and may be declining toward 2.718 K, the total sum of energy in our universe is declining. I note the current accepted models suggest entropy is increasing, but it nearly equal in general suggesting the entropy is a poor indicator.
see
Scalar Theory of Everything STOE unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model, IntellectualArchive, v. 9 (4),P. 14. http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414
or, video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU&t=1944s
Hello Emmanouil:
This is a great question. Actual balance may occur between symmetry and energy somehow!!
Sincerely,
Rajan Iyer
ENGINEERINGINC INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONAL TEKNET EARTH GLOBAL
Thanks Rajan.
John,
Very interesting video!
Congratulations!
I am humbled of what is obviously your life research work. This is tremendous work. I was astonished by your explanation at the very end of the video of how gravity is generated out from a magnetic dipole.
Also your single opaque mask slit followed with glass mask slit and a large nail in between was of extraordinary conception and ingenuity from you.
The size of the Universe is directly proportional to the mass(energy) it contains. This is the reason for the redshift. This increase is extracted from the surrounding "media".
JES
It is a misleading question, because thee size of "our visible Universe" is constantly growing, apart from the general expansion of the Universe.
Emmanouil Markoulakis > "Has the total sum of energy in our visible Universe increased since the Big Bang"?
This is not a scientific question, because it presupposes a mysterious origin and more or less presumed deterministic manifestation of an universe limited in extension and time. This can at best be a question of futile and endless scholasticism or Kant's antinomies. The claims of “proofs” of such a “Big Bang” origin are based on contrived and deceptive “experimental evidence”, inspired and lured by the promise of fame, fortune and funds. After many Nobel Awarded “proofs” over more a century (and still counting) this question of Big Bang origin remains where it was when the Belgian priest Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître proposed such a creation of the universe by God.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf
A materialist dialectical approach considers the universe to be infinite, eternal and ever-changing; hence the laws and the theories of the universe conceived by official physics, including the laws of conservation (of mass and energy) are invalid, in the final analysis, in an infinite universe!
Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...
The quantum phenomena that pervade the workings of the universe from the microcosm to the macrocosm and ALL positive knowledge gained so far by modern physics are in conformity with a materialist dialectical view of the universe and against Big Bang creation.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_You_Certain_Mr_Heisenberg
And most of all, the dream of idealist philosophy to know the absolute truth of the universe and now foolishly pursued by modern theoretical physics since Albert Einstein, in the form of a “theory of everything” is as nonsensical as that of idealist philosophy:
“The perception that all the phenomena of Nature are systematically interconnected drives science to prove this interconnection throughout, both in general and in detail. But an adequate, exhaustive scientific statement of this interconnection, the formulation in thought of an exact picture of the world system in which we live, is impossible for us, and will always remain impossible. If at any time in the evolution of mankind such a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world - physical as well as mental and historical – were brought to completion, this would mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short – which would be an absurd idea, pure nonsense.
Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled. But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors – the world, and man – it is also the main lever of all intellectual advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless progressive evolution of humanity just as for example mathematical problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractionations. Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker. ( Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring)
We might as well discuss the psychological consequences of Snow White living with seven dwarfs.
Please read what I wrote and physics will never be the same for you as before.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352089080_Quantum-mechanical_nature_of_primary_particles
Big Bang is very little (( if at all)) differing from CREATIONISM . . . . .
It is almost turning into some religious denomination. . . . ... .
Regards
REZA
Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis, Dear all
Greetings, Based on the energy conservation principle, the real energy value of universe will not changed. But in the performed physical processes may mass convert to energy and vice versa. There is no any scientific reason that which of them is more always!
Regards, Saeed
Saeed Shahsavari
Would you paraphrase your post to make it a bit more comprehensible ??
Dear Reza Sanaye,
1. Based on the former energy conservation principle, the real energy value of the universe will not change.
2. Relativity establishes a new principle instead of the former energy conservation principle. As we know from relativity, during the physical processes may mass convert to energy and vice versa.
3. But there is no comprehensive scientific reason that which of them(converting between mass and energy during physical processes) is more always!
Regards, Saeed
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Histology
- Sectioning