Some researchers argue that total energy is zero when adding all positive and negative energy. This is a Lagrangian type concept tending toward flat space by minimizing the action S in a time integral. Lagrangian is zero when potential energy T including gravity and kinetic energy V are equally partitioned and there is zero action. L = V - T
Lagrangian is not conserved in general. Hamiltonian is conserved within limits of uncertainty. In the Hamiltonian all energy is added together as positive. H = V + T
Conserving Hamiltonian does not support the concept of zero total energy in the universe. What remains for producing energy is the uncertainty of H. In general researchers might expect positive and negative uncertainties of H to cancel out over time. This is generally true of random processes governed by the second law of thermodynamics.
Erwin Schrödinger in the book What is Life demonstrated that localized entropy could decrease in non random processes governed by the third law of thermodynamics. Some such processes are found in magnifying glasses, parabolic reflectors, and gravitational lenses. In such cases uncertainties allow total energy to increase by a tiny fraction for a limited time. This is not significant energy gain in the life time of a universe.
A concept of many universes in sequence is promoted by Roger Penrose and others using faint patterns of temperature differences in the CMB. The possibility of almost no energy gained in almost infinite number of universes leads to a chance of accumulating the observed Hamiltonian within conventional science.
A related question in another thread, but abstract in math, a zero multiplied by infinity may be zero, infinite, or finite depending on how the zero and infinity were developed and approached.
Other researchers have shown how to derive gravity from uncertainty. In principle the uncertainty can be used to derive any physical quantity if the required answer is known in advance.
Maybe researchers have other ways to originate the observed universe energy.
How Does Energy Originate?
Dear Jerry
The energy does not originate. Applying the Ockham's razor is easy. Those researchers are wrong.
Dear Preston-Guynn
It can be said that spatially distributed energy is not always conserved in GR transformations, because not all observers will detect the same sequence of events. It is more of a measurement problem in GR than a physical event in cosmos.
The conservation law operates in the local frame of reference, and can be inferred by distributed observers if enough information is collected.
Thank you for reply.
Jerry Decker
The Universe was endowed with energy at the Big Bang. Since then, the Lomonosov-Lavoisier principle about the energy is in vigor:
"nothing is gained, nothing is lost, everything is transformed".
That means one cannot create energy out of nothing, and energy does not disappear into nothing. This fact is connected to the 1st principle of the thermodynamics and the impossibility of building a perpetuum mobile of the first type. The energy just transforms from one form to another. An excellent example is Einstein's equality
E = mc2
Christian Baumgarten
Yes, Christian,
The question is equivalent with "why the Big Bang occurred?". Answers to this questions are pure speculations.
Thanks all for answers.
Some decades ago there were many arguments that there was no beginning and would be no end, but a continual regeneration of cosmos. Discovery of quasars changed that because they were all thought to be far away and long ago, not distributed through space time..
Discovery of CMB appeared to many researchers to support the concept of a beginning or at least a bounce from some previous epoch.
Entropy is a problem if there is no beginning or nothing happening to reset entropy to a low value from age to age.
The present question is about observable energy. Everything happening in physical cosmos seems to have a cause, even if it is to small to predict without averages. Then energy including mass seems like it should have an origin and something to create it.
The most popular opinions are that the universe appeared spontaneously from nothing. It brings the possibility of spontaneous disappearance. On a local scale there is no suggestion of spontaneous appearance and disappearance except on the small scale of uncertainty, which is not sufficient to account for the observed energy with out inheritance of photons from many previous universes.
Christian Baumgarten
Dear Christian,
I wonder whether Einstein know about the Big-Bang story.
I heard a version by which there was a huge black hole that exploded. I won't buy this story either. If black holes may exist that confine so much matter as our whole universe contains, we should have objects of such proportions in our universe. However, as far as I know, there are no such super-giants.
IMO the Universe is oscillating, the Big Bang is only religious idiocrasy.
JES
Stellan Gustafsson
We would be happy if so were the things. Personally, I don't like the Big Bang story, with a point that exploded releasing all the mass of the universe. It seems to me science fiction, a point containing an unspeakable huge mass.
Also, the expansion of the universe means thermal DEATH after a couple of billions of years.
However, on which ground is based your opinion, on which scientific facts? Is it a possible solution of Einstein's field equations?
Dear Sofia D. Wechsler
My answer has nothing to do with GR.
It comes from simple logic developed in the Daon theory (in my profile).
It contains a lot more; many natural "constants" vary with the Universe oscillation.
The consequences for the Universe are quite astonishing.
The theory agrees, as far as I can understand, with all observations and experiments.
JES
Dear Stellan Gustafsson
I would be glad to read the material you speak of. I have an abhorrence of the sinister idea of thermal death , even if it is bound to occur billions of years from now on.
But, right now I am leaving the RG until Friday, because I have a material to prepare.
Dear Sofia D. Wechsler
I'm not sure that you will like better the oscillation perspective, since the contraction of the Universe will cause an inversion of gravity and therefore impossible living conditions.
JES
“…..since, as you wrote, energy is conserved, the question is equivalent to "why is there something instead of nothing" and can not be answered within physics. It's a question for philosophers and meta-physics….”
- in that above there are a few points, which aren’t completely transcendent, though yeah, an element of the “Logos” set “the phenomenon “Energy”” is, unlike other “Logos” set elements, say “Space” , “Time”, “Change”, etc., indeed utmost mystic phenomenon now, about which, however, it is rigorously enough known,
- that Energy is an element of the “Logos” set, i.e. to change any informational pattern/system [whereas absolutely for sure there exist nothing besides some informational patterns/systems], including, of course, to create any pattern/system, it is necessary to spend some portion of Energy, because of any Change is logically self-inconsistent , and Energy is necessary to overcome the logical prohibition of changes;
- and, if we address to unique informational system, where the Energy portions at changes are fundamentally universal – “Matter”, where so the portions can be relatively quantative ly compared, i.e. measured:
- that the energy conservation law acts in Matter because of Matter is based on reversible binary logics, and
- that from the observation in Matter seems it follows, that Energy is rather dull – or, by another words – fundamentally universal - “Force”, and its action really essentially depends on the concrete informational pattern/system, to which an Energy portion is applied/pumped. In Matter that is observed as that rather different informational patterns/systems “material objects” are created by the same portion of Energy.
Including when a huge portion of Energy was pumped at Matter’s Creation in the concrete informational system “[5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D fundamental binary reversible logical elements [FLE]”, all that further happened, i.e. creation of particles, atoms, bodies, stars, etc., was completely determined, first of all, just by the logical structure of FLEs – and nothing else than some “Matter” could in this case appeared;
- though in this case it looks as rather probable that to make a Matter it was necessary additionally after forming of the lattice at “inflation” to pump Energy though uniformly and isotropically in the lattice globally, however essentially non-uniformly locally.
However that seems is all what humans know about Energy; and where and how the very probable some informational pattern/system “conscious Matter’s Creator” found the portion above – this problem will be, seems, a rather long time outside physics.
More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2
Cheers
Evidence-based science and replication of results? for what?
Much better to drop the first stupidity not backed by anything we can think of
Dear Jerry Decker,
Greetings, thanks for your basic question. We need to focus on the first and second laws of thermodynamics to understand the main possible reply. If I want to raise an answer to that how energy is originated, I will suggest that physical processes are the main reason for it! I mean also the conditions of the performed processes. I think that you may want to see the following papers that are on the your question:
1. On the Probability in General Physics from the Perspective of the Energy Structure DOI:
- 10.24203/ajas.v9i1.6536
2. A General Solution to the Different Formulations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics DOI:
- 10.37934/arfmts.82.2.6171
Regards, Saeed
Dear Saeed Shahsavari , dear Saeed Shahsavari dear Stellan Gustafsson and all the other readers,
The best way to make your answer irrelevant is to send the users to articles. People are busy. Nobody would read an article just because you invite to do so. The proper way of introducing an article is to sy in a few lines the idea in the article. If a user would want details she/he would read the article.
With best regards and wishes of health,
Sofia
In familiar space and time, energy including mass is not created or destroyed. It leaves the possibility that space and time might have other quantum states. Examples are quantum numbers for spin angular momentum of ZPE or virtual particle pairs . Topics of squeezed quantum states, scale relativity, and hierarchy of Plancks are discussed in other threads. None of these give a prediction of energy being created or destroyed.
One possibility is decay of false vacuum where differences of energy densities are proposed by other researchers. Even then, energy including mass is conserved within the limits of Uncertainty, the difference of energy densities being represented in a stress energy wave front propagation to other volumes.
Positive and negative variations of energy would usually be expected to cancel out in a large system like the universe, even in smaller regions, and vanish when the time intervals allowed by Uncertainty have expired.
An exception might be a variation of energy that is active in a volume of false vacuum that decays before the allowed time interval expires. In other threads it is suggested that counting of time is lost during one type of vacuum decay. Then if decay of false vacuum is more likely to occur when positive variation of energy is active than during negative variations of energy, the new vacuum state might contain the bit of additional energy with no mechanism to determine how much was uncertain. With loss of time counting, the determination of distance and volume are also lost.
The gain is thought to be small in decay of one universe and beginning of a new universe. It lends support for the many universe proposal of Roger Penrose, and answers the question of how the first universe might have started, with some indication of how large it might have been, and how universes accumulated energy from eon to eon.
Vacuum decay shortens the life time of an eon, removing a Penrose problem google of years, resets the base line of entropy, and proposes a source of energy without violating conservation in familiar space time. It depends on destruction of blackholes contained in the false vacuum releasing radiation energy sufficient to restart the counting of time and boost energy density to a new false vacuum. Then low energy density from much expansion would be one of the triggering conditions.
Uncertainty can be used to develop any physical conclusion if the answer is already known by other methods.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Cartography
- Mapping