Our Universe is Zero

[JohnsonBox]

One of the most interesting questions in science is where the matter of our universe came from. The answer is that the total amount of the matter of our universe is exacly zero. Because the matter can be made out of energy or can be in the form of energy. And the amount of the positive energy exactly cancels the amount of the negative energy in the universe. So the total energy of universe is zero, thus the total amount of the matter of our universe is exactly zero.

For some people, it sounds bull****. But Stephen Hawking put it greatly:

"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."

Well guys, I just haven't fully understood "one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter." Can anyone show me as detailed as possible "that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter." Because I vaguely suspect there might be other form of negative energy besides the gravitational energy in the universe.

Hey, I've not put it in a proper forum section. Mod please move it to Science forum. Thanks.

[dysmatik]

or is it that the negative / positive merely balance each other making the energy infinite as opposed to zero?

[n301]

Because I vaguely suspect there might be other form of negative energy besides the gravitational energy in the universe.

Perhaps this may help Dark matter- Dark energy

Edited February 14, 2008 by n301

[markwolfe Veteran]

Well guys, I just haven't fully understood "one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter." Can anyone show me as detailed as possible "that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter."

:blink: You want some random Neowin members to try to explain Hawking in detail? :rofl:

[spenser.d]

or is it that the negative / positive merely balance each other making the energy infinite as opposed to zero?

Total energy being zero would go a long way in explaining how something came out of nothing.

This is an interesting little read. To the OP: where'd you find that?

-Spenser

[Steven P. Administrators]

:blink: You want some random Neowin members to try to explain Hawking in detail? :rofl:

Well he isn't asking about rocket science is he?

I always wondered the same thing myself, but the way Hawking explains it present a paradox and I hate paradoxes, like the one that says there are an infinate amount of alter-universes, anything that can happen will happen -maybe just not in 'this' universe. Personally I think its just an easy way out of trying to explain it, and then back it up with proof.

Plus it always makes me laugh how the scientific community can repeatedly explain away the paranormal, spiritual and UFO activity but in the same breath explain the big bang as if it's a proven theory. Not to mention that their "Infinite universes theory" would also mean that one or more would of found a way to interact with other universes, because that falls into the realm of "Anything is possible and will/won't happen" paradox.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

i dont think any of that jargon explains where energy, matter or gravity came from. sure, positive and negative will cancel each other out... but if both exist separately, where did they come from? we'll never know.

Well he isn't asking about rocket science is he?

I always wondered the same thing myself, but the way Hawking explains it present a paradox and I hate paradoxes, like the one that says there are an infinate amount of alter-universes, anything that can happen will happen -maybe just not in 'this' universe. Personally I think its just an easy way out of trying to explain it, and then back it up with proof.

Plus it always makes me laugh how the scientific community can repeatedly explain away the paranormal, spiritual and UFO activity but in the same breath explain the big bang as if it's a proven theory. Not to mention that their "Infinite universes theory" would also mean that one or more would of found a way to interact with other universes, because that falls into the realm of "Anything is possible and will/won't happen" paradox.

youre right... so many people accept a theory as fact.

[spenser.d]

Well he isn't asking about rocket science is he?

I always wondered the same thing myself, but the way Hawking explains it present a paradox and I hate paradoxes, like the one that says there are an infinate amount of alter-universes, anything that can happen will happen -maybe just not in 'this' universe. Personally I think its just an easy way out of trying to explain it, and then back it up with proof.

Plus it always makes me laugh how the scientific community can repeatedly explain away the paranormal, spiritual and UFO activity but in the same breath explain the big bang as if it's a proven theory. Not to mention that their "Infinite universes theory" would also mean that one or more would of found a way to interact with other universes, because that falls into the realm of "Anything is possible and will/won't happen" paradox.

Nobody is saying that it's proven fact. All they say is that it's the scientific explaination for things, as opposed to, say, the spiritual explaination. Not to mention that a ton of the scientific community is actively looking for other intelligent species not from earth. They aren't quick to explain away UFO's - a lot would love for them to actually be true, but since there hasn't really been definitive proof, there's always been a better explaination. I will say that I wholeheartedly believe that paranormal activity is pure BS.

That being said, people who go about advocating paranormal, spiritual, and UFO type stuff do tend to be even more paradoxical in their beliefs. At least scientists have methods to back some of what they say up.

I could also say that your comment is an easy way of putting down things you don't believe just because you (and most other people, mind you) don't understand it all, rather than accepting that there's a fair amount of evidence in support of some of these theories, despite still being theories.

-Spenser

[Thrawn]

I appreciate the skepticism expressed above. JohnsonBox, the short answer is that we don't have any testable theory of quantum gravity, and Hawking's musings are a load of bull-speculation.

We don't know how the universe got started off, plain and simple. I think we REALLY ought to keep trying to figure this stuff out, otherwise how are our lives different from those of animals? Humans are supposed to know what's going on in some deeper sense.

Small technical tidbit: We have no idea what mechanism can turn the negative energy of gravity in to the positive energy of matter. And, even if we knew the mechanism, we wouldn't know where it comes from.

PS: I met Hawking when he came to the department here in Berkeley. Really a sad condition he's in. He looks sad too.

PPS: RE: Below (I don't want to change my postcount) ---V

Theories are not facts. It is very unscientific to think of them as such. Examples:

Newton's Theory of Gravity --> Proven wrong, replaced by General Relativity

Maxwell's Theory of EM --> Proven wrong. Replaced by QED.

Standard Model of Particle Physics w/Supersymmetry --> Probably wrong. Issues in explaining black holes, dark matter.

General Relativity --> Proven wrong. Contradictory results for black holes.

So, the latest theory has to give way to the next theory. Science is not a path to facts, but a striving for facts is admirable. It's just a failure.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Thrawn

[brilliant naoki]

youre right... so many people accept a theory as fact.

That would be a good thing, theory is a fact.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

[kernatch]

Many-worlds interpretations of QM are just that - interpretations. In my opinion any interpretation of QM is metaphysics. You can't talk about what the unobserved is really like. This goes back to Kant. If you look at the physicists involved in the development of quantum theory, you'll see that a lot of them were deeply passionate about philosophy.

[Lt-DavidW]

Plus it always makes me laugh how the scientific community can repeatedly explain away the paranormal, spiritual and UFO activity but in the same breath explain the big bang as if it's a proven theory.

Nobody denies that there is still a lot to learn about the big bang and the universe. If scientists find evidence tomorrow that shatters our current understanding of the big bang, then science will need to change its views and use this new evidence to work out how it really is. This is scientific progress.

Too many people treat science today as if 'science' itself is an ideology influencing our perspectives on the world. To the contrary, science is nothing more than the acceptance of what is REAL. If paranormal, spiritual and UFO activity was REAL, then it would be SCIENCE. To deny science is to deny truth - nobody who understands what the word 'science' means can refute that.

Not to mention that their "Infinite universes theory" would also mean that one or more would of found a way to interact with other universes, because that falls into the realm of "Anything is possible and will/won't happen" paradox.

It's the best theory we have at the moment to explain a menagerie of observations such as quantum superposition. I'd be interested to know how quantum computers and double slit experiments work if not for parallel universes. Like I said, it's the best theory going at the moment. Feel free to come up with a better one.

By the way, do you know where Redmak is?

[kernatch]

Many-worlds is the best 'theory'? I'm not so sure.

Oh and here are a few more interpretations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio...retations_of_QM

[kaffra]

.

General Relativity --> Proven wrong. Contradictory results for black holes.

So, the latest theory has to give way to the next theory. Science is not a path to facts, but a striving for facts is admirable. It's just a failure.

sorry could you elaborate more on that GR is wrong?

[remix17]

Too many people treat science today as if 'science' itself is an ideology influencing our perspectives on the world. To the contrary, science is nothing more than the acceptance of what is REAL. If paranormal, spiritual and UFO activity was REAL, then it would be SCIENCE. To deny science is to deny truth - nobody who understands what the word 'science' means can refute that.

(Y)

[JohnsonBox]

This is an interesting little read. To the OP: where'd you find that?

-Spenser

See: A Brief History of Time

=========================

BTW, kaffra you may as well read the book A Brief History of Time, in which Hawking explains why GR went bankruptcy in the level of singularity or black hole.

[megamanXplosion]

That would be a good thing, theory is a fact.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

A theory could be fact, but it's not necessarily one. That an idea is labeled theory only means it has withstood much testing, but withstanding previous tests is no guarantee of passing future tests and thus offers no guarantee of factual merit. In a philosophical sense, theories will always remain unproven. This is why scientists place great value on falsifiability, it offers proofs that certain things are not correct. This allows you to eliminate certain ideas from consideration, thus increasing slightly your confidence in the remaining possibilities and suggesting better uses of your time.

It is important to distinguish phenomena from theories. Phenomena can be shown to be factual while theories (explanations of phenomena) cannot. Notice that in the link you provided the author distinguishes between the fact of evolution (as a phenomenon) from the theory of evolution (the current explanation that tries to make sense of the phenomena). Young Earth Creationists, for example, are fond of implicitly equivocating the theory and phenomenon of evolution to argue that theory implies uncertainty so the phenomenon itself is uncertain to have occurred, which is an equivocation fallacy in logic (and the conclusion is thus a non-sequitur). The website to which you linked was created for the sole purpose of placing a spotlight on that equivocation fallacy.