if universe expand from where energy of space is coming from
please someone here explain that
99 people read my question and no answer
so i will give the answer
UNIVERSE DOES NOT EXPAND
so i will give the answer
UNIVERSE DOES NOT EXPAND
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 26 2008, 11:15 AM)
if universe expand from where energy of space is coming from
please someone here explain that
Honestly i don't hink anyone has an answer for that question.alot of people think they do.
please someone here explain that
Honestly i don't hink anyone has an answer for that question.alot of people think they do.
If you get a response it will probably invoke Dark Energy - in other words, we haven´t got a clue !!
The net energy of the universe might well be zero.
There is no negative energy.
The universes energy is huge.
Mitch Raemsch
The universes energy is huge.
Mitch Raemsch
AlexG,
When you say the net energy may be zero, do you mean this in a purely mathematical sense? Do we still not need to account for and explain the 2 components - negative energy and positive energy - even if they do actually balance precisely? A simple analogy might be if I say I have 100 euro in the bank but I also owe 100 euro - mathematically that´s zero, but the two elements of the calculation of zero still have a physical existence.
regards
edward
When you say the net energy may be zero, do you mean this in a purely mathematical sense? Do we still not need to account for and explain the 2 components - negative energy and positive energy - even if they do actually balance precisely? A simple analogy might be if I say I have 100 euro in the bank but I also owe 100 euro - mathematically that´s zero, but the two elements of the calculation of zero still have a physical existence.
regards
edward
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jan 13 2009, 03:17 PM)
Do we still not need to account for and explain the 2 components - negative energy and positive energy - even if they do actually balance precisely?
One force is gravity, and the other is the lamda, the force driving the accelerating expansion.
If these two balance, then the net energy of the universe is zero.
And if that's the case, it is possible that the entire universe is nothing more than a quantum fluctuation grown very large.
Hi Alex,
No problem with that - the point I was trying to make was that I am not sure we can use the net zero energy idea to talk in terms of "nothing from nothing". The two energies still have separate physical existence - two perfectly balanced forces may add up to nothing but this does not imply that nothing exists. Probably academic anyway - looks like lamda considerably exceeds gravity.
regards
edward
No problem with that - the point I was trying to make was that I am not sure we can use the net zero energy idea to talk in terms of "nothing from nothing". The two energies still have separate physical existence - two perfectly balanced forces may add up to nothing but this does not imply that nothing exists. Probably academic anyway - looks like lamda considerably exceeds gravity.
regards
edward
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 13 2009, 08:23 PM)
One force is gravity, and the other is the lamda, the force driving the accelerating expansion.
If these two balance, then the net energy of the universe is zero.
And if that's the case, it is possible that the entire universe is nothing more than a quantum fluctuation grown very large.
Negative energy is a big mistake alex. The future physics is not that dumb.
Mitch Raemsch
If these two balance, then the net energy of the universe is zero.
And if that's the case, it is possible that the entire universe is nothing more than a quantum fluctuation grown very large.
Negative energy is a big mistake alex. The future physics is not that dumb.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Jan 13 2009, 03:52 PM)
Negative energy is a big mistake alex. The future physics is not that dumb.
Mitch Raemsch
Prove it.
Mitch Raemsch
Prove it.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 13 2009, 09:27 PM)
Prove it.
There are no negative physical quantities. Period.
Mitch Raemsch
There are no negative physical quantities. Period.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Jan 13 2009, 05:05 PM)
There are no negative physical quantities. Period.
Mitch Raemsch
Prove it.
Mitch Raemsch
Prove it.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 13 2009, 10:07 PM)
Prove it.
You have proven that you are dumb.
Mitch Raemsch
You have proven that you are dumb.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 26 2008, 11:15 AM)
if universe expand from where energy of space is coming from
please someone here explain that
Curvature has no energy.
Mitch Raemsch
please someone here explain that
Curvature has no energy.
Mitch Raemsch
It is unproven dogma that the universe is expanding. The big bang has many problems which have not been resolved and at too many points, the BB seems to rely on the completely ridiculous.
Has anyone got different views on this thread now several years have passed?
I for one can't understand that the Energy in the Universe is Zero. That it started from nothing!
I for one can't understand that the Energy in the Universe is Zero. That it started from nothing!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 4 2011, 10:52 PM)
I for one can't understand that the Energy in the Universe is Zero. That it started from nothing!
That's not even close to accurate.
That's not even close to accurate.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 5 2011, 05:52 AM)
Has anyone got different views on this thread now several years have passed?
I for one can't understand that the Energy in the Universe is Zero. That it started from nothing!
I love excavating old threads. Together we'll make an interesting pair of archelogists.
I for one can't understand that the Energy in the Universe is Zero. That it started from nothing!
I love excavating old threads. Together we'll make an interesting pair of archelogists.
NA linked to
'The Universe from nothing' here:-
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=498510
Skip over the boring English guy (is THAT Dawkins?)
-C2.
'The Universe from nothing' here:-
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=498510
Skip over the boring English guy (is THAT Dawkins?)
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused1+Dec 5 2011, 03:42 PM)
NA linked to
'The Universe from nothing' here:-
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=498510
Skip over the boring English guy (is THAT Dawkins?)
-C2.
It was in that video "A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss" where the Zero Energy Universe idea is discussed. That is why I like all should I did a search through the threads and found this one and thought rather than start a new one use the frame work.
So did I get you right FBM you don't agree with the Zero Energy Universe either?
'The Universe from nothing' here:-
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=498510
Skip over the boring English guy (is THAT Dawkins?)
-C2.
It was in that video "A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss" where the Zero Energy Universe idea is discussed. That is why I like all should I did a search through the threads and found this one and thought rather than start a new one use the frame work.
So did I get you right FBM you don't agree with the Zero Energy Universe either?
The universe is expanding, but some of things that I find interesting, when thinking about the accelerating expansion, are the Type Ia supernovas. In addition to being crucial in determining the correct cosmological model, they also support the hypothesis for dark energy.
The model of the accelerating universe rests solely on the understanding of type 1a supernovas. Type 1a supernovae can measure distances at a significant fraction of the radius of the known Universe. However, they are not perfect standard candles. They don’t explode the same way, nor do they give off the exact same amount of light, but supposedly, within error bars, they are still predictable. Sometimes I wonder, if they really understand all the physics behind SNe 1a’s.
Is the evidence for dark energy secure?
Champagne Supernova
Champagne Supernova
The findings do not call into question that the universe is accelerating but the evolving mix of supernovae could limit future attempts to determine the nature of dark energy,” said Andrew Howell, lead author of the study and post-doctoral researcher.
“You can think of supernovae as light bulbs,” he said. “We found that the early universe supernovae had a higher wattage, but as long as we can figure out the wattage, we should be able to correct for that. Learning more about dark energy is going to take very precise corrections though and we aren’t sure how well we can do that yet.
Supernovae Not What They Used To Be; Distant Supernovae Distinctly Brighter
P.S.
The model of the accelerating universe rests solely on the understanding of type 1a supernovas. Type 1a supernovae can measure distances at a significant fraction of the radius of the known Universe. However, they are not perfect standard candles. They don’t explode the same way, nor do they give off the exact same amount of light, but supposedly, within error bars, they are still predictable. Sometimes I wonder, if they really understand all the physics behind SNe 1a’s.
Is the evidence for dark energy secure?
QUOTE
This is important because the brightness of type Ia supernovae was thought to be essentially uniform, making them useful "standard candles" in measuring distances in the universe. Such an aberrant type Ia supernova could throw distances and other scientific work into doubt; however, the light curve characteristics of SNLS-03D3bb were such that it would never have been mistaken for an ordinary high-redshift Type Ia supernova.
Champagne Supernova
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is important because the brightness of type Ia supernovae was thought to be essentially uniform, making them useful "standard candles" in measuring distances in the universe. Such an aberrant type Ia supernova could throw distances and other scientific work into doubt; however, the light curve characteristics of SNLS-03D3bb were such that it would never have been mistaken for an ordinary high-redshift Type Ia supernova. |
Champagne Supernova
The findings do not call into question that the universe is accelerating but the evolving mix of supernovae could limit future attempts to determine the nature of dark energy,” said Andrew Howell, lead author of the study and post-doctoral researcher.
“You can think of supernovae as light bulbs,” he said. “We found that the early universe supernovae had a higher wattage, but as long as we can figure out the wattage, we should be able to correct for that. Learning more about dark energy is going to take very precise corrections though and we aren’t sure how well we can do that yet.
Supernovae Not What They Used To Be; Distant Supernovae Distinctly Brighter
P.S.
QUOTE (Confused1+)
Skip over the boring English guy (is THAT Dawkins?)
Do you mean the elevator guy?
Do you mean the elevator guy?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 5 2011, 02:09 PM)
It was in that video "A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss" where the Zero Energy Universe idea is discussed. That is why I like all should I did a search through the threads and found this one and thought rather than start a new one use the frame work.
So did I get you right FBM you don't agree with the Zero Energy Universe either?
I'm not a fan.
So did I get you right FBM you don't agree with the Zero Energy Universe either?
I'm not a fan.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Dec 5 2011, 07:45 PM)
The universe is expanding, but some of things that I find interesting, when thinking about the accelerating expansion, are the Type Ia supernovas. In addition to being crucial in determining the correct cosmological model, they also support the hypothesis for dark energy.
The model of the accelerating universe rests solely on the understanding of type 1a supernovas. Type 1a supernovae can measure distances at a significant fraction of the radius of the known Universe. However, they are not perfect standard candles. They don’t explode the same way, nor do they give off the exact same amount of light, but supposedly, within error bars, they are still predictable. Sometimes I wonder, if they really understand all the physics behind SNe 1a’s.
Is the evidence for dark energy secure?
Champagne Supernova
Supernovae Not What They Used To Be; Distant Supernovae Distinctly Brighter
P.S.
The model of the accelerating universe rests solely on the understanding of type 1a supernovas. Type 1a supernovae can measure distances at a significant fraction of the radius of the known Universe. However, they are not perfect standard candles. They don’t explode the same way, nor do they give off the exact same amount of light, but supposedly, within error bars, they are still predictable. Sometimes I wonder, if they really understand all the physics behind SNe 1a’s.
Is the evidence for dark energy secure?
Champagne Supernova
Supernovae Not What They Used To Be; Distant Supernovae Distinctly Brighter
P.S.
QUOTE (Confused1+)
Skip over the boring English guy (is THAT Dawkins?)
Do you mean the elevator guy?
It is risky business IMO to put so much confidence in a "standard candle" without at the same time seriously to consider the many potential possibilities of "vacuum interference" with the light propagation through space. And BTW how well is the essential nature of light understood - what is the mechanism behind light propagation - what is vacuum when looked at it with the "eyes of light"
Or have I grossly misunderstood everything -
Or have I grossly misunderstood everything -
YES
Do you mean the elevator guy?
It is risky business IMO to put so much confidence in a "standard candle" without at the same time seriously to consider the many potential possibilities of "vacuum interference" with the light propagation through space. And BTW how well is the essential nature of light understood - what is the mechanism behind light propagation - what is vacuum when looked at it with the "eyes of light"
Or have I grossly misunderstood everything -
QUOTE (niels+Dec 5 2011, 05:24 PM)
QUOTE
Or have I grossly misunderstood everything -
YES
An ever expanding universe is a sad affair for we are impressed by what we can see in the Hubble Library on the Internet. Imagine if there was just nothing to see.
But it has the benefit of being a safer one, in that galaxies are less likely to collide.
Whhether the Milky way is on a collision course I'm not sure, even I have read that it was Andromeda?? was that the one.
Strange to be concerned about these things when guys of my age mightn't last till tomorrow.
But it has the benefit of being a safer one, in that galaxies are less likely to collide.
Whhether the Milky way is on a collision course I'm not sure, even I have read that it was Andromeda?? was that the one.
Strange to be concerned about these things when guys of my age mightn't last till tomorrow.
QUOTE (AlexG+Dec 6 2011, 02:33 AM)
[/QUOTE]
YES
stick to making sausage
YES
stick to making sausage
QUOTE (niels+Dec 6 2011, 06:49 PM)
YES [/QUOTE]
stick to making sausage
Expanding one's mind and understanding would be good too!
stick to making sausage
Expanding one's mind and understanding would be good too!
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 6 2011, 07:16 PM)
stick to making sausage [/QUOTE]
Expanding one's mind and understanding would be good too!
Well I just re-reused one of Alex's many many posts - in order to come up with a kind of answer to one of his many many ---
And yes - I still wait for slightly more educated reactions from Alex -
[/QUOTE]Expanding one's mind and understanding would be good too!
Well I just re-reused one of Alex's many many posts - in order to come up with a kind of answer to one of his many many ---
And yes - I still wait for slightly more educated reactions from Alex -
QUOTE (niels+Dec 6 2011, 09:46 PM)
Expanding one's mind and understanding would be good too! [/QUOTE]
Well I just re-reused one of Alex's many many posts - in order to come up with a kind of answer to one of his many many ---
And yes - I still wait for slightly more educated reactions from Alex -
And he is qualified in physics too. Seems a shame to waste ones life making negative comments all the time. I see he is slowly gaining courage to answer some of the issues. I am looking forward to seeing what he really knows one day.
Well I just re-reused one of Alex's many many posts - in order to come up with a kind of answer to one of his many many ---
And yes - I still wait for slightly more educated reactions from Alex -
And he is qualified in physics too. Seems a shame to waste ones life making negative comments all the time. I see he is slowly gaining courage to answer some of the issues. I am looking forward to seeing what he really knows one day.
You are either deranged or incredibly stupid. You certainly aren't funny or clever, whatever mommy tells you. Unless you rent one... 
How do you like having your very own unmoderated sandbox to crap in? Goddamned dolt.
How do you like having your very own unmoderated sandbox to crap in? Goddamned dolt.
QUOTE (Granouille+Dec 6 2011, 10:30 PM)
You are either deranged or incredibly stupid. You certainly aren't funny or clever, whatever mommy tells you. Unless you rent one...
How do you like having your very own unmoderated sandbox to crap in? Goddamned dolt.
You are one of the few you continues to be badly potty trained and craps in my sand box. Did you mother neglect you?
How do you like having your very own unmoderated sandbox to crap in? Goddamned dolt.
You are one of the few you continues to be badly potty trained and craps in my sand box. Did you mother neglect you?
Ah, an urban baby in the sandbox. Neglected? No, but the Rattenkönig was dropped on his head as wee lad. 
QUOTE (Harry Ballsonya+Dec 7 2011, 12:57 AM)
Ah, an urban baby in the sandbox. Neglected? No, but the Rattenkönig was dropped on his head as wee lad.
Que sera sera!
Que sera sera!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.