amrit
if universe expand from where energy of space is coming from

amrit

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

Honestly i don't hink anyone has an answer for that question.alot of people think they do.
Edward 3
If you get a response it will probably invoke Dark Energy - in other words, we haven´t got a clue !!
AlexG
The net energy of the universe might well be zero.
Cusa
There is no negative energy.

The universes energy is huge.

Mitch Raemsch
Edward 3
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
AlexG
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.
Edward 3
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
Cusa
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
AlexG
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.
Cusa
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 13 2009, 09:27 PM)
Prove it.

There are no negative physical quantities. Period.

Mitch Raemsch
AlexG
QUOTE (Cusa+Jan 13 2009, 05:05 PM)
There are no negative physical quantities. Period.

Mitch Raemsch

Prove it.
Cusa
QUOTE (AlexG+Jan 13 2009, 10:07 PM)
Prove it.

You have proven that you are dumb.

Mitch Raemsch
Cusa
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 26 2008, 11:15 AM)
if universe expand from where energy of space is coming from

Curvature has no energy.

Mitch Raemsch
Quatermass
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.
Robittybob1
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!
flyingbuttressman
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.
boit
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.
Confused1
'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.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Confused1+Dec 5 2011, 03:42 PM)
'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?
NymphaeaAlba
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?

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?
flyingbuttressman
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.
niels
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.
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 -
AlexG
QUOTE (niels+Dec 5 2011, 05:24 PM)
QUOTE

Or have I grossly misunderstood everything -

YES
Robittybob1
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.
niels
QUOTE (AlexG+Dec 6 2011, 02:33 AM)
[/QUOTE]
YES

stick to making sausage
Robittybob1
QUOTE (niels+Dec 6 2011, 06:49 PM)
YES [/QUOTE]
stick to making sausage

Expanding one's mind and understanding would be good too!
niels
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 -
Robittybob1
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.
Granouille
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.
Robittybob1
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?
Harry Ballsonya
Ah, an urban baby in the sandbox. Neglected? No, but the Rattenkönig was dropped on his head as wee lad.
Robittybob1
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!
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.