PDA

View Full Version : Energy field at t=0, real or conceptual?



ferg.c.
2004-Nov-04, 01:19 PM
In the thread on Vortex Gravity there were several points raised that I thought could be dealt with in a seperate topic. This is one of them.

Is energy with no mass to work on or no potential differential as conceptual as space with no mass to fill it?

The idea that the universe did not exist spacially, but as an infinite energy field with a ballanced charge was put forward by rousejohny as his definition of t=0.
I questioned the validity of this concept on the grounds that space is only conceptual unless there is stuff filling it up, so the energy must have some mass to opperate on or it will be just as conceptual.

What's the current thinking on this?

Tiny
2004-Nov-04, 09:50 PM
I have a question : What is the little "t" stand for? Is time or something else?

Guest
2004-Nov-04, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Tiny@Nov 4 2004, 09:50 PM
I have a question : What is the little "t" stand for? Is time or something else?
time

astromark
2004-Nov-04, 11:17 PM
:unsure: Time is not a dimension. :blink: its does not igsist. It was, Is, and will be... past present future, and the fact that we have a finit life span. Is the only signifagance time has to us. Well sort of. We cant change what has happened, nor can we move forward through it. It commes at us at the speed of light, and is gone in an instant to the realms of history. We use time as in the light year only becouse its a logical way of measuring the great distances of the universe. Distance and the way we percive it can be simplified by converting it all to light years, its a distance. not a dimension. Was there time before the BB. No.
We have created time becouse we dont have a lot of it... The universe has plenty.

StarLab
2004-Nov-05, 12:52 AM
Astromark, I disagree with you, but let's get back on track:


Is energy with no mass to work on or no potential differential as conceptual as space with no mass to fill it? Your question is unclear...could you restate it?

ferg.c.
2004-Nov-05, 10:56 AM
Astromark,
Time is not a spacial dimention but you can use the concept of time to create an extra parameter in the location of things so you can think of it like a coordinate in space time. example: "see you on the corner of 3rd and vine 3:00 on thursday night." Get my drift?
So for "Space-time" time acts just like a dimension. It's just unfortunate that we don't have much freedom of movement in it.
Cheers ferg

ferg.c.
2004-Nov-05, 11:00 AM
StarLab,
I'm sorry if the wording was abit out there. Here's a clearer version
The question is thus:

If space is conceptual until something fills it up (like matter), then why should energy be anything other than conceptual if there is no matter upon which it can act?

Is this clearer?
Cheers
Ferg :)

Guest
2004-Nov-05, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by ferg.c.@Nov 5 2004, 11:00 AM
StarLab,
I'm sorry if the wording was abit out there. Here's a clearer version
The question is thus:

If space is conceptual until something fills it up (like matter), then why should energy be anything other than conceptual if there is no matter upon which it can act?

Is this clearer?
Cheers
Ferg :)
A pure infinate energy field with "neutral" charge is purely conceptual and as such it is not observable and had just as well be nothing at all. This infinate energy field can exist and maintain the conditions necessary for a timeless infinity, and has the energy required to develop matter and our Universe.

Sp1ke
2004-Nov-05, 02:10 PM
Since energy can be converted into matter, and vice versa, it's only a difference in scale between our universe, that contains a mixture of matter and energy, and a universe that is nearly all energy, but with just a little bit of matter.

What happens when that last bit of matter turns into energy? (Imagine its a particle that decays and only emits a packet of energy) Would that turn this universe into a purely conceptual universe? Wouldn't it be just as easy for a pocket of energy to spontaneously form give rise to some matter?

I see a universe only containing energy and a universe only containing matter as extreme points on the set of all universes, but nothing special in themselves other than being extreme.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Nov-05, 02:11 PM
To extrapolate from DesCartes: We think; therfore energy, mass, space, and time are.

Guest
2004-Nov-05, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by GOURDHEAD@Nov 5 2004, 02:11 PM
To extrapolate from DesCartes: We think; therfore energy, mass, space, and time are.
Space can exist without energy, mass or time. (somewhere)

Energy needs space, but can exist without mass and time (something existing somewhere).

Time needs space and energy or mass (something moving somewhere).

Mass needs all of them. (something else construted of something moving somewhere)

Decartes says they all exist now, so what must be at t=0 in order to produce what we have today. Science requires space with energy, because it is the only POSSIBLE t=0 that could have ever existed and given us the matter we see today. The only alternative is to say there never was a t=0 and that whole debate.

ferg.c.
2004-Nov-08, 11:26 AM
QUOTE (GOURDHEAD @ Nov 5 2004, 02:11 PM)

To extrapolate from DesCartes: We think; therfore energy, mass, space, and time are.

Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" has been a philosophical "square wheel" for about 80 years. (there ought to be a philosophical historian amongst you) Eddington claims that this and other similar ideas of existential justification are mere reflections of the workings of our mind and not proof of existence of anything outside our mind including energy, mass etc.

Let's not get too metaphysical, but let's not forget that the models which we create to explain the workings of the universe are not the real universe but constructs of our mind which help us understand it.
Cheers
Ferg :ph34r:

bigsplit
2004-Nov-08, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by ferg.c.@Nov 8 2004, 11:26 AM
QUOTE (GOURDHEAD @ Nov 5 2004, 02:11 PM)

To extrapolate from DesCartes: We think; therfore energy, mass, space, and time are.*

Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" has been a philosophical "square wheel" for about 80 years. (there ought to be a philosophical historian amongst you) Eddington claims that this and other similar ideas of existential justification are mere reflections of the workings of our mind and not proof of existence of anything outside our mind including energy, mass etc.

Let's not get too metaphysical, but let's not forget that the models which we create to explain the workings of the universe are not the real universe but constructs of our mind which help us understand it.
Cheers
Ferg :ph34r:
By workings of our mind, I guess Eddington meant that collection of neurons in the form of mass in our head that is the point of rapid communtication and circuit board of energy implulses propagating at the speed of light. The idea of mass and energy are all in your brain (mind)...so if the brain is not real then there would be no mind....back to "Cogito ergo sum".

ferg.c.
2004-Nov-12, 02:21 PM
Hi Johnny,
Actually Eddington was not a solipsist. He only said we shouldn't take at face value ideas that could not be expressed in pure mathematical terms and needed a linguistict structure to support it. He knows that things exist but realises that his view of them is just a model of how existence works and not existence itself.
What did you tell me once about Spinoza? I've got 2 tortoises called Spinoza and Descartes.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Nov-12, 03:01 PM
He knows that things exist but realises that his view of them is just a model of how existence works and not existence itself.
As did DesCartes. Remember he was trying to resolve an argument with his hypothetical demon who was questioning his existence. He won by asserting that at least he could think and had to exist in order to do it.

Guest
2004-Nov-12, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by ferg.c.@Nov 12 2004, 02:21 PM
Hi Johnny,
Actually Eddington was not a solipsist. He only said we shouldn't take at face value ideas that could not be expressed in pure mathematical terms and needed a linguistict structure to support it. He knows that things exist but realises that his view of them is just a model of how existence works and not existence itself.
What did you tell me once about Spinoza? I've got 2 tortoises called Spinoza and Descartes.

T=0 implies a singularity and infinate 3D space could not be curved because this would indicate there was time and thus no singularity. We often associate a singularity as a place where ther is super condensed matter within a confined area. In the big bang this singularity expanded and is what has become our Universe.

A singularity could also be construed as an infinate energy field with no curvature or quantum fluctuations. The singularity that I prefer is an infinate energy field, basically an infinate "particle" with no quantum fluctuations or curvature of space as a t=0.

I propose that the decay of this infinate particle began to decay at a point, with this point being undefinable as any one point in infinity. This maintains the cosmological principle on a Universal scale.

What exists is mathematically rational. If you take all material and quantum structure in our Universe and reduce it to pure energy via E=MCsq and homogenously distribute it throughout the "known" area of the Universe, you would have the numbers for the REAL volume of the energy field at t=0. This Infinate particle could be a Higg's infinate. Let's see what CERN reveals. I am not clear on how they will observe their collisions, but i think if they find the Higg's what they will discover is that the particles will annihilate and disappear blending into the background. But if it is done in a vacuum an unobservable mass may be left if they can contain the remnants of the collision. But then again, I do not know what they can and cannot do.

bigsplit
2004-Nov-12, 07:03 PM
The above was me.

ferg.c.
2004-Nov-13, 01:57 PM
I knew it was you!! It's your song.
Ferg.