Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Eternal nature of energy/matter and how it can be shown that the universe was never "created"?
Below this you can read a mathematical proof that I've posted a few times.
Anyways, the most common objection is that "the law doesn't apply to "before time", which started at the beginning of the universe",as if the beginning of the universe magically negated the existence of time. I never had a response, other than to try and explain that they had a misunderstanding of the definition of time, which is kind of hard...
I'll try again, but if you aren't stupid, skip ahead to the next paragraph. Time is not confined by ignorance. Just because the Laws of Physics do not permit knowledge of events that may have occurred before the Energy constituting the universe began to expand does not mean that the Energy came into existence at that moment. This would violate the 1st of Thermodynamics. Thus, the Energy must have existed before expansion occurred. Before Energy expansion, time too must have existed, since time is experienced by all entities constituted by Energy. Whether or not that entity experiences change is a separate question, but it should be obvious that the Energy constituting our universe did in fact undergo change before expansion, otherwise it would not have expanded. Unfortunately the Laws of Physics do not permit us to know what experiences it went through before the experience which caused it's expansion because the remains (e.g. the current form of Energy) do not provide enough information. To make an analogy: What did George Washington eat on February 6, 1789? Well, the form of the Energy constituting the entity of interest (a decayed human) does not provide enough information for us to make a definitive declaration which can backed by physical laws. To get even more common, drug tests will not be able to tell you if a human has consumed a drug if the consumption took place 10 years ago. After a certain amount of time the energy constituting entities changes to the point that certain information is irrecoverable.
Luckily, I found this beautiful statement:
Conservation of energy is a consequence of shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other).
The part in parenthesis is the important part. "No moment in time is different from any other." Conservation of Energy applies on both sides of this imaginary line separating the existential state of Energy before it expanded and after it expanded.
MY QUESTION(s)(one at beginning, another at the end of the paragraph): With the information I have provided, both above and below, can anyone here provide math which shows that the Energy constituting our Universe is NOT eternal?? When I was 17, I examined the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and I realized that this Law explained the existence of matter/Energy. Up to that point in my life, I had discovered science that explained "souls"/emotions, how humans came to be (e.g. Evolution), how I was born, etc., and the only question that I still needed God to provide an explanation for was "how did matter get created?" Then, the most influential moment in my life occurred because in that exact moment that I realized the implication of the statement "matter(Energy) cannot be created" I became an Atheist. You have no Math, which confuses me. You wouldn't purposely put your life in the hands of a Camry with a malfunctioning braking system because Math dictates that if you were to accelerate (instead of brake) as come to a red light, your car will make it's way into an intersection and get hit, and upon examining the Math of the impact that would ensue, the conclusion could be made that you and your family would get hurt, if not die. Yet, here you are, purposefully putting your life in the hands of a book which Math has consistently proven to be fallacious and I don't understand how anyone can believe that this book will be right about the outcome of a life...trusting that book would be like trusting a broken Camry, both have been wrong before, what makes you think this time they will be right???
Creating a Control Volume (CV) equal to the the triple integral bounded by:
0 and positive infinity in the radial direction
0 and 2*pi in the azimuthal angle
and 0 to pi in the polar angle
we get a CV that encompasses a Sphere of Infinite Volume(e.g. encompassing everything in and outside of the known bounds of our universe). Because there is no Energy outside of our CV, it cannot receive energy, making it a "Closed System". For a closed system the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states
dE/dt = 0
where E represents Energy and t represents time. In short, the rate (per unit of time) at which Energy is lost/gained in the CV is 0. Now, integrating from -infinity to +infinity with respect time we get
E = Constant
which is an equation INDEPENDENT OF TIME (statement of Symmetry). No matter if you were to travel infinitely far (or forward) in time, this equation would still hold true.
G@Zoo
Yes, but very recently the conclusion was made that the so-called "singularity" is a fallacy of physics because it does not agree with Quantum Laws which state that a particle cannot occupy any space smaller than their wave space, and a Singularity, a dimensionless object, would violate this law. Unless we are to assume that the Force of Gravity was Infinite, and thus capable of compressing these waves infinitesimally, then the notion of a Singularity is incompatible with Physics. Of course infinite Gravity would necessitate infinite Energy, which obviously is impossible.
I am familiar with the Casimir Effect, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with a singularities
@arnie
Matter/Energy is NOT in the category of things that are created or caused because it is a Lorentz tensor, which is Invariant through time, which means it is independent of cause because having a beginning would defy Lorentz Symmetry. The universe may have begun, but matter/energy did not. Oh, and I want you to point out which part of the FLRW equation (e.g. the Big Bang equation) states that the universe came from nothing...u'll have to google because it's not letting me copy and paste, but don't worry, I'll wait...anyways, there is not a physicist alive who think "something came from nothing" as it would violate Lorentz Symmetry
6 Answers
- ?Lv 78 years ago
One comment on an article on the subject is this
James T. Dwyer • 2013-08-30 08:28 PM
Fundamentally, the counteraction of mass-energy localization is its extraction from dimensional spacetime. Matter could not have been created without the complementary creation of spacetime.
The article and all its companion comments is fond here.
http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical-physics-the...
There is actually much more to the Bible than most Bible scholars realize. Most everyone is aware of Genesis 1:1 about creation. A few are aware of Isaiah 40:26 which speaks of God creating and maintaining the universe and possessing the needed energy for the task. But virtually no one has become aware of something hidden in plain sight in the Bible. That is the far future when the universe runs down. What happens next?
"25Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of your hands.+
26 They will perish, but you will remain;
Just like a garment they will all wear out.
Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away.
27 But you are the same, and your years will never end.
EDIT EDIT
You asked for math. Here is something you should get your mind around. A different math that can open many mental doors as yet unknown today.
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a...
“The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling,” said Jacob Bourjaily, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University and one of the researchers who developed the new idea. “You can easily do, on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer before.”
The new geometric version of quantum field theory could also facilitate the search for a theory of quantum gravity that would seamlessly connect the large- and small-scale pictures of the universe. Attempts thus far to incorporate gravity into the laws of physics at the quantum scale have run up against nonsensical infinities and deep paradoxes. The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity.
Bottom line.
There is much more. And much you do not know....yet
Source(s): Holy Bible nwt - ArnieLv 78 years ago
How can the universe create itself out of nothingness? Given the fact that the universe began to exist, it must have had a “cause” that originated it.Doesn't it make more sense to assume the existence of a Creation. The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that GOD came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, GOD is not in the category of things that are created or caused. GOD is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.
We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing being is what we call GOD ,GOD is the un-caused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.
The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, GOD unlike the universe, had no beginning, so he doesn’t need a cause. Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since GOD is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created..@
Life without GOD is like an un- sharpened pencil it has no point..
You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can see what the wind is doing. You can know that the wind is there because you can feel it.GOD is like the wind, you can't see him
- ?Lv 78 years ago
Yes, matter/energy are eternal, because is God's energy. The process of cycle of non-manifest to manifest and again non-manifest to manifest again, but as God always existing His energies (matter and spirit) as well.
BG 8.20: Yet there is another unmanifest nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is.
The energy is always there. Just like sometimes someone become angry, and sometime is peaceful. Anger is always there. It may be manifest at any time. Because is part of the nature of the soul, eternally.
The first law of thermodynamics is given in the Invocation of the Sri Isopanisad:
God and His energies, are eternal.
- PhillipLv 68 years ago
Nothing in the Hebrew suggests that the universe was "created" from nothing.
Genesis 1:1 create = "bara" 1254 bara' baw-raw' a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes):-- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
Are you familiar with a scientist who sometimes goes by Stephen Hawking?
I like his idea of "multiverse", although I do not know if any of the currently suggested models are appropriate.
Legend:
∧ and
~ not
∨ or
→ if... then
⊢ therefore
P: Multiverse theory is False. (Hypothesis)
Q: The Lord's Kingdom would exist finitely in this cosmos.
~Q: The Lord's Kingdom is NOT of this (Gr) cosmos, and His Kingdom is NOT finite. John 18:36. Luke 1:33.
IF multiverse theory is False (P), THEN The Lord's Kingdom would exist finitely in this cosmos. (Q)
The Lord's Kingdom is NOT of this (Gr) cosmos, and His Kingdom is NOT finite John 18:36. Luke 1:33. (~Q)
THEREFORE, NOT multiverse theory is False (or, multiverse theory is True). (~P)
P → Q
~Q
├ ~P
- ?Lv 78 years ago
You are concerned with matter and energy in the universe and overlook life and information even though you touch very briefly on these subjects. Information exists in the living cells of DNA and you acknowledge that this information decays with the age and death of living cells. You then seem to proceede to assume contrary to this information (without demonstration) that information increases through natural processes (evolution). Evolution is a word with different meanings and I admit that my assumption by your use of the world "evolution" is that you are referring to the theory of common descent. Matter and energy do not create information and life, however life and information can be used to transform matter and energy. (George Washington ate and his body transformed the energy and matter of that which he ate, but he did not gain the information nor the life of that which he physically ate. He did not know the history of that life which he ate by eating it and even though he ate he eventually died).
What you have is not evolution, but rather is quite the opposite. It is the fall and decay of man and the universe.
John 6
27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
