|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Is ENERGY eternal?
Posted on: June 16, 2007 - 7:14pm
 Offline
Is ENERGY eternal?
does energy need a source or has it always been?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
Excellent question. The Big Bang was most likely caused by a false vacuum collapse. What does this mean? This means that ex nilho is possible. There is no such thing as 'nothing' in physics, space-time it is filled with radiation, and flucutuations. That it just began with a quantum tunneling into space-time making quantum flucuations possible. In flucuations, particles and energy come in and out of existance. However, it is suggested that the net energy of the universe is 0. That the potiental energy stored in gravitational fields cancels out the other energy. So given that this fluctuation could last indefinetly.
Well...basically correct, except that if it's not 'nothing' then it's not 'ex nihilo' (from nothing).
Quantum fluctuations create ex nihlo.
Not exactly, zero point energy seems to be a property of space-time itself. Though it really does come down to semantics in these sorts of arguments.
Personally, I would not call a false vacuum, space devoid of particles, or a quantum field "nothing" - at least not in the terms inplied via the phrase ex nihlo.
As you hinted at, the concept of "nothing" doesn't make much sense in physics - and personally I don't think it makes much sense logically; but that is a conversation unto itself.
Personally, I think the BB is best looked at as a transitional, rather than creation (especially creation ex nihlo) event. I.E. there was something before the BB, we simply have no proper way of describing it.
Something never comes from literally nothing (whatever literally nothing actually means, other than a logical mind-fuck), and fundamental laws of science tend to support such.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I totatlly forgot to mention the zero point energy field. The flucuations are cause by flucuations in the ZPEF, which as you mentioned is a property of space-time. So I could have an electron and positron appear in a vacuum. However, the particle creation is always countered with the anti-particle. Like I said, an electron-positron pair, proton anti-proton etc.. This is why I said that the net energy of the universe could be zero. That it is the net energy is 0. So something can come from 'nothing' if the net energy is 0. Notice the quotations around 'nothing'.
If I create a vacuum, I am not going to get a ham sandwich appearing in it. If I did, I would need an, for lack of a better term, anti-ham sandwich to make the net energy 0.
Ah, ok, so we essentially agree, just using slightly different terminology.
If I had anti-ham sammich particles, I would rule the world!
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Sort of right, but space is "something". A vacuum is teeming with energy, heat, physical space and time. Only outside a vacuum could something truly exist "ex nihilo".
I want to get to know you guys. Your brains seem to be far more educated on the subject than mine, and I cannot let that stand. Let me just simply ask one question regarding the sandwich/anti-sandwich comment. You're telling me that for every x particle that exists there is an equal "anti-x" particle somewhere? Am I even on the right track?
content deleted