0

I was watching a lecture by Alan Guth and wished I was in the classroom to be able to ask a question. He explained that the total energy in the universe could be very close to zero since mass and radiation is offset by the negative energy of the gravitational field. I wonder why mass isn't still "popping" into existence as long as a gravitational field also comes to be simultaneously.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Jack R. Woods
  • 247
  • The zero energy universe makes very little sense. Energy is defined as the ability of a system to perform work (on another system). What system would the universe be performing work on? OTOH, the ability of the universe to perform work internally is amazingly large, so unless Guth and others have come up with a new definition of energy, it's not even clear what they are saying. That "mass isn't being created in the universe" is simply false because the mass-energy equivalence doesn't make that a meaningful statement, to begin with. Matter is converted to radiation, though, and vice-versa. – CuriousOne Jun 19 '16 at 08:49
  • @CuriousOne You should probably watch a couple of You Tube lectures to see what Alan Guth and Lawrence Krauss are talking about. Just because they are highly acclaimed doesn't mean that they are right, but it does mean you should respect their opinion. – Jack R. Woods Jun 20 '16 at 14:38
  • I am not getting my physics from YouTube and neither should you. I am getting my physics from nature, so if Guth and Krauss have an experiment to suggest to test this hypothesis, I am all ear. – CuriousOne Jun 20 '16 at 18:22
  • Okay, I'll go launch my own satellite to get better data from the CMB and then build my own Super Collider to find out things not yet discovered by LHC. Sorry for watching a lecture by a Nobel prize winning physicist. – Jack R. Woods Jun 22 '16 at 01:59
  • I guess Guth hasn't won the Nobel Prize. I'm surprised, he deserves it. – Jack R. Woods Jun 22 '16 at 02:06
  • No offense, but science is done by a collective. While there are more important people than others, even the best theorists in the world can not do anything without the hundreds of thousands of experimentalists who have been and are doing the experiments. More importantly, it's not about believing any one person, it's about you developing an intuition of your own and about judging yourself whether a concept like this makes sense. That judgement may, occasionally, be wrong, but you have to have the guts to make it, anyway, based on what you know. – CuriousOne Jun 22 '16 at 02:30
  • I guess, in a sense, my question was actually challenging the "Zero Energy Universe Hypothesis". I apologize to the site for turning this into a chat room. I do have to make one more comment though (haha). I think that there is a need for both theoretical and experimental scientists in the world. However, if you want to get down to the real "nitty gritty", I think that the people who design and build the amazing instruments that allow us to probe deeper into the secrets of nature are the true unsung heroes. I believe that CuriousOne and I can agree on that one. – Jack R. Woods Jun 26 '16 at 16:13

1 Answers1

1

The idea of a "Zero-Energy Universe" is a theory held by a limited number of scientists.

There are several stackexchange question that expand on the theory and may help you.

Zero energy universe

Total energy of the Universe

Community
  • 1
  • Thanks for the links! I have no idea how many scientists subscribe to this idea, but Guth, Krauss and maybe even Hawking are a pretty good start. I don't really think my question is a duplicate since it is saying "if they are right then ...", but it may be speculative so I will withdraw it if site members want me to. – Jack R. Woods Jun 20 '16 at 14:34
  • 1
    I just watched a lecture by Lawrence Krauss that may have answered my question (theoretically). He explains that new mass may be being created all of the time, but that when it does it would decouple from our universe and we would never detect it. – Jack R. Woods Jun 20 '16 at 16:37