Jump to content
Science Forums

Massless Energy & Nothing.


OmegaX7

Recommended Posts

;) O.K., this is my first thread here. I'm open to constructive critisizim since most academic sites will take an insightfull thought and cut you to pieces with it. ;) Oh well, I guess thats science. This thought is just that. "Energy "should" be able to exist without the presence of mass." This however is totally and unfortunatley unverifiable as long as there any particles of mass left; of which there is most likely more than 10^81 of them in the known universe. My first point I'd like to hear back on is this; "Pre-Big Bang, before the expotential expansion of the baby universe began, there was nothing. But I'd like to stress that "nothing" "IS" "something." ;) And that in itself is another avenue to explore. Theres always been a cunundrum that you can't get something from nothing, and I fully agree with that statement. I also believe that relaivity states that all observers must see the same results, and we certainly all do seem to agree that the universe came from nothing - - - ;) - - "But That Can't Be!!!" ;) Well, welcome to quantum electrodynamics and quantum physics and all the other quantum stuff that explains how thingsthat can't happen, - - happen. Why couldn't a one dimentional space exist where "only energy lives." Here would lie the ingrediants for mass; "Energy." This "Space, not SpaceTime" would be "timeless." Before the conversion to mass, time would not be a factor in the equation. Here lies your eternitys. This state might persist for longer than the furthest point in time to which you could project yourself or shorter than the Plank time; who would know??; what particle would be there to eventually disintigrate to mark a timeline??, and yet this space could be buzzing with energy. Now electromagnetic energy as we know it requires mass, i.e., a planet, or a magnet, you know, some source. But what ifthere were no sources. If E=mc2 then M=ec2 then if "all matter/mass" were converted to energy, "would everything just be gone??" I think not, but then where is the energy?----"Everywhere." Yet nowhere; without mass, it's just gone. But it can't be "GONE", only converted. This is crazy ;) ;) right?? Theres a hundred related points opened up here and I'd like to approach them one at a time. Faraday once wrote that 1, It is not scientificaly proper to make up states or entities for which no experimental evidence exists. (which this seems to be) 2, Hypotheses cannot be freely invented, but must have some experimentally verifiable aspect. (which this doesn't) And 3, Hypotheses must be clear and unambiguous, and they must serve to explain, in a mechanical way, the phenomena for which they were invented. (which this isn't and doesn't), but something came from nothing; how do we conceptualize and theorize this??

L8R

"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules." :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear up one thing: energy exists without mass. Mass is simply concentrated energy. Science has a very good understanding of what energy and mass is. Radio waves are pure energy traveling through space. There is no "radio" particle - they are simply electromagnetic waves carried by the photon. The photon is a fundamental, massless particle made out of pure energy (often referred to as a quantum of light or a discreet packet of electromagnetic energy).

 

The standard Big Bang theory does not state that something came out of nothing. Rather, it states that we cannot know what came before the Big Bang because that was when our universe came into being. It is currently not possible to prove anything about what was before the Big Bang, and it mgiht not ever be possible (this is the stand that cosmologist John Barrow takes, for example).

 

You raise a lot of fundamental questions, many of which have been discussed here before. It might help to split your post up a bit (or at least use a line break here and there) to make it easier to reply to your post. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Negative energy falls like everything else - the gravitational binding energies of the Earth vs. the moon and the Nordtvedt effect,

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-binding-energy

 

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113

<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024

Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)

Nordtvedt Effect

 

Light falls differently (still by the book), but a photon is not an inertial frame of reference,

 

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014

Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)

Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)

falling light

 

The Big Bang is a vacuum quantum fluctuation. It was an explosion of spacetime not in spacetime. Near as anybody can tell, all the mass visible and otherwise plus kinetic and potential energies plus fields in the universe sum to exactly nothing. Every point in the universe is at its exact center, too. All 4(pi) steradians at every point aim exactly at tte Big Bang.

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723

WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

Dark matter candidates

 

<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>

Carroll on what it all means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K., - - I've a few points you can help with. And sorry about the way I type things out. I have to work quickly or I lose my train of thought. Sometimes my thoughts come out quite fragmented; a bit like my life. Here goes - - How can energy exist with out mass as part of the equation? I need a couple of examples. Yes, I understand that mass is energy, henceforth E=mc2. ;) Where might the electromagnetic (radio waves) come from if mass is excluded? I understand there is no "radio particle." I comprehind the quantum packet thing too. Where would a photon come from without some form of matter to produce it? I agree no theory proposes a pre big bang condition but to simply postulate that "it's just when we came into being" implys there was simply nothing before that time and you simply can't get something from nothing. But you might get mass/matter if you have enough energy. Right? Why couldn't there be 1 dimentional space? couldn't energy live there. I know none of this is provable, thats why we speculate and pick each others ideas apart. How should I split up my posts. I feel there are many branchs sprouting from this initial question that all lead back to a common point. I do things however it best pleases everyone. Yes, I understand that the Big Bang was the result of a quantum vacuum fluctuation - - - a place of "nothingness" I beleive. This is the place I'm trying to introduce us too. I know it is an explosion of, and "not" spacetime. But before that, it was only space; "no matter" leaves space undisturbted and flat, i.e., "no time." As I mentioned, this "state of affairs" could have lasted a little while or a long while since "time" can't be a factor untill one has mass. I have to go - - the kids are fighting.

L8R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K., - - I've a few points you can help with. And sorry about the way I type things out. I have to work quickly or I lose my train of thought. Sometimes my thoughts come out quite fragmented; a bit like my life. Here goes - - How can energy exist with out mass as part of the equation? I need a couple of examples. Yes, I understand that mass is energy, henceforth E=mc2. :eek: Where might the electromagnetic (radio waves) come from if mass is excluded? I understand there is no "radio particle." I comprehind the quantum packet thing too. Where would a photon come from without some form of matter to produce it? I agree no theory proposes a pre big bang condition but to simply postulate that "it's just when we came into being" implys there was simply nothing before that time and you simply can't get something from nothing. But you might get mass/matter if you have enough energy. Right? Why couldn't there be 1 dimentional space? couldn't energy live there. I know none of this is provable, thats why we speculate and pick each others ideas apart. How should I split up my posts. I feel there are many branchs sprouting from this initial question that all lead back to a common point. I do things however it best pleases everyone. Yes, I understand that the Big Bang was the result of a quantum vacuum fluctuation - - - a place of "nothingness" I beleive. This is the place I'm trying to introduce us too. I know it is an explosion of, and "not" spacetime. But before that, it was only space; "no matter" leaves space undisturbted and flat, i.e., "no time." As I mentioned, this "state of affairs" could have lasted a little while or a long while since "time" can't be a factor untill one has mass. I have to go - - the kids are fighting.

L8R

 

Photons have what is termed kinetic energy. Kinetic energy has a bit different equation than the simple E=MC^2 one. Total energy = hf is the more proper equation with h=6.6261 x 10^ˉ34 Joules when it comes to photons.

 

Also, in agreement with others the universe did not come from nothing. The common BB theory with inflation states in short that the universe was the result of the decay of a false(high energy) vacuum state into a stable(low energy) vacuum state. The false vacuum state was massless. But it had energy. The only camp I know of out there that holds to creation out of nothing, so to speak, is that of the Fundamentalist literal seven days approach which is not science to begin with, nor is it actually supported by the Bible itself since the actual Hebrew words used simply point to a chaotic expanse called darkness or the surface of the deep.

 

Some of the misinterpretation on this out there stems from the fact that Einstein's original model was that of a static empty spacetime in which matter existed. Einstein himself abondoned that static model later in favor of an evolving spacetime that was not empty. Every since the advent of quantum theory the vacuum or background of spacetime has never been considered empty itself. But some people continue to this day to consider the vacuum as empty or a nothing.

 

A true empty vacuum would have zero energy. It also would exist at absolute zero temperature. Our vacuum has a temperature which can be measured globally via the CMB. Locally that temperature varies itself due to the presence of matter and fields. No where in the universe is that vacuum at absolute zero. By quantum theory it can never be at absolute zero. In the past it was globally far hotter. Yes, it does cool with time and expansion. But even remote from say any large body of matter it always has a temperature which tells us that there is energy present there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might add that since it is actually energy that curves spacetime spacetime is actually flatter now with expansion than it was in the past. Going back to the start of creation following the BB model spacetime started as fully curved in upon itself as a singularity. Its the expansion of that original cosmic egg, so to speak, that makes for spacetime being globally nearly flat. Even with the more recent CMB MAPP data one might question just how flat is spacetime. Only two of the omega factors stem from normal matter/energy. The third omega factor is something we call dark energy. Dark energy actually works the reverse of gravity in that it further expands spacetime where as all the rest would tend to curve spacetime back inwards. If one only considered the first two omega factors spacetime is not flat at all. In fact, it would rather tend to curve outward into an open universe situation. There just isn't enough matter/energy out there to yield a closed situation at all ever since the start of the BB. The curvature of spacetime is simply something that evolves with time. It never has been truely flat in the strict sence of the word. Not globally or locally for that matter. It only appears flat simply because of the interplay of three factors only one of which we fully understand. The ones we do not fully understand are dark matter and dark energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, some good responses, all of them. I'll try to address things in the order there written. I'll pass on commenting on the photons, but only because my inquiries lie just before their creation. I understand the "false energy vacuum" theory and agree with that. That state of affairs should have been highly unstable and ready to explode into additional dimensions. It was a state of highly energitic activity but surely it wasn't "nothing." If all the mass/matter we know of in the universe came from this place, then how can that pre-big bang energy be "nothing?" I mean, I know it has no mass at this point in it's existance but surely it contains the ingrediants for all we know. I too would "REALLY" like to keep god out of this; at least at this time. Thats another thread anyway. But you must see that what is postulated here (creation by divene intervintion) appiers on the outside to be something from nothing. I seems more plausable to invision the false energy state as something "very real" but "intangible", and timeless by it's very nature. On the next thread space curveture is mentioned, thats a little beyond the point i'm at here as that would require mass. We're getting there. Ya know one thing that is intriguing is I wonder what force could have brought enough energy into a small enough region of flat 1 dimensional space to create the first paricle, which it seems would have been the trigger for quite an explosion indeed. Wouldn't the first particle represent the end of the expotintial expansion period? I mean, a lot happens from the point where energy builds to the point where a first particle could possibly be created, right? Would you think the expanding sphere of energy would create an energy field around it during it's expansion. Maybe not if the sphere were expanding faster than an energy field could possibly propagate. So at this point in the 1 dimensional space, surrounding this propagating field, there would, as of yet, be no disturbance in the surrounding region. So is it anything yet? If the conversion to mass has yet to begin, is it still nothing???

L8R

"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules."

Thanks for your replys and insights. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused...you keep explaining that there cannot have been "nothing". But that is exactly what the replies you have got say, too. There probably was not a "nothing" before the Big Bang. The problem is that we cannot, with the current theories, explain what was before the Big Bang. Some will even say that the entire question is meaningless because there *was* no "before" the BB. That is a boring position, though... :eek:

 

There is not really a fixed transition between pure energy and matter - at some point the energy level of a point in space becomes high enough to manifest itself as massive. Photons have no mass and as such appear to be particles only when they interact with other particles. All particles have energy in certain amounts (or quanta of electromagnetic force).

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say or even what you are asking. Could you possibly distill your ideas into concrete questions? It is a bit fuzzy to me, at least on a Sunday afternoon... :rant:

 

I wonder what force could have brought enough energy into a small enough region of flat 1 dimensional space to create the first paricle, which it seems would have been the trigger for quite an explosion indeed. Wouldn't the first particle represent the end of the expotintial expansion period?

 

The Big Bang was not an explosion, that is a misnomer. There is a good entry on the Big Bang at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

Particles would not have formed in one dimensional space, they didn't form until after the BB. Where does your one-dimensional space come into play?

 

Particles would have nothing to do with the cosmic expansion so I am not sure why you bring that up.

 

Again, maybe I would understand you better if you would bother to format your posts a little bit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Long quote which was a copy of Tormod's above post deleted for brevity

 

 

This is an interesting thread :eek: I enjoyed reading it!

Tormod, Do you subscribe to the Gnab Gib (Big Crunch)? Do you have any good references of study for it? Thanks in advance. :eek:

~Narf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you subscribe to the Gnab Gib (Big Crunch)? Do you have any good references of study for it?

Most recent data sez that the Universe is flat, which means its probably not going to crunch. Some articles you may find interesting as a starting point:

Boomerang project (2000): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm and http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/boomerang-flat.html

 

and more recently:

 

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Science/Universe-is-flat-with-a-ripple/2005/01/12/1105423539638.html?oneclick=true

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread :eek: I enjoyed reading it!

Tormod, Do you subscribe to the Gnab Gib (Big Crunch)? Do you have any good references of study for it? Thanks in advance. :eek:

~Narf

 

Sorry Narf for cutting your quote of my post. Please be careful when quoting long posts - just leave in the necessary bits, people can read the rest for themselves. :eek:

 

I personally do not think there will be a Big Crunch. I remember a few years back that New Scientist seemingly published a new story every week that would contradict last story's week - the fate of the universe was pretty much dependent on "today's weather", so to speak.

 

A good book about the long-term future of the universe is Fred Hoyle and Greg Adam's "The Five Ages of the Universe" which I reviewed here:

 

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=29590

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Omega X,

 

As a wave light cannot have inertial mass. A particle experiences aero dynamics. But a wave cannot play that game because it doesn't have resistence. Light does have gravitational mass so it can be pulled into a gravitational field on a tangent. Gravity also affects light by way of redshifting. As for energy having no mass: even virtual particles have a mass of 10 ^ - 31. So even a vacuum has a measurable mass. Does that make sense?

 

Now what happened at the big bang changes depending on who you are asking. We can agree that something existed: that's all. If your point to all this 'nothing' is creationism then you are forgeting something important. If God created everything from nothing and you are suggesting that nothing existed: aren't you really stating that God is nothing. You are taking the Bible too literally.

 

Remember Omega X if God exists then there is no way to prove his existence scientifically. You are attempting to use physics to prove metaphysics. Also before the big bang something existed. That is scientific.

 

Understand?

 

Damien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Physical theory has several requirements:

 

1) It must be mathematically self-consistent.

2) It must make predictions not contradicted by empirical observation - not even once.

3) It must be falsifiable, to allow (2).

 

Nobody is awarded the privilege of picking lint from a bellybutton and calling it legitimate speculation. Faith and maunder are venues of religion whose definition specifically denies testable physical connection. Mathematics as such has no empirical constraints. Mathematics need merely be internally self-consistent - and it has strong rules about that.

 

Get your lazy butt to Google and start reading about the subjects about which you so effusively spew - not the pupularist hornswoggle but the technical readouts. Either learn something before you speculate or admit you don't have the brains to be in the room, and get out. Physical reality is not Newtonian. Physical reality is modeled by maths tremendously beyond algebra. If the workings of the universe contradict "common sense, " then you need better common sense. The universe will not change to validate your prejudices.

 

Anybody who has used a low-flush toilet knows how political convenience collapses when confronted with real world feces. The world overflows with generous sources of both. You only get to dispose of one. Make your choice lest you be up to your knees in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear up one thing: energy exists without mass. Mass is simply concentrated energy.

 

I know I am not adding to this thread, but please reread the above quote and explain what it means...Energy cannot exist without mass if mass is concentrated energy. Even unconcentrated energy would have mass if the quote is true...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am not adding to this thread, but please reread the above quote and explain what it means...Energy cannot exist without mass if mass is concentrated energy. Even unconcentrated energy would have mass if the quote is true...

 

The quote means what it says. You can have energy without mass. But you cannot have mass without energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...