Matter and energy: indestructible? infinite?

[ThePiston]

Too many topics for one thread?

Can anything be truly infinite? How about the longevity of energy and matter which are non-destructable?... they can only change from one form to another, matter or energy cannot be destroyed... even in black holes (per Hawking). If matter and energy are only transferrable, does this mean that it never had a beginning and will never have an end? Something the human mind cannot fathom.

How can matter just be? Can you fathom nothingness? I can't... I think of it as an empty space, but space is something. Space begats time and time is something. I cannot wrap my head around nothingness and nothingness is a form of infinity.

However, if something had a beginning, then it began from something else, correct? So that can't be right either... This is of course the age-old question except a modern interpretation - Where did the universe come from? It has been answered from the beginning of time using a "God" and angels, heaven, hell, etc., but that to me in nonsense. Although I cannot truly say there is a "thing" that created the matter in the universe, because at some point in the universe there had to be nothingness, but how? How can something pop out of nothing? And if there was always matter, how is that? Is it explainable by come current theories that parallel universes spilled out energy and created our universe? Can these questions ever be answered?

Please, do not reply if you are going to talk about a specific "supreme being" or just want to flame me for my views. If you are offended by my assertion that the earth was not creatd in 6 days, I apologize. I would only like rational, scientific, fact-based replies in the realm of contemporary theoretical physics. (and no hard math please )

 

[DrPizza]

Google for "virtual particles", "quantum mechanics" and "pop into existence"
One of the odd predictions of quantum mechanics is that particles pop into and out of existence (in matter/anti-matter pairs) all the time.
It's been experimentally verified by observing the effects these particles have on other matter already in the universe.

Here's a nanotechnology site about having to keep the virtual particles in mind:

http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/01q1/nanotech-1.html

 

[ThePiston]

I have read about these particles... constantly popping into existence and then anhilating themselves. It makes a good case for the existence of other universes that contain other matter in addition to our's - but an anti-particle that exists for 1 billionth of a second is a far cry from the big bang. Maybe our universe has a matter/energy limit... when the slightest variation exists in the total energy of our universe, a particle will popup filling the void only to be anhilated when the universe fluctuates back into it's normal size/energy limit. It's very interesting. If the universe can giveth, it can most likely taketh away. Is there a term for the collective universe(s)?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: ThePiston
Too many topics for one thread?

Can anything be truly infinite? How about the longevity of energy and matter which are non-destructable?... they can only change from one form to another, matter or energy cannot be destroyed... even in black holes (per Hawking).

The statement that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed is a popularization of the laws of conservation of energy and mass, which are expressed mathematically. The law of conservation of energy is that the first derivative of energy be zero:

dE/dt = 0

Looking at the definition of a derivative:

lim(dt->0) ( E(t+dt) - E(t) ) / dt

we see that we simply can't apply it across a discontinuity, such as the beginning of time at t=0, where E is defined for t>=0 and undefined for t<0.

There's no conflict between conservation of energy and the universe having a beginning, as the law of conservation of energy clearly cannot be applied to such a situation.

However, some cosmologists, such as Stephen Hawking, think that the universe has no boundary in time in the same way that it has no boundary in space. That would eliminate the beginning issue, as there simply was no point in time you can point at as the beginning.

 

[ThePiston]

so the best minds on the topic tell us that energy and matter are finite; however, space and time are not. Time is a product of space, so both are dependent of each other and have not had a beginning or and end... even before the big bang? Is it a moot point to ask if space and time existed before the big bang?

So if space-time is independent of matter/energy, then it is theoretically possible to have a completely empty space which isn't "nothing"... does this mean that space-time can begat matter and energy spontaneously?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: ThePiston
so the best minds on the topic tell us that energy and matter are finite; however, space and time are not.

No, Hawking's talking about a boundaryless spacetime which is also finite. General Relativity uses nonEuclidean geometries that permit such constructs. Note also that 4-dimensional spacetime is curved, but there is no fifth dimension through which it is curved, which is another feature of nonEuclidean geometries.

Time is a product of space, so both are dependent of each other and have not had a beginning or and end... even before the big bang? Is it a moot point to ask if space and time existed before the big bang?

A common misconception about the Big Bang is that it was an explosion within spacetime. That's not at all what the theory is about; it's about the observed expansion of spacetime.