11Prompt - Big Bang
/?q=taxonomy/term/145
en
In Defense of Emergent Spacetime
/?q=node/591
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>My justification for writing this post is that only emergent spacetime can ultimately lead to God. So, we must defend it in every possible way.</p>
<p>Recently, I have posted the following in one Facebook Discussion Group: </p>
<p>'Physicists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, and it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal.</p>
<p>‘As we have come to know that spacetime is emergent, so some questions arise here that I am giving below:</p>
<p>1) Was spacetime fundamental or emergent when the universe began to expand from the Big Bang?<br />
2) If it was fundamental, then is there any scientific evidence in support of it?<br />
3) If it was fundamental, how and when has it become emergent by losing its fundamental nature?<br />
4) However, if it was emergent, would it not require the prior presence of something non-spatiotemporal from which only it could emerge?’</p>
<p>In reply, a person commented that we have not come to know that. It is only a possibility that only a few theoreticians are investigating. These theoreticians have yet to extend it from 3D to 4D that is essential, and until they do, they cannot even start for the possible observation that might verify the speculation.</p>
<p>But I think there is a reason why those physicists may not be entirely wrong who say that spacetime is emergent.</p>
<p>In an earlier article1, I have shown that if anything exists at all, there would be something spaceless and timeless. That is because otherwise, there will be an infinite regress. Below, I am going to repeat the same article here, but with some modification.</p>
<p>We can show by some simple logic that if anything exists at all, then either there will be an infinite regress or that there will be something spaceless and timeless that will stop that regress. </p>
<p>Now let us start from the earth. Earth exists within the solar system.<br />
The solar system exists within the Milky Way galaxy.<br />
The Milky Way galaxy exists within the local cluster of galaxies.<br />
This cluster again exists within some super-cluster of galaxies.<br />
This super-cluster of galaxies exists within the universe that contains trillions of other galaxies.</p>
<p>WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY NOW IS PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF BUILDING AN ARGUMENT ONLY. NOTHING IS ASSERTED HERE.</p>
<p>The universe exists within the multiverse that contains trillions of other universes.<br />
This multiverse exists within some super-multiverse that contains trillions of other multiverses.<br />
This super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse that contains trillions of other super-multiverses.<br />
This super-duper multiverse exists within some supra-multiverse that contains trillions of other super-duper multiverses.<br />
This supra-multiverse exists within some supra-dupra multiverse that contains trillions of other supra-multiverses.<br />
And in this way, this chain will go on up to infinity. </p>
<p>However, if we want to stop the infinite regress, we would have to break the chain somewhere in the middle. We would have to stop at some level.</p>
<p>If we decide that we would stop at the universe level, we would have to say that nothing is there beyond the universe. The universe as a whole would be neither in any space nor in any time. That is because there would be nothing outside the universe. </p>
<p>If we stop at the multiverse level, we would have to say that the multiverse as a whole would be neither in any space nor at any time. That is because there would be nothing outside the multiverse. </p>
<p>In each case, the entity being as a whole neither in space nor in time would be spaceless and timeless. </p>
<p>So, the entity that will stop the infinite regress will always be spaceless and timeless. </p>
<p>From above, we can conclude that if anything exists at all, then there would be two possibilities:<br />
1) Possibility one: There would be an infinite regress;<br />
2) Possibility two: There would be something spaceless and timeless that will stop that regress;</p>
<p>I do not profess to know whether there is an infinite regress or no such regress. NOBODY KNOWS. However, if there is no such regress, then we can say that there was something spaceless and timeless at the beginning from which everything has originated. In that case, we cannot say that those physicists are wrong who are saying spacetime is emergent.</p>
<p>Reference:<br />
1) <a href=";
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/53" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/54" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/259" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spacetime</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/269" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Non-spatiotemporal</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/145" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Big Bang</a></li></ul></div>
Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:05:06 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
591 at
/?q=node/591#comments
God is not Purely Imaginary
/?q=node/589
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>God is not purely imaginary, because God has also been described as spaceless and timeless.</p>
<p>In this 21st century, physicists are no longer saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying that it is emergent. </p>
<p>If an entity is emergent, then in general, that will mean these three things:<br />
1) The emergent entity cannot have any existence prior to its emergence.<br />
2) The emergent entity (A) cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some particular entity or entities (B) only.<br />
3) B must pre-exist before the emergence of A. </p>
<p>The above three will also be true for emergent spacetime as well. </p>
<p>Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. Physicists are describing this source as non-spatiotemporal. </p>
<p>'Non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. The special theory of relativity has combined the two separate entities space and time into one single entity: spacetime. So, scientists can no longer use the old term ‘spaceless and timeless’; instead, they use the new term ‘non-spatiotemporal’. </p>
<p>So, emergent spacetime has shown that there is something spaceless and timeless (aka, non-spatiotemporal) in nature from which our known spacetime has emerged. </p>
<p>This is the objectively real part in man's imagination of God.</p>
<p>As we have come to know that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, so some questions arise here that are given below: </p>
<p>1) Was spacetime fundamental or emergent when the universe began to expand from the Big Bang?<br />
2) If it was fundamental, then is there any scientific evidence in support of it? If yes, then how did scientists get that evidence? And also, from where did they get that evidence?<br />
3) If it was fundamental, then how and when has it become emergent by losing its fundamental nature?<br />
4) However, if it was emergent, then would it not require the prior presence of NSE from which only it could emerge? </p>
<p>Moreover, if an entity is emergent, then how can it be the case that it was fundamental at an earlier time, and that it has become emergent afterwards by losing its fundamental nature? Would it not be more reasonable to assume that if it is emergent now, then earlier also it was emergent, and that it will remain so in future as well? </p>
<p>One can easily understand what will be the implication of this. Spacetime being emergent, would require the prior presence of this NSE for its emergence from it, when the universe began expanding from the Big Bang. </p>
<p>In the CCC model of Roger Penrose, this NSE would have to be eternal and everlasting, because every time a big bang has occurred or will occur, whether in the infinite past, or in the far distant future, spacetime would have required, or would require, the prior presence of this NSE for its emergence from it.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/53" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/54" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/121" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spaceless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/122" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Timeless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/145" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Big Bang</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-6" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/269" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Non-spatiotemporal</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-7" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/317" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Roger Penrose</a></li></ul></div>
Wed, 24 Mar 2021 10:33:55 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
589 at
/?q=node/589#comments
On Emergent Space-Time and the Existence of God
/?q=node/563
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In one YouTube comment thread one atheist has asked this question: ‘Who created the creator? Oh, what's that? The creator doesn't need a creator?' </p>
<p>He has also written that if the creator doesn't need a creator, then that would be special pleading. He has also stated that if the creator doesn't need a creator then by extension the universe, which created us, also doesn't need one. So, why should we bother conjuring up an additional step? He has also asked: is it turtles all the way?</p>
<p>Here I enter in the thread.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist:<br />
‘'Who created the creator? Oh, what's that? The creator doesn't need a creator?' </p>
<p>‘You do not know the answer yet? Are you so backdated? </p>
<p>[Then I have given him the reference to my article If God created universe, Who created God?1] </p>
<p>‘There it has been shown that God is a bunch of several zeroes and that zero needs no creation.’</p>
<p>The Atheist then asks me as to whether I did even read what he said? He also writes that my response was already preemptively addressed, because if god doesn’t need a creator, then the universe also doesn't need a creator, so why should I bother conjuring up an additional step?</p>
<p>Me to Atheist:<br />
God does not need a creator because it can be shown and it has actually been shown that God is a bunch of several zeroes. Can anybody show that the universe is also a bunch of several zeroes and so universe would also need no creation?</p>
<p>The Atheist here replies that zeroes can't create anything, because it has been shown that anything multiplied by 0 equals 0. He also writes that if god doesn't need a creator, the same applies to the universe.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist:<br />
‘Universe would not need any creator if it can be shown that everything in this universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any outside agent. But the question is: can it be explained in that way? Below is just one problem:</p>
<p>‘One person in one YouTube comment thread has written that the universe is still nothing, because there is as much energy as there is negative energy; so: Energy + - Energy = 0. So basically we still are where we started; the universe is just a more complicated state of nothing. </p>
<p>‘My reply to him was this: </p>
<p>‘If the universe is still nothing, then that will mean that initially the universe was nothing and that it has still remained nothing, because its total energy has always remained zero. </p>
<p>‘But when initially the universe was nothing, it was not that only its energy was zero. Its space, time and matter were also zero. So if the universe still remains nothing, then why should it be that only its total energy remains zero but not its total space-time? What is the logic behind that? </p>
<p>‘So, if the universe still remains nothing, then not only the total energy, but the total space-time of this ever-expanding universe must also always remain zero. </p>
<p>‘But have the scientists like Krauss, Hawking and others provided any explanation as to how this total space-time always remains zero?’</p>
<p>This time The Atheist does not reply. Not getting any reply from him I write to him again.</p>
<p>Me to Atheist:<br />
‘I have mentioned just one problem, but there are other problems also. No scientist can answer whence appeared those quantum mechanical laws without which no cosmological model is complete. In that sense quantum mechanical laws have the same status as that of the theistic God; origin of both remains unexplained and mysterious. However the question ‘who created God?’ can be answered and it has already been answered. Whereas the question ‘who created quantum mechanical laws?’ has not yet been answered. </p>
<p>‘Then there is the fine-tuning problem. There are about 30 numbers within the laws of physics that include the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces, the values of which cannot be predicted by any scientific laws. Rather scientists have to find their values from actual experiments only. If these numbers have slightly different initial values at the big bang, then the world, and life as we know it, would probably never have come into being. </p>
<p>‘The question is: why do these numbers have the values that they have? At present scientists cannot answer this question from within their known physics and they resort to multiverse hypothesis for its explanation. But up till now there is no direct experimental evidence that there are other universes beyond our universe and so at present multiverse has remained a theoretical probability only. But there are some scientists within the scientific community who think that even if multiverse is real, yet multiverse will not help us solve any single problem within our universe, because physics in each and every member of the multiverse would be the same as that of our universe. </p>
<p>‘So long scientists will not be able to solve these problems, their claim that the universe does not need any God will not be trustworthy. </p>
<p>‘You have written that zero cannot create anything. If zero does not have any power to create anything, then how has zero energy created such a vast universe?’</p>
<p>This time The Atheist gives a reply that first of all I need to actually demonstrate such a god. But as because I am saying god has been "demonstrated to be zeroes", which doesn't make any sense, so he is willing to bet that I have been duped into some hippie kool-aid. He also writes that he would suggest actually thinking for a moment who is more likely to have analyzed these things more rigorously, the guy that said god is a sequence of zeroes, who probably hasn't achieved anything in his whole life in regards to his career as a professional, or the elite scientists in the history of the world from around every country that have granted us literally every piece of technology we see around us today.</p>
<p>What follows is my final reply to The Atheist:<br />
‘I have requested you to go through the article If God created universe, Who created God?1 But you have not gone through it. So I will quote here the first paragraph of that article before proceeding further: </p>
<p>‘‘Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give the most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question.’ </p>
<p>‘The purpose of quoting this passage here is to show that the same elite scientists that have granted us literally every piece of technology we see around us today have also prepared the path for us believers so that we can argue for the existence of God. </p>
<p>‘Now let us first see what would be the attributes of a creator God. </p>
<p>[Then I have repeated the same argument here that I have given in the article One True God2 for showing how it can be concluded that a creator God would always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.]</p>
<p>‘So as per logic a creator God must necessarily have to be spaceless and timeless, because this is the one and the only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.</p>
<p>‘Now let us see how believers have described their God. About the supernatural God it has been said that he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. About the same God it has also been said that he is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.</p>
<p>‘So it can in no way be denied that God has been described as spaceless and timeless by the believers. </p>
<p>‘Now let us see what science has done here. Science has also given its full support to this logical concept of a creator God by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. </p>
<p>[Then I have repeated the same argument here that I have given in the article If God created universe, Who created God?1 for showing how a spaceless and timeless state would obtain.]</p>
<p>‘So it can in no way be denied that science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. </p>
<p>‘Now let us ask ourselves this question: why has science done this? If God is purely imaginary and non-existent, then why is it that science has provided such explanations for the attributes of a purely imaginary and non-existent God? What shall we have to conclude from this? Shall we have to conclude that those highly intelligent persons who have provided these explanations were not intelligent at all and that that was the reason as to why they failed to distinguish between what was actually real and what was purely imaginary? Or shall we have to conclude that this God is objectively real?</p>
<p>‘Not only that. Phenomenon of quantum entanglement has compelled the scientists to conclude that space and time are not fundamental at all and that space and time have emerged from something more fundamental that is spaceless and timeless. Here are two relevant quotes:</p>
<p>‘“If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics…Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.” (Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011) </p>
<p>‘“Indeed, a number of serious physicists have for some time by now stated that our usual perception of TIME is wrong, due to the fact that TIME, as much as SPACE, are NOT fundamental entities in Physics, but ONLY ... epiphenomena arising from OTHER yet more fundamental entities ...” (Personal e-mail to me) </p>
<p>‘We have already seen that God is described as spaceless and timeless. And we now see that scientists are also saying that space and time have somehow emerged from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. </p>
<p>‘So, if there is indeed a God, then at the beginning of everything there would be an entity that would be spaceless and timeless. Scientists have not yet admitted that there is a God. But they have at least admitted this much that space and time are not fundamental entities at all and that the more fundamental entity from which they have emerged is indeed spaceless and timeless.’</p>
<p>Addendum: Has anybody ever thought that if it is true that space and time are not fundamental entities in Physics, but only epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities, then at the same time it might not be true that the universe has originated from nothing? If space and time are emergent entities only (epiphenomena) arising from other yet more fundamental entities, then were they emergent also when they made their first appearance at the beginning of the universe? Or, were they fundamental entities at that time? If we claim that they have originated from nothing at the beginning of the universe, then they were fundamental entities at the beginning, simply because they have originated from nothing and not from those yet more fundamental entities. If they were fundamental entities at the beginning, then how and when did they become emergent by losing their fundamental nature? However, if they were emergent at the beginning also, then would they not require the prior presence of those fundamental entities from which only they could arise? Being epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities, was it possible for them to arise from nothing? </p>
<p>If my above argument is correct, then it cannot be the case that the universe has originated from nothing, but from those fundamental entities from which only space and time can emerge. That means all those hypotheses that try to explain the origin of the universe from nothing are all false hypotheses only.</p>
<p>That space and time are emergent would also have two more implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which is an absurdity. </p>
<p>However it has already been shown that there can be only one single entity in spaceless and timeless condition.3 It means that the entity from which the universe has originated is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.</p>
<p>Theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge that the first part of the religious belief is true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances scientists have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the religious belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only. </p>
<p>I hope within some fifty or hundred years from now on scientists will be again driven to the conclusion, and this time also they will be forced by the circumstances only, that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent.</p>
<p>Once it is admitted by the scientists that space-time is not fundamental, but emergent, now all the atheistic nonsenses can be very easily countered.</p>
<p>Reference:<br />
1. <a href=" />
2. <a href=" />
3. <a href=";
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/53" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/54" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/121" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spaceless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/122" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Timeless</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/145" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Big Bang</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-6" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/257" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Phenomenon of Quantum Entanglement</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-7" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/113" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Universe</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-8" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/157" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Multiverse</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-9" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/220" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Lawrence Krauss</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-10" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/96" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Stephen Hawking</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-11" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/258" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Vlatko Verdal</a></li></ul></div>
Fri, 04 May 2018 13:42:25 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
563 at
/?q=node/563#comments
Can The Universe Have Non-zero Energy?
/?q=node/531
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig in March, 2014 theoretical physicist Sean Carroll has said the following in his opening speech:</p>
<p>If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, has a non-zero energy, and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal. The time parameter in Schrödinger’s equation, telling you how the universe evolves, goes from minus infinity to infinity.1 </p>
<p>But is it possible that the universe can have non-zero energy value? Let us suppose that the universe has non-zero energy value. In that case the universe will behave like a giant matter, because we now know that matter and energy are equivalent. This giant matter will create its own gravitational field that will try to extend beyond the universe, because here the entire universe itself is the matter that has created that field. But there is actually no space outside the universe where this field can extend. For this we can give two reasons. Scientists say that there was no space and time before the big bang. Space and time came into existence along with the big bang only. So there was no preexisting space-time within which this big bang occurred. Another reason is that this universe is also expanding at an accelerating rate. But when it is asked what it is expanding into, the answer we usually get from the scientists is that it is not expanding into anything, because the universe is not embedded into any higher space-time. So these two points suggest that there is no space-time outside the universe. Therefore universe as a whole cannot have any gravitational field that will extend beyond the universe. So, if it is the case that there is no space outside the universe, then in that case it cannot have any non-zero energy value.</p>
<p>Dr. Sten Odenwald has provided the following information on behalf of NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program:</p>
<p>‘General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.’2</p>
<p>So, if at any time of its evolution the universe has non-zero energy value, then it will create the gravitational field that will extend beyond the universe. As space is just another feature of the gravitational field, so in that case there will be space outside the universe. But cosmologists repeatedly say that there is no space outside the universe, because the universe is not expanding into anything. So universe having non-zero energy directly contradicts the statement that there is no space outside the universe.</p>
<p>Ref:<br />
1. <a href=" />
2. <a href=";
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/113" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Universe</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/145" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Big Bang</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/53" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/54" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/104" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Energy</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/146" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Gravitational Field</a></li></ul></div>
Tue, 10 May 2016 04:33:30 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
531 at
/?q=node/531#comments