11Prompt - Energy

The One

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 11 Aug 2024 07:14:29 +0000

The two theories of special and general relativity clearly show the relationship between space, time, energy, and matter. Special relativity has shown that energy and matter are equivalent; energy can be converted into matter, and matter into energy. Again, general relativity shows that space, time, and matter are so interrelated that there cannot be any space-time without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without soace-time.

Since there cannot be any space-time without matter, and since there can neither be any matter without soace-time, therefore it can be asserted that space-time and matter have originated from one single source only. If the source of space-time and the source of matter were different, then there could not be such an interrelation between space-time and matter. Again, since energy and matter are identical, therefore we can assert that space, time, energy, and matter have originated from one single source only.

This interrelation between space-time and matter shows us that at the root of all things is the One, and that One is neither space, nor time, nor energy, nor matter, though space, time, energy, and matter have originated from that One only. If that One is neither space, nor time, nor energy, nor matter, then what is that One? It is not possible for anyone to say anything about that One, which is why Indian philosophy has only said neti, neti about that One; it is not this, it is not that, etc.

Spaceless, Timeless, and Immaterial

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:12:26 +0000

1) Physicists have shown that the total energy of the universe is zero.
2) SR has shown that mass and energy are equivalent.
3) Again GR has shown that space, time, and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any spacetime without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without spacetime. There is a saying of Einstein on this: "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Source: Google search)

Based on the three above, it can be shown that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

The total energy of the universe being zero, it can be shown that its total matter is also zero.

The famous equation of Einstein from SR shows that E is equal to m multiplied by c squared. If E is zero now, then m will be equal to zero divided by c squared, which will also be zero. So, the total energy of the universe being zero, Einstein's famous equation shows that in that case, the total mass of the universe will also be zero.

Now, the below portion is from Google search:
//What is mass in Physics with example? Mass can be best understood as the amount of matter present in any object or body. For example, a table, a chair, your bed, a football, a glass, and even air has mass. ... That being said, all objects are light or heavy because of their mass.//

As the total mass of the universe is zero, so the total amount of matter present in the universe will also be zero.

As the total matte of the universe is zero, so we can say that the universe as a whole is immaterial.

If the total matter of the universe is zero, its total spacetime will also be zero because as per GR, there cannot be any spacetime without matter.

What does it mean that the total spacetime of the universe is zero? It means that the universe as a whole is spaceless and timeless, or non-spatiotemporal, if we use the new scientific term that has replaced the old one spaceless and timeless.

We have already seen that the universe as a whole is immaterial. Now we have seen that it is also spaceless and timeless. So, we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

Again, the total energy of the universe always remains zero. Therefore, the universe as a whole will always remain spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

That means the universe as a whole does not change at all.

As the universe as a whole does not change at all, so we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, changeless, and immaterial.

That nicely explains why the wave function of the universe does not contain any time variable.

However, the above conclusion will be falsified if anybody in the near or distant future can show that the total energy of the universe has a non-zero value.

Why total energy of the universe can never be other than zero

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:36:40 +0000

In an earlier article ‘Is the total energy of the universe zero?’1 I have already shown as to why the total energy of the universe would be zero. But there is one deep metaphysical reason that surpasses all the earlier reasons, as to why this total energy can never be other than zero.

In another article ‘Existence of anything can ultimately point to God’2 I have also shown that if anything exists at all then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress.

So our starting point would be this: If anything exists, if even a single speck of dust exists, then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time.

Here it may be asked: why should we stop an infinite regress? There is one practical reason as to why we should stop it. If we decide that instead of stopping it we would rather go up to infinity, then we would never be able to reach this present moment from that infinite past moment, because infinite time is such that it can never be bridged. If infinite time can be bridged, then it is not an infinite time, rather a finite time only.

There is one more reason as to why there cannot be an infinite regress of any natural cause. A natural cause (A) that can bring the universe into existence through one step (cause and effect) only is more efficient than the natural cause (B) that would require at least two steps for doing the same. Conversely we can say that B is less efficient than A, because B requires two steps whereas in a similar situation A requires one step only. So a natural cause that would require infinite number of steps for bringing the universe into existence would be infinitely less efficient than A. A cause that is infinitely less efficient has practically zero efficiency, because inverse of infinity is zero. A cause that has zero efficiency cannot bring anything into existence, not to say a universe.

[The truth that there can never be an infinite regress because no causal chain can extend up to infinity can be called “Truth of all truths”, because from this basic truth other truths can be derived.]

So our conclusion is this: Ultimate reality – whatever that ultimate reality may be - can never be within any space and time. Ultimate reality is that reality beyond which there would be absolutely nothing.

Ultimate reality will be thus spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it cannot be material. This is as per GR. GR has shown that space, time and matter are interlinked. So either all the three of them would be there together or none of them would be there. As ultimate reality is not within any space and time so there would be only the ultimate reality and no space and time. As there would be no space and time, so the ultimate reality cannot be material.

Ultimate reality being thus immaterial its total energy would be zero. This is because matter and energy are equivalent and so, zero matter would mean zero energy.

As ultimate reality is the source from which everything has originated, so the total energy of the universe would also be zero, because universe cannot have more energy than the source from which it has originated.

However, the above does not give us the reason as to why the total energy of the universe should be zero; rather we have to find out merely by observation that its total energy is zero, because by observation only we can come to know that space, time and matter are interlinked. But if we assume that the universe has been created by a supernatural agent, then we will get that ultimate reason as to why its total energy cannot be other than zero. This has already been explained by me here.3 However I will very briefly repeat my arguments here.

1) God being the creator would be prior to the creation of the universe;

2) Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy;

3) As God is prior to the creation of energy, so God cannot contain any energy;

4) So neither the universe can contain any energy, because universe cannot have more energy than the source from which it has originated.

I have already said it earlier4 and again I am saying it here that only a created universe gives us at least one particular reason as to why its total energy cannot be other than zero. But an uncreated universe gives us absolutely no reason why its total energy should also be zero.

This also shows as to why space and time can neither be fundamental, because the source from which space and time have originated does not contain any space and time.

Now we can summarize the whole thing:

1) There can never be an infinite regress, because in that case ultimately nothing would exist;

2) But we know something exists;

3) So we must stop this infinite regress by any means whenever and wherever we will encounter such a regress;

4) But in order to stop this infinite regress we would have to posit the existence of a spaceless and timeless entity that would stop this regress;

5) Denying the existence of this spaceless and timeless entity would mean we are admitting there is an infinite regress;

6) That would further mean we are admitting nothing exists;

7) As it is contradictory to our experience that nothing exists, so we are ultimately compelled to admit that a spaceless and timeless entity also necessarily exists that stops the infinite regress;

8) This spaceless and timeless entity is the ultimate reason why anything exists;

9) Although it is the cause behind everything that exists, but itself it is not caused by anything;

10) Being the ultimate reality, it would be the end-point of all existence. So there would be absolutely nothing beyond it that could have been the cause of it.

Now this much is left for us to show as to whether this spaceless and timeless entity is also a conscious entity.

Reference:
1. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/503
2. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/537
3. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/554
4. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/560

Zero-energy universe gives us one more reason for believing in the existence of God

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 04:30:02 +0000

Scientists have found that the total energy of the universe is zero. From there they have argued that the universe might have originated from nothing due to quantum energy fluctuation in a void, no God being needed for its creation. But I think zero-energy universe gives us one more reason for believing in the existence of God.

If God is the creator, then he would be prior to the existence of space, time and matter. That is the reason we describe God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However one element is missing here: energy. God would be prior to the existence of energy also.

God being prior to space, time, matter and energy would be neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor energy, but something beyond them. That means in God there can be neither any space, nor any time, nor any matter, nor any energy.

If it is now true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then it would be true for God as well. This is because God being the law-giver we should not expect that God would break his own laws very frequently. So God would have to manage the entire creation event with zero energy.

However if the universe is not created, then there is no reason as to why the universe as a whole cannot have total non-zero energy value. As some atheistic scientists claim that quantum laws were always there, so in a similar manner some sort of energy might have been always there. Universe would begin its life with that energy and it would also contain that much of energy as a whole.

So, if the universe is created, then there would be at least one constraint due to which the universe can never have any energy, this constraint being God. In the other case there would be no such constraint and so the universe can freely have total non-zero energy.

Here my questions are two:

1) If quantum laws could have been always there, then why not energy?

2) So, what are the compelling factors due to which even an uncreated universe cannot have total non-zero energy?

Actually we can think of two different situations regarding the beginning of the universe:

Situation 1: There would be no energy before the beginning. This would be the case if the universe is created by God. Here the universe would start from zero energy and therefore it makes sense that the total energy of the universe would always remain zero, because energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Situation 2: There would be energy before the beginning. This would be the case if the universe originated from a singularity. Here the universe would start from non-zero energy (energy contained in singularity) and therefore it does not make any sense that the total energy of the universe would remain zero in this case also.

Atheist Using Double Standard for Ascertaining Truth

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 05:22:00 +0000

Recently I have some communications with an atheist.

He has written that there is a magic leprechaun who created the universe. He has also written that he has evidence for it, because he has a book which says so.

So I have to ask him as to whether his magic leprechaun is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because otherwise his magic leprechaun cannot be the creator of the universe because of the following reason:

Logic dictates that a creator will always precede its creation. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so universe created by magic leprechaun will mean its space, time, matter and energy have been created by magic leprechaun. That will further mean that before creation by magic leprechaun there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That will again mean that before creation magic leprechaun was in no space and time and that magic leprechaun did not contain any matter and energy. So a magic leprechaun who is the creator of the universe will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Therefore a magic leprechaun who is not spaceless, timeless and immaterial will fail to qualify himself as a probable candidate for the post of the creator of the universe.

In reply he informs me that this magic leprechaun comes from another universe and that he created this universe. He also writes that it is all in the book and that it makes more sense than the Biblical God. He also states that if something (or someone) is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, then it doesn't exist, because there is no space where that something exists, there was no time that it existed and there is no material where that something exists of. So as per him something cannot exist without space, time and / or matter.

In reply I have to write to him that he has no idea about what it actually means to be spaceless nad timeless. For him spaceless and timeless means to be in no space for no time and therefore something that is spaceless and timeless does not exist at all. But actually it means something else. I present the following argument to him:

Whatever exists within the universe exists within space-time. But what about the universe itself? Does it exist within some higher space-time? Is there any space-time beyond the universe? If there is no space-time beyond the universe, then universe as a whole does not exist within any space-time. In that case shall we say that the universe does not exist?

Then I have given him one example also:

We also know that the universe is expanding. Now if one asks any cosmologist this question that what it is expanding into, they will always reply that it is not expanding into anything, because the universe is not embedded into any higher space-time. Their answer is fully consistent with the big bang theory. Big bang theory says that space-time began along with the big bang only. That means big bang did not occur within any pre-existing space-time, because there was no space-time before the big bang. Therefore neither is the universe expanding within any pre-existing space-time. So, here cosmologists are also saying the same thing that the universe as a whole is not within any space-time. Again I ask him the same question: can we say that the universe does not exist because it is not expanding within any space-time?

In reply the atheist confirms that the universe does exist, because as per him the universe IS space time and matter. He states that as far as all of us know, there is nothing outside of our universe. So he thinks that it is indeed fully consistent with the Big bang theory. He also states that outside the universe there is no space and time where anything can exist and that therefore probably nothing exists without our universe.

In reply I have to write to him that everybody knows that universe is space, time and matter. But I have to give him a reminder that here the question is something else and that it is this: within which space-time does the universe as a whole exist if there is no space-time outside the universe? I have to repeat to him that his concept that spaceless and timeless means existing in no space for no time applies equally to the universe as well, because the universe as a whole is not within any space-time. I also write to him that in whichever way he will try to suppress this truth that the universe is not within any space-time, he will fail.

In reply he writes that there is a council of gods existing without time, space and matter, spending no time doing nothing no-where. He also writes that these gods never showed any interest in him or his well being. So, he guesses that the god(s) have better things to do with their no time, and that he will try to spend his time as good as possible, because he has to deal with time as because he is in the universe. He also requests me that in case I meet one or more gods, then I should tell them that he would really like to meet them. This is because he is very curious how it is to live without space and time.

In reply I have to write to him that his last comment shows that either he is a dogmatic person, or that his intelligence level is low. So either he refuses to understand (due to his dogmatism), or he fails to understand (due to his low level of intelligence) that whatever may be the ultimate reality, that ultimate reality can never be within any space and time.

Here the communication ends.

Here the atheist is clearly using double standard for ascertaining truth; he is using one standard for God and another standard for the universe. For him existence means existing within some space-time. So for him God does not exist because God is not within any space and time. But for him the universe exists, although as per the cosmologists neither is the universe within any space-time, because it is not expanding into anything. So as per his own standard he should also say that the universe does not exist. But he does not say so.

So his using double standard for ascertaining truth is quite apparent.

Origin Theory from Nothing

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:51:48 +0000

Even if it is ultimately established that there is no God, yet that fact alone will not automatically make the current theory for the origin of the universe from nothing a better theory than before.

At least three points can be raised against this theory.

First of all it says that as the total energy of the present universe has been found to be zero, so the entire universe can come from nothing, no god being needed. But I have already shown that this total energy will also be zero if the universe has originated from something, or even if it has been created by some supernatural agent.1,2 That means zero total energy cannot be the only criterion on the basis of which it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing. So on the basis of which factor have they concluded that the universe has originated from nothing?

Secondly it claims that everything has originated from nothing. Thus it solves one problem. But at the same time it creates some new problems, because now it will have to provide an explanation as to how the totality of everything always remains nothing, which explanation it fails to provide. It does not explain how the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remains zero.3

Thirdly it assumes that quantum laws were already there, but it does not explain whence originated those quantum laws, or in which container were those laws when there was no space-time. One commentator in one YouTube presentation has written very nicely about this problem.4 So I think everyone should read what he has written on this. He has written that in Krauss' hypothesis it is required that reality must have an underlying nature that will include the laws of quantum mechanics, but that Krauss cannot explain why such laws should exist when there would be nothing. He has also written that like theists Krauss also runs into the problem that all explanations of origin will ultimately lead to infinite regress. He has written that no matter how the scientists explain the origin of the universe, it would have to be in terms of some pre-existing condition or entity, which leads to the question of why that is the way it is, and whatever explains that would then need to be explained.

Actually this origin theory shows that modern day science has gone totally bankrupt. That is why it cannot produce anything better than this half-baked theory that cannot solve one single problem without at the same time creating more problems that it cannot solve. It also shows one more thing. It shows that modern day intelligentsia has sunk so low that it can remain satisfied with such a half-baked theory.

A theory that cannot solve one problem without creating another problem that it cannot solve cannot be called a good theory at all. Even as a hypothesis it is a very bad hypothesis indeed.

So I think there is ample reason to doubt as to whether this is the correct theory at all for the origin of the universe. There must be some other good theory that will not only be able to explain the origin of the universe, but will also be able to answer all the other questions that the theory might generate. It might also be the case that we will ultimately find that the universe has not originated from nothing at all, but from some other thing.

Newton’s theory of gravity was ultimately replaced by Einstein’s theory of gravity because Newton’s theory could not correctly explain the precession of the orbital path of mercury. Calculations made by Newton’s laws gave the magnitude of precession shorter by about 43 seconds of arc per century from the observed magnitude. Einstein’s theory of gravity was able to account for this discrepancy, by attributing it to the curvature of space around the sun.5

In a similar way it is expected that the current theory for the origin of the universe will be replaced by some other theory that will be able to answer that which current theory cannot answer e.g. the question as to how the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remains zero.

Reference:
1. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/404/453
2. http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/554
3. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/425/478
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA5SrJ74Oj4&t=40s
5. http://www.science20.com/matter/blog/precession_mercury%E2%80%99s_orbit)

What will be the total energy of the universe if created by God?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:39:31 +0000

It can be shown that the total energy of the universe would also be zero if it is created by some supernatural agent. Let us say that this supernatural agent is God. Now what does it mean that the universe has been created by God? As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so universe created by God will mean its space, time, matter and energy have been created by God. That will further mean that before creation by God there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That will again mean that God was in no space and time and that God did not contain any matter and energy. That is the reason as to why theists always describe their God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial. (There are some atheists who failing to grasp this simple logic raise question about this spaceless, timeless and immaterial God. But a creator God can never be anything other than spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because this is the one and only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.) Neither this spaceless, timeless and immaterial God can contain any energy, because energy was also created by God only along with the creation of the universe. That means the total energy content of God is zero. Therefore the total energy content of the universe will also be zero, because universe cannot contain more energy than the source from which it has originated.

Here it might be objected that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed. But if we keep in mind that the total energy of the universe has always remained fixed at its zero value, then we can say that as such energy has not been created or destroyed at all. Only that it has taken positive and negative forms in the universe, the total energy always remaining zero. The same can be said about matter also.

This once again shows that the reasoning of Lawrence Krauss is faulty when he has argued that as because the total energy of the universe has been found to be zero, so from this it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing.1 But here we have shown that the total energy of the universe will also be zero even if it is created by God. So once again it is established that zero total energy cannot be the only criterion on the basis of which it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing.

Reference:
1. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/449/498

Biggest Blunder Committed by Science

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:32:59 +0000

I think the biggest blunder science has committed is this: it has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. Why? This is because when theists bring their God in the picture at all, they bring him in as the creator of the universe, not as a mere observer. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so God as the supposed creator of the universe is the creator of space, time, matter and energy. That means before creation by God there cannot be any space, time, matter and energy. That will further mean the creator God can never be in any space and time and neither can the creator God contain any matter or energy. That is why creator of the universe will always necessarily have to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial; it can never be otherwise. So once scientists have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, they will no longer be able to convince us that this spaceless and timeless God cannot exist. All their efforts will be futile and all their arguments against this creator God will fall on deaf ears only.

Is the Universe Immaterial?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 05:42:51 +0000

We already know that the total energy of the universe is zero. We also know that matter and energy are equivalent. From these can we conclude that the total matter of the universe is also zero? Scientist Vector J Stenger thought so. Here is a quote:

‘E=mc2 says matter and energy are the same entity. Since E=0, the total matter of the universe is zero. Zero does not have to come from anything.

‘Now, if by matter you just mean the equivalent of rest energy, then that came from gravitational energy during the expansion in the early universe.’

– Vic Stenger, having been asked for a simple explanation to the question, “where did all the matter come from?” to a letter to Cliff Walker (September 11, 2001).1

But not everyone thinks so; there are other voices also. As per them it cannot be said that the total matter of the universe is zero simply because its total energy is zero. Actually matter in the universe counts for positive energy and gravity counts for negative energy. So when we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we arrive at a total energy of zero for the universe. But matter in itself has a non-zero value in the universe.

So I think the whole issue needs re-examination.

I think I have already made the point clear that the beginning of the universe will always mean that it will begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy.2 Therefore the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should also always have to be zero, because nothing in the universe can come from outside. So, if the universe has a beginning, then its total matter will obviously be zero. This is as per logic.

Now we can also give scientific reason as to why the total matter of the universe will have to be zero.

How is the zero total energy of the universe arrived at? Here matter is treated as positive energy and gravity is treated as negative energy. When we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we get zero total energy for the universe.

But energy cannot be directly deducted from matter. Neither can matter be directly deducted from energy. We will have to bring both of them into the same category before making any such addition or subtraction. We will have to convert either matter into energy or energy into matter. In the above case matter has been converted into energy and this energy is treated as positive energy. From this positive energy negative energy of gravity is subtracted.

Now instead of converting matter into energy, if we convert negative gravitational energy into matter, then we will get negative matter. If we now subtract this negative matter from the positive matter, then we will arrive at the total zero matter of the universe.

So both from the point of view of logic as well as from the point of view of science we can say that the total matter of the universe is zero.

Actually if we say that the total energy of the universe is zero and if matter and energy are also equivalent, then why can we not say that the total matter of the universe is zero?

As the total matter of the universe is zero, so can we not say that the universe as a whole is immaterial?

Reference:

1. Positive atheism quotes of Victor J. Stenger, http://www.positiveatheism.org
2. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/543/586

What does the Beginning of the Universe actually mean?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 03:48:58 +0000

The reason as to why theists call their God spaceless, timeless and immaterial is due to the recognition of the fact that if the universe has a beginning, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy.

Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy. Therefore when we say that the universe has a beginning, we mean to say that its space, time, matter and energy have a beginning. Now the question is: can the universe have a beginning from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy? If the source already contained space, time, matter and energy, then that would mean that space, time, matter and energy were already there. If space, time, matter and energy were already there, then that would further mean that the universe was already there. If the universe was already there, then why do we again say that the universe has a beginning?

The above reasoning shows that if the universe has a beginning at all, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy because in that case it will imply that the universe was already there. Therefore the beginning of the universe will always mean that it can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only. As the universe can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only, so the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should always remain zero, as otherwise one will have to explain as to whence appear the extra space, extra time, extra matter and extra energy that were not already there at the beginning.

So for a universe having a beginning this question must have an answer: how does the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remain zero?

Only a beginningless, eternal universe will not give us any such trouble.

11Prompt - Energy

The One

Tags:

Spaceless, Timeless, and Immaterial

Tags:

Why total energy of the universe can never be other than zero

Tags:

Zero-energy universe gives us one more reason for believing in the existence of God

Tags:

Atheist Using Double Standard for Ascertaining Truth

Tags:

Origin Theory from Nothing

Tags:

What will be the total energy of the universe if created by God?

Tags:

Biggest Blunder Committed by Science

Tags:

Is the Universe Immaterial?

Tags:

What does the Beginning of the Universe actually mean?

Tags: