If energy can neither be created nor destroyed...

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, couldn’t that mean that our so-called universe, as a universe, or as universes, might not be so infinite?
It/they might be transformed into a diamond in the rough someday?
Or one single pearl in one single oyster…

The First Law Of Thermodynamics only applies to what happens within the Universe not to the Universe as such
Now that does not rule out the possibility of it being infinite only that it would not be the reason as to why it is

Arcturus Descending

The topic of energy is one that has led many people into a state of confusion and thought dispersion.

If everything never existed, as opposed to always existing, then we would not be here discussing this.

Energy cannot not be destroyed - it can only be transformed. Stars do not die out entirely - but they do go supernova, whereby they eject most of their mass and in some cases possibly all of their mass - this would indicate that the mass left behind is still there - lending abstraction to what a star actually is - for the sake of explanation, a star’s mass needs to glow for there to be a star - when this mass no longer glows - the star is not there - but the mass is. The mass remains in the universe.

Star formation is closely related to planet formation.

When the light’s journey to planet earth has finished it does not go anywhere - it remains in the universe - it is either transferred/transformed into heat through absorption or reflected to be absorbed or further reflected by something else. Light is also capable of dispersion.

:wink:

Arcturus Descending

Another way of saying what I was saying is as surreptitious57 put it . . .

Thermodynamics: the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy.
[size=85]Thank you Google dictionary . . .[/size]

Exactly . . . When we speak of anything, we are speaking about things inside of the universe. When we speak of everything, we are speaking of the universe. The universe is not an anything - it is an everything. As to why the universe is - many people have attempted a description through dissatisfaction of not knowing.

Arcturus Descending I have contemplated your idea of universe transformation many years ago - it provided me with many hours of amusement.

:smiley:

Absolute nothing cannot persist so there will always be something rather than nothing but within the Universe individual universes will still die
The notion of absolute nothing only holds true at the quantum level because so called empty space at the classical level is not actually empty

“If?”, an open or closed system? We’re not really sure on that account. Any “If” appears subjective to that uncertainty.

If the Universe is a closed system then god is not likely. Maybe a god did exist as energy and the matter now in existence is all that is left. Still connected, one, abstractly.
If the Universe is an open system, well then it’s anybodies guess.

imo: the catbird seat is to hold no particular preference.

I agree with Urwrong here (with my insertion).

Furthermore, this style of argument is often misused. We are identifying a source of matter and energy for the whole universe and based solely on that, we deem it appropriate to label that source ‘God’. This is fine, I suppose, if this is really how you want to define God (i.e. the source of all matter and energy), but people usually mean more than this. The argument is usually carried a lot further than just tacking on a label–it’s usually followed up with: therefore, there is a Heaven and Hell, and God loves us, and everything the Bible says is true, etc., etc., etc., which of course is an equivocation. For example, the introduction of an intelligent source of all matter and energy seems to have slipped in? Why? Well, because if we are to identify this source as God, he’s gonna have to be intelligent. But a source of matter/energy as such need not possess any intelligence whatsoever.

In a nutshell, I’m not sure what labeling this source ‘God’ gives you.

We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that „universe“ is a concept) … and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.

If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.

Is that true? What do you think about that?


There are at least two realms: a physical one and a spiritual one.

Are there two realities then, or do both realms belong to the same reality?

Both realms belong to our world. I would not use the word “reality” in this case, because this word has got too many definitions that are too much controversal.

This is what Wikipedia wrote introductorily about “reality”:

More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality .

Reality may pertain to things that exist but science makes a distinction between what is real and what can be observed
Since it only investigates observable phenomena and has absolutely nothing to say about whether or not any of it is real

Science speaks loud and clear to the masses via osmosis … ergo …if “it” isn’t proven by science … it isn’t real/true.

I can give you a vague idea of that but neither know exactly nor have anything to prove that.

That is simple to answer.

You are slightly misunderstanding the issue here. It is not about energy only but the sum of energy and mass. As both are interchangeable thus their total sum always stand constant, though their ratio in that sum changes.

When lights hits any object, it either increases the mass of that object or energy in the form of heat.

Because, as we know that we or any other force can neither create or destroy anything, but merely change its ratio of mass and energy.

with love,
sanjay

That is true. In a sense, universe is not infinite.

But, the thing here to understand is that the total sum of the all the ingredients is finite. But, being interchangeable, the ratio its ingredients in that grand total always kept changing. And, space ( or expanding quality ) is also one those ingredients. Thus, even if the universe is expanding ( which i do not think is true), it does not mean that is not finite.

with love,
sanjay

This is what Wikipedia says about “scientific realism”:

Source.

It is not expectable to get a proper definition for “reality” from science - especially because of the fact that science itself is more idealistic than realistic (see above: “ideal science”).

Science cannot prove anything only disprove it and it also has nothing to say about whether or not anything is real

What branch of knowledge decides what is real and what is the reasoning behind the decision?

That would be philosophy as determining reality is an ontological matter not a scientific one

But philosophy doesn’t do any experimental testing, so all sorts of strange philosophical concepts stay around for a long time.

How do you refute solipsism? By kicking a rock.

I think that’s why science and the scietific method is more reliable and closer to the truth - it seeks feedback from ‘reality’.

A very good question. If science strikes out, then philosophy seems next up to bat. But even that can strike out as history proves. What about one’s own personal experiences?