It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Empty space has more energy then everything in ththe universe combined

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
source



This question is a good one: if there’s an intrinsic energy to space, and it’s expanding (and therefore creating more space), aren’t we violating the conservation of energy? The answer is no, because dark energy doesn’t only have an energy density: it also has a negative pressure with very specific properties. As that negative pressure pushes outwards on space, it does negative work on the Universe, and the work it does is exactly equal to the increased mass/energy of whatever patch of space you’re looking at. I wrote a more technical explanation here last December, for those so inclined.


Well I found this randomly but the topic very interesting. Negative work on the universe?

Looks like it's not really empty space is it? Is our view of the universe going to change? It's a more watery like substance maybe?




posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I've always wondered whether the "red shift" or Doppler effect on long light-year distances couldn't be an effect of photons slowly losing energy and being converted into "space".



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
How would you fuel an engine with dark matter?
Pull up to the pump and empty the tank?



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
How would you fuel an engine with dark matter?
Pull up to the pump and empty the tank?


Super empty the tank.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: skunkape23
How would you fuel an engine with dark matter?
Pull up to the pump and empty the tank?


Super empty the tank.

It happens to my bank account.



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
so someone finally created a test for that



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I've also always felt that Space is a type of energy; some type of energy that we don't understand yet. The way I see it, Space is infinite potential and you can manipulate that potential based on what I'll call "pressure points..."



posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion
Vacuum energy is not well understood. I understand his arguments and energy MAY be conserved but it may not be necessary in that case as it may be beyond the scope of our energy conservation laws, which apply to closed systems. Is the universe a closed system? We can't even see all of it.

So IF it's conserved, his idea explains how that might be so, but I don't think it's been proven that energy is conserved in that specific case, he says "can be" which isn't really the same as "is", and that's good because I don't think we really know:

scienceblogs.com...

And that’s why energy can be conserved, even in a Universe with dark energy!


edit on 22-10-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
a reply to: onequestion

I've always wondered whether the "red shift" or Doppler effect on long light-year distances couldn't be an effect of photons slowly losing energy and being converted into "space".



Yeah, the 'tired light' hypothesis. It's been looked at in cosmology, well, for literally many decades. It was one of the first things that people thought about as an alternate hypothesis, so you are thinking along good lines.

Despite years of considering it as a hypothesis, there's no experimental evidence to support it. One imagines it could have been true (some kind of photon vacuum scattering in some theory of everything I suppose)

On the contrary, with the strength of the cosmic background observations, there's lots of evidence for Big Bang plus general relativity in an expanding universe.

It turns out that as of now, 2014, the quantitative match between the "Standard Model of Cosmology" which is beginning to emerge and a wide variety of data is quite strong. The field theory nature of dark matter and energy is still a problem, but the dynamical & statistical consequences isn't: observations match theory very well.
edit on 23-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: onequestion
Vacuum energy is not well understood. I understand his arguments and energy MAY be conserved but it may not be necessary in that case as it may be beyond the scope of our energy conservation laws, which apply to closed systems. Is the universe a closed system? We can't even see all of it.


And actually once you include general relativity in the macroscopic scale, the nature or concept of energy conservation as a principle gets difficult to define.

I'm sure that you remember the Noether theorems: the conservation laws themselves aren't fundamental but a consequence of the symmetries in transformations.

Personally I think that since the concept of 'vacuum energy' considered through naive field theoretical calculations gives absurd results which have no experimental consequences, what needs to change is our own mentality and physics instead of imagining there are vast fields of free quantum petroleum just ready to be tapped.
edit on 23-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Yeah well,.....imagine those living in the negative space as a dark energy entity. As above, so below right?




top topics



 
5

log in

join