Talk:Zero-energy universe

Quality
This article needs to make the math behind its conclusions clearer (as per other physics articles). At present it reads like a secondary school assignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millionmice (talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

the sum of the energy of whole universe is zero
This can be proved using the law of conservation of mass and energy. Ipradyuman (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You make the assumptions that no energy came from elsewhere, and that conservation laws apply at a singularity. Can you find a reference to back up your proof?  If someone has written about this elsewhere, then please cite this, otherwise it is original research, however obvious it seems.    D b f i r s   08:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * None of our physical laws apply at the singularity, see Big Bang. Additionally, the law of conservation of energy does not require that the total energy of the universe is zero. Conservation of energy requires that energy is constant, not necessarily zero. We've never measured the total energy of the universe, and an accurate measurement may be impossible within the limitations of the observable universe. It's entirely possible that the total energy of the universe is not constant. While I'm personally a big fan of the elegance of a zero-energy universe, elegance is not evidence. Take Newtonian Mechanics as an example. It's beautiful, consistent, and predicts the results of heaps of experiments. But it's wrong. I've edited the page accordingly. Sorry that this reduces the size of an already small article. 118.208.11.140 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to use Wikipedia, or what is the right place to say this. But the law of conservation of energy is not fundamental. Noether's theorem says it has to do with time-translation symmetry, which a expanding universe doesn't have. At least, that is my understanding. But I'm not a physicist.181.221.17.105 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Conservation of Mass is False in this Picture of Reality
Clearly, the primary principle associated with the Zero-energy universe theory is that there is Conservation of Energy BUT NOT Conservation of mass within the physical system (as we are allowing for the possibility that Mass can be created out of 'nothing' as it were). Of course, the generalised principle of Conservation of Mass-Energy still holds (as the total mass-energy will be equal to the total energy which will be equal to Zero).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Zero Energy Universe
The question naturally arises as to whether the Second Law of Thermodynamics would necessarily still hold in a Zero Energy Universe. The (apparent) Low Entropy initial conditions of the Universe imply that the Universe had a highly ordered beginning, one which appears (to us) to become increasingly disordered as time progresses. It would appear that, in a Flat Spacetime Geometry (Euclidean), that Entropy always increases in this theory (and hence that the heat death of the Universe still eventually occurs). Not sure about non-Euclidean geometries though - the complexity is not necessarily keeping track of the Mass-Energy entropy (which would always seem to increase), but keeping track of the Gravitational Entropy (which might interact with any non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime in certain ways). Anyway, it seems that this theory is compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. ASavantDude (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What about vacuum energy?
As the Universe expands, new space is created and the total vacuum energy of the Universe presumably increases. Shouldn't the total energy of the Universe include this vacuum energy in addition to mass and gravitational energy? Horatio (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What about blackholes?
Aren't blackholes made of pure gravity, without matter (since any matter that goes in becomes disconnected from the rest of the Universe)? Wouldn't that mean that when a blackhole forms, the Universe's energy is pushed further from balance? --TiagoTiago (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

perhaps a date typo?
In the articles text, near footnote 8, it mentions a book by Guth in 1987. I can't find this book, however in the footnotes it gives an ISBN that seems to match a book in 1997. Could someone double check these dates? tks 148.170.75.82 (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)