Cyclic Universe

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If it is a cyclic universe, then my question is where did the first matter come from. If it is not a cyclic universe, then was matter / energy created from nothing???

Dipayankar, as you have been told many times, matter and energy can neither be created, nor destroyed___therefore; by scientific logic, it is absolutely required to be eternally present, in some fundamental substance state...

If you start respecting the fundamental laws of physics, the quest becomes much clearer and simpler... The law I stated above is the first law of thermodynamics. Einstein respected this law, greatly, as do all serious physicists/scientists... All science is founded on the proven, and provable repeatability, of these fundamental laws... The interpretation is the problem, not the fundamental laws...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

I think that you are correct in your assessment, Dip, but not that energy is created from nothing. E0 = F^3 and m = E0/c^2, so the "nothing" is representative of zero restmass and then energy is equal to absolute one.

The problem is that the velocity of light is not absolute, so both energy and mass are non-absolute; fractionally inversely-proportionate to "infinity."

This link - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ance-sq.html - might "prove" to you that you already know the answer, Dip.

[PoPpAScience]

I'm strictly asking a question, it is either completely dumb or very inquisitive. But I need to ask with such knowlageble minds in front of me.
Has there been any theories, or work on formulas that might speculate that Gravity is only the effect of one, or all of the attractive forces that operate in the quantum world. Let's say, that as the total of weak/strong forces in a growing collective group is increased, so will the attractive force called gravity? Let's say again, if the total collective strong force in a given galaxy A, is more then a nearby Galaxy B with a lesser total, would Galaxy A have a stronger attractive force (gravity)? What I'm getting at is, if anyone has done work on speculating if Gravity is only a word, for the effect of very high totals of nuclear forces.

[force5]

If it is a cyclic universe, then my question is where did the first matter come from. If it is not a cyclic universe, then was matter / energy created from nothing???

Your question "where did the fundamental substance come from?" Lloyd and Dave have already addressed this issue with the only possible answer.

John

[neutralino]

I'm strictly asking a question, it is either completely dumb or very inquisitive. But I need to ask with such knowlageble minds in front of me.
Has there been any theories, or work on formulas that might speculate that Gravity is only the effect of one, or all of the attractive forces that operate in the quantum world. Let's say, that as the total of weak/strong forces in a growing collective group is increased, so will the attractive force called gravity? Let's say again, if the total collective strong force in a given galaxy A, is more then a nearby Galaxy B with a lesser total, would Galaxy A have a stronger attractive force (gravity)? What I'm getting at is, if anyone has done work on speculating if Gravity is only a word, for the effect of very high totals of nuclear forces.

The gravitational force acts on all scales, that is, its range is infinite, whereas the nuclear forces only act on scales less than the diameter of the nucleus of an atom. Therefore I don't see how one can propose linking the two on mascroscopic levels.

[N0B0DY]

Could the two be linked at the strong-force level, neutralino? Could the gravitational force act like the strong force at that level? If not, why not?

[N0B0DY]

I don't know about Dave, but I think Lloyd has proposed the infinite FS contracts over time to create a finite singularity which explodes like a nuke. The contraction is due to the extremely cold temperatures of the FS, and it makes alot of sense. Yet it can only work if the universe is finite, not infinite.

[neutralino]

Could the two be linked at the strong-force level, neutralino? Could the gravitational force act like the strong force at that level? If not, why not?

I don't see how it could, since the gravitational force is much much weaker on subatomic scales than the strong nuclear force.

[N0B0DY]

What if the strong force isn't as strong as thought, and the coulomb force is responsible for keeping the nuclei together?

[neutralino]

What if the strong force isn't as strong as thought, and the coulomb force is responsible for keeping the nuclei together?

The Coulomb force inside the nucleus is repulsive, since the nucleus consists of protons (with positive charge) and nothing with negative charge. Thus, it can't be responsible for holding the nuclei together.