Has any theory explained why does the void energy exists?
347233
Void energy means vacuum energy, right?\nIn quantum theory vacuum is a state of the electromagnetic field, very similar to the state of the laser field. \nIf we measure the photon number of a laser field at any given moment, we find that the photon number is not fixed. Of course we will find an average number after some measuring.\nNow for vacuum, we find that this average number is zero. And again we have fluctuations. This prediction can be verified with a photodetector attached to a vacuumized chamber.\nWe recognize that vacuum is not nothing. And this essentially is the origin of the phenomenon of pair creation.\nThese pairs can in principle be made detectable by breaking some symmetry. That is by an accelerating reference frame of the detector. This effect is the Unruh effect (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Effect)\nThe measurement results in such an accelerated inertial frame will look like thermal black-body radiation. Interestingly the other way around, if such an accelerated detector is observed from another reference frame it comes out that it effectively emits(!) the same kind of radiation. So one photon goes in and the other goes out. This radiation signature could be detected using accelerated electrons since the angular distribution differs from the classical radiation distribution. \n\n\nWe have assumed photons as the mentioned particles. This is much easier since the photon is Matsubara particle, i.e. it is its own anti-particle.
249179
That is a theory of Quantum Mechanics and it is quite intriguing, I am not sure that I believe it yet. I am sure that if parallel worlds existed I would run into another slightly altered version of me. I would tell me to "get a life and quit spending so much time on the net answering questions like this :-)\n\nSo here is a thought. Suppose our entire universe is just the atoms that make up someone's coffee table in a larger universe and that universe is just the atoms that make up a desk, and so on and so on into infinity. So when some one sits at the table and sits a cup of coffee down, it's game over, lights out, kaboom as the galaxies (atoms) in that area shifted. Of course one day with them in their world is a billion years to us. So perhaps several billion years ago some idiot left his cigarette burning on the table and this created the catastrophic event that created our universe by altering that part of the coffee table. Or maybe I am the one that needs a girlfriend. Oh here come the men in the pretty white coats to take me for a ride. :-)
202172
It hasn't been observed, if that's what you mean by proven, but it is a widely accepted idea because the theoretical underpinnings are very solid.  I don't think anyone contests the idea much these days.  If we're lucky, when the LHC at CERN comes on line in late 2007, we may be able to make microsingularities and watch them evaporate, giving direct proof of Hawking radiation.
829244
I know of no reputable astrophyscists who claim space is empty.  In fact, Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" spends a lot of time talking about the stringy stuff that fills space.  The Higgs Field is also a something that fills space according to some theories.  Further, mass bends space, bent space has been observed; so it seems logical that space is a something (not a nothing) that can be bent.  So your premise that space is not empty is widely accepted.\n\nAlthough there are some short-lived massless quanta that can penetrate great distances, most cannot.  And the great distances have limits.  Even neutrinos have a limit on how deep they can penetrate a mass.  Gravity, on the other hand, is not diminished by interceding mass.  We are affected by measurable gravity in the deepest, darkest caves, for example.  So none of the known and theoretical quanta, save one, exhibit the characteristics of gravity.  \n\nThat one exception is the graviton, which is predicted by string/M theory.  The graviton has never been observed; so its existence has never been proved.\n\nSo your supposition that the effects of gravity are due to bombardments of quanta of some sort does not generally stand up to the evidence.  The one exception is the graviton, which is strictly theoretical and may not exist.
720068
First off the Universe is not a sphere that would assume that there is internal area. Most theorists think that space is an infinite sheet, but if it was a shperoid it is similar to a baloon. The baloon is three dimensions and the skin is two the skin would be our universe.\n\nThat being said dark mass and energy occupe 95% or so percent of the mass in the uniform. We have no idea what dark energy or dark mass actually is we only think it is there because our theories dtermine there is a lot more stuff in the universe then we have been able to measure
580033
You've probably seen the pictures of a grid with a giant funnel extending infinitely downward.  That's not the shape of the hole itself, but a map of the curvature of space near the singularity.  The singularity, or "hole" itself is a point of infinitely large density and infinitely small size.
297208
As my education impressed on my mind; there is no empty space.  What we think of as "space" is not empty but a constant dance of virtual particals (protons/antiprotons, etc) constantly appearing out of the vacuum travelling a short distance, then touching and annihilating into nothing once again.  \n\n"Empty" space is filled with these interactions which I believe are known as vacuum fluctuations.  The law of "convservation of energy" is really something that holds on average.  Another principle called the uncertainty principle states that we cannot measure simultaneously the energy and time of a (system of particles?) more accurate than a constantant called h or hbar (a very small but finite number). \n\nSo in theory the universe can "borrow" energy from nowhere as long as that energy is returned before the h bar uncertainty in time runs out.  And thus "empty" space is filled with these vacuum fluctuations and is not really empty after all.  Of course I don't think I explained that too well.  See "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribben for a more coherent description
307523
You have to think back and ask the correct questions to answer this one. The theory of the "Big Bang" is incorrect. First Question: "Where did the matter come from for the "Big Bang"? Answer: "From somewhere else". Keep asking the question of "Where did something come from"? and you have to arrive at the fact that at some point, there was absolutely nothing.\n\nThis is a very hard concept to understand and think about because you always want to think in terms of a "void" if you try to think of nothing, but you have to realize that "a void" is "something" so you have to think of "nothing", "nada", "zip".\n\nThen you can arrive to the conclusion that...\n\n"It is the propensity for NOTHING to create SOMETHING".\n\nThe very first thing nothing would create is energy, something that would keep manifesting itself and propegate. That is what you would call "Life". Some refer it to "God" but it still all the same thing and exists everywhere in the universe.\n\nThis "Energy" would eventually become so extreme that it would create the "void", then the energy would transform into matter and gravity and begin to fill the void.\n\nThese three forces are the basis for all the laws of our current "Universe" and have dictated it's behavior ever since.\n\nThe universe if far older then the 13 billion years old we now can detect, it is constantly changing, expanding, and filling the ever greater void it creates as the energy, matter and gravity continues to be created.\n\nTo answer your question, you are sitting on it, it does not sit on anything.\n\nWhen your coporal body can no longer contain the energy that created you, as in all "living" things, your energy will again become part of this universe, no matter how trivial that energy may be, it is still a part of the entire energy that was and is still being created at this time.
470750
Ernie... I love this question..  it rocks.\n\nThe answer, however, is going to be just a little dissappointing.\n\nAs I'm sure you know, all light is both a particle and a wave; it is a form of nearly pure energy.  As we know from theoretical physics, energy can never be created, nor can it be destroyed.  It just changes forms.  According to the third law of thermodynamics, energy always goes from higher to lower forms when left on its own, the lowest form of energy often being considered to be heat.  And that's where your wandering, amazing laserlight goes, it turns to heat.  \n\nWhy?\n\nBecause your room of mirrors is completely imperfect.  Your mirrors are dismally inefficient reflectors of light, and the room is full of air.  Household mirrors actually reflect less than 25% of the light energy that shines on them back to you.  Lab quality mirrors made for laser work are, I believe, in the high 80% to low 90% reflectivity efficiency range.  Every time your beam hits a mirror surface and bounces off, it looses more of its energy to heat..  just as it does as it passes thrugh every atom and molicule that makes up the air in the room as well.  Your laser might make it one or two 'miles' of beam length in the room before it is bouncing around.. which would make for thousands of beams.  But, since light travels at 186,000 miles per second, your two mile beam lasts 1/93,000th of a second after you turn the power off before it's gone.  So, it DOES keep going.. but not long enough for you to percieve it.\n\nSo, IF you had perfect mirrors, IN a perfect sphere (remember; you couldn't have any corners!) a COMPLETE vacium inside it with NO particles of dust of ANY kind, and a way to fire the beam into the amazing sphere without leaving any void for energy to escape...  your theory would work, if all that were PERFECT.  But; the biggest catch would be; you could never know if it were working!  Because to find out; you would have to have a void in the sphere to see or measure it...  and measuring any energy source draws energy from it.. so, there goes your light again.\n\nSo, that's why, but it's still a great question.  Theoretical Physics is full of stuff like that...  and thinking about it will turn your brain into silly putty for days.  Keep 'em coming, Ernie..  you've got a great future if you keep your mind working like that.
680487
Although I love Einstein, E-mc2 is only a THEORY.  I think you need to look back to the creationism THEORIES of the Big Bang, Quantum theory, Universal theory, String theory.  Engery is neither created or destroyed.  We get engery to use because of lost energy in other reactions.  Combustion has a lot of energy in the form of heat and light. etc....
1057662
I-LIKE-A-DA YO-YO!!\n\nshort version:\n\nneutrons & protons have arcs of electricity between them. or, "strings"\n\nstrings sometime break off and just disapear.\non occasion, a rouge string will become a worm hole (about a 20-25% chance)\nvery rarely, a wormhole will become a "membrane" or a small pocket of energy. (4-8% chance from worm hole stage)\n\nthe thoery is that these membranes, or "branes" for short(mem"brane"), colected together to eventualy form a bubble of energy the size of a universe. and that two of theses monsters slamed into each other to create the "big bang" theory we know today.\n\nyep, still a nerd.\n\nStargazer.
68885
I think that simple answer is, no one knows. We have theories, but we really do not know. \n\nFor example, maybe the antimatter particles decay much faster (see reference). Maybe the universe is only locally mainly matter, and there are other patches of the universe that are locally mainly antimatter (see reference). \n\nWhat science is, is a series of problems and questions that scientists attempt to answer. You have asked one of those questions that is so far, in the unresolved category.
913586
the parallel universe theory, just like string theory, and bubble universe theory, are simply elaborate "what ifs". but none of these are based off of any empirical data, and are completely unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. in fact, this theory actually came from scientists who decided to disregard a generally better established explination of the of von Neumann's quantum collapse postulate.\n\njust in the same sense that, if i lock all my doors and windows, and christmas presents get under my tree, it doesnt mean that santa put them there.\n\nthere is too much quantum mechanics for me to explain, but i have a fellow lab student who is doing quantum computing who agrees with me on this point. and this is the general consensus of the scientific community.
574838
It can and does. Most of the universe is empty space, with no matter or energy in it. Unless you mean all of space, as a whole. In which case, it doesn't exist devoid of matter and energy, and it is highly unlikely that it ever would. (Almost impossible, but no one really knows enough to be able to say that, for certain.) But seeing as how space is simply nothingness, I don't see why it couldn't.
605414
According to one theory there are particles, which are exchanged and travel between the objects, giving impression that objects attract or repel each other. Nothing is proved yet and it is just a theory, as far as my knowledge is concerned.
972422
Looks like only one person got the right idea so far so I will try to underscore that.\n\nEveryone who says that it is possible to have NOTHING inside a box if you have a total vacuum has ignored quantum theory which has proven to reflect reality extremely well.\n\nThe uncertainty principle allows energy to be borrowed from the vacuum for a very short time.  The vacuum is seething with pairs of "virtual" particle+antiparticle pairs that are created with this borrowed energy.  They pop into existence and then annihilate with each other extremely quickly.\n\nSo no, as far as anybody knows we have strong reason to believe that it is impossible to have absolutely nothing inside a box because something is always popping up everywhere in space.  Maybe if you had a very small box and very big luck luck it would be empty just for the tiniest period of time.
590743
The most interesting fact I know?  That they don't exist and that they're some stupid idea somebody came up with to help explain a few things we don't currently understand.  Singularities have infinitely dense mass?  Riiiight.\n\nYou'd better start reading up on the Electric Universe, buddy.  There are powerful magnetic fields all over the Universe, and the stupid idiot "scientists" running the show right now don't like to acknowledge that maybe there are electric currents shaping our galaxies.