|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the universe have total net energy of zero? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
And what do you mean by "close to zero"? If I remember correctly, Paul Davies defined it as being within 1%. The author of the website we have been discussing thought 8% was close enough.
When we are looking at cosmological scale gravitation/curvature, and not just local gravitational effects. Gravity is non-linear. You don't get large scale effects by adding up all the small scale effects. This is an interesting statement. Can you provide me a link to a paper which discusses this in more detail? Referring to the thermal energy of the universe, you write:
This is included in the mass content of the Universe. And furthermore is negligible compared to the rest-mass, so wouldn't be a problem even if it was excluded. But it's not. I don't believe this is true. Can you provide some evidence of this claim? Regarding dark energy being positive energy, you write:
In one way of looking at it, yes. But again, this is already included in the mass-energy of the Universe. Remember how it is always explained that the Universe is 5% matter, 23% dark matter, 72% dark energy - this is what accounts for the positive energy, and the curvature of the Universe accounts for the equal negative energy. How do we know this balances? Because the Universe appears to have flat spatial-section, and that's the clincher. Again, I don't believe dark energy is included in calculations about the rest energy of matter in the universe - especially not in Feynmann's time when we did not know the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to dark energy. What makes you think the curvature of the universe will offset all of that positive energy? Can you provide a link to a quality paper which actually discusses dark energy and the accelerating universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
designtheorist writes: But I did present an argument about why Berman was wrong and why the author of the website was wrong. Your argument about why the author of the website was wrong was based on not having a clue about very basic algebra. Your argument was proved to be wrong and, for once, the word "proved" can be used because we're talking mathematical (or algebraic) proof. I only butted into this topic to see if I could help you understand why removing m from both sides of the equation was valid. Given my lack of knowledge in cosmology I'm not equipped to debate the actual topic per se. Given that lack of knowledge, I have no way to tell if cosmologists are right or wrong, other than them making a case which I can understand in it's entirety. Do you now understand that didn't use circular reasoning and that it's valid to remove m from both sides of the equation? If you do, that's my mission completed successfully.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Your mission is accomplished.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Glad to be of service. Hope it helps, Trixie out!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
You ask if the question I raise makes any difference. The answer is yes, of course it does.
Krauss, Hawking and others use it as a basis for their claim the universe can arise out of nothing. Even if the net total energy was zero, their claim could not be proven. But if we can know the total energy is strongly positive - as the evidence seems to indicate - then their falls completely. You raise the issue of colliding branes and a sort of escape pod for the atheist. But it is an escape pod without oxygen. If even M theory proves out (and I am actually quite hopeful for it), colliding branes are not required by M theory and will never become the accepted view of how the universe started because observational support is impossible. If the claim is that net total energy will always be zero no matter what new positive energy (such as dark energy) is discovered in the universe, then the theory is fatally flawed and explains nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
You raise the issue of colliding branes and a sort of escape pod for the atheist. Excuse me but just what the hell does atheism have to do with the topic?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
colliding branes are not required by M theory and will never become the accepted view of how the universe started because observational support is impossible. First, please do not abuse terminology in which you have no understanding. Secondly, are you under some bizarre impression that because we may never be able to understand precisely why the Universe is here owing to limitations in our observations, that this somehow implies the need for some type of creator being? i.e. "we may never be able to tell which of theoretical physics' ideas A, B, or C is correct, or indeed if any are correct... therefore GOD"
If the claim is that net total energy will always be zero no matter what new positive energy (such as dark energy) is discovered in the universe, then the theory is fatally flawed and explains nothing. no, it simply means you haven't a clue about what I have just explained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Now when you convert this mass into positive energy, the gravitational field energy goes to zero. Why on earth would this happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Not true. The m is not a hypothetical particle; the m stands for mass. I think it's safe to say that the author knows what m stands for. A superior argument would be that the m in the first equation is referring to something subtly different than the m in the second equation. What you really probably should be saying is that the m in Einstein's equation is really the same as Mu in the gravitational equation when we're talking about energy content of the entire universe. I believe that in the gravitational equation, when M is actually Mu then I'm not sure m is actually the mass of. This may be what is being said when he talks of it being hypothetical. But I don't think it's hypothetical in both equations and that might be where the problem is. As far as my limited physics knowledge goes the gravitation equation calculates the gravitational energy between two masses. So maybe the thought is that when calculating the gravitational energy of the universe it has to be compared with the mass of a hypothetical particle. Those were my thoughts at least, when I hinted that the calculations might be bollocks.
Einstein's equation for calculating how much energy you can get from matter or how much matter you can get from energy. I assume you misspoke here. It's not a matter/energy equivalence its a mass/energy equivalence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Excuse me but just what the hell does atheism have to do with the topic? Didn't you watch the video in the OP? It was taped at a conference of atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Why on earth would this happen?
Perhaps I was not clear. Of course I was referring to the gravitational energy associated with the converted mass only - not all gravitational energy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I misspoke several times when discussing that website.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
First, please do not abuse terminology in which you have no understanding. Please enlighten me.
Secondly, are you under some bizarre impression that because we may never be able to understand precisely why the Universe is here owing to limitations in our observations, that this somehow implies the need for some type of creator being? i.e. "we may never be able to tell which of theoretical physics' ideas A, B, or C is correct, or indeed if any are correct... therefore GOD" Not what I'm saying. I'm saying colliding branes is a theory which will never become accepted because cosmologists of all religious or anti-religious persuasions will never embrace a theory which is purely theological with no observational support.
no, it simply means you haven't a clue about what I have just explained. I think I understood you quite well. If you think I did not, please explain my error. I'm quite capable of admitting an error when it is pointed out, but you haven't done that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Of course I was referring to the gravitational energy associated with the converted mass only - not all gravitational energy. Yes, I realise that. So my question remains. The point is that you are making declarations of what is correct or not, based on a rather poor and mainly incorrect understanding of physics. In this particular case, you seem to think that gravity couples to matter but not to the "energy" that is released when this matter is annihilated. This is incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I asked "what the hell does atheism have to do with the topic?"
The setting for the initial discussion is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Neither atheism or theism have anything to do with the net energy of this universe. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024