|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3861 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 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
General relativity has been a very successful theory for a long time, one of the most successful theories we have had. General relativity was not a notion formed out of an atheistic motivation like colliding branes.
But we now know General Relativity is not as descriptive or predictive as we once thought and needs to be modified. GR predicted an expanding universe. Einstein was uncomfortable with that and so he inserted his "cosmological constant" notated with a lambda (sorry I do not know to type Greek characters here). The cosmological constant was designed to keep the universe from expanding. When Hubble learned the universe really was expanding, Einstein said the lambda was the biggest mistake of his career. Now we know the expansion of the universe is accelerating due to dark energy. GR did not predict dark energy or an acceleration of the expansion. Instead of the lambda, we need a symbol to represent dark energy. Instead of preventing the universe from expanding, it needs to accelerate the expansion. A new and more precise theory of gravitation and cosmology may arise to replace GR. We don't know when this will happen or who will work out the issues involved, but we do know it is needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The cosmological constant was designed to keep the universe from expanding. HUH? I expect you can explain what you mean in that sentence?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
You claim to have never heard the criticism that colliding branes was born of purely atheistic motives. Forgive me for being skeptical. Did you happen to read the Stanford website I linked. It quoted a number of physicists talking about the theological motivations for several theories thought to do away with God. You asked for names. The names are right there for you to read. I don't mean to say everyone who has ever worked in the area is an atheist. But it is the kind of thing only an atheist would conceive of initially.
I have not see any evidence contradicting the central thesis of the OP.
You have seen my explanation. You have not understood it. Unsupported assertions are of no use to me. I asked for a paper which would account for dark energy and show the data and methods used to calculate zero net energy. You have not provided such a paper or even attempted to explain how the calculations could be made and include dark energy. If you want to convince me, stop beating your chest and provide some evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
The cosmological constant was designed to keep the universe from expanding. HUH? I expect you can explain what you mean in that sentence? I will try again. Einstein was slow to accept the ramifications of his own theory of general relativity. His theory indicated the universe was expanding. Einstein did not think this was so. He held to the static universe theory - that the universe had always existed and always would exist. Therefore, Einstein had to insert the idea of a "cosmological constant" - an unknown force which would keep the universe from expanding. To represent this idea in his equations, Einstein used a letter from the Greek alphabet, a lambda. I'm sorry if I wrote a little too informally there and confused you. Does this clear it up for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I suggest that you do just a little bit of research because once again, you have totally misrepresented reality.
The cosmological constant was introduced to offset gravity and explain why the universe was not collapsing. Yes, Einstein was disappointed that he did not predict an expanding universe before experimental evidence confirmed it, but the cosmological constant was not introduced to keep the universe from expanding.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
According to WMAP:
Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant (not to be confused with the Hubble Constant) usually symbolized by the greek letter "lambda" (Λ), as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion. See WMAP- Cosmological Constant or Dark Energy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Learn more.
Yes, Einstein added the Cosmological Constant because he thought the universe was static, but NOT to keep it from expanding. Go read about the cosmological constant.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Regarding the central claims of this thread, I have provided references. I have not seen anything yet which has overturned the central thesis I put forward in the OP. You are not going to see any such thing because you will not allow it. Once you've acknowledged that energy contributes to the warping of space, unless you are capable of calculating the effect of dark energy on both gravitational energy and on the expansion of space, then you should understand that your musings on dark energy contributing significantly to the net energy calculation aren't going to persuade anyone, because they are going to be wrong. I think Modulus has already made the same point. Further, your opinion that kinetic and thermal energy are unaccounted for is also clearly wrong.
I cannot help but wonder (based on my limited understanding) if this view may be controversial at all? Maybe it was controversial at the turn of the century (i.e. early 20th century). Even E=mc*c was controversial in some circles. But wouldn't it be more controversial for gravitational energy to simply disappear when energy was converted away from mass? That's an implication of your proposal that photons don't warp space-time. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I believe it is incumbent upon the person claiming someone else is wrong to explain why they are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Unsupported assertions are of no use to me. I asked for a paper which would account for dark energy and show the data and methods used to calculate zero net energy. You have not provided such a paper or even attempted to explain how the calculations could be made and include dark energy. Try here. Berman, Marcelo Samuel (2009). "On the Zero-energy Universe". International Journal of Theoretical Physics 48 (11): 3278 Let me know if you find any mistakes in his math.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Amusingly, in Message 11 I made the point that Hawking had spoken of zero net energy as if it was a given or a law. I pointed out that this is unusual. Most physicists speak of the estimate/calculation of positive and negative energy netting out at zero or close to it. This comment of mine offended Dr. A so I struck the sentence from the message because it just was not worth arguing about.
While doing a little reading tonight, I learned that under certain definitions of energy the net total is always zero. The following comes from a website at the University of California at Riverside.
We will not delve into definitions of energy in general relativity such as the hamiltonian (amusingly, the energy of a closed universe always works out to zero according to this definition), various kinds of energy one hopes to obtain by "deparametrizing" Einstein's equations, or "quasilocal energy." See Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity? It seems how one defines energy has a lot to do with the result you get from calculations. It seems Professor John Baez does not think too highly of any definition which requires energy to net to zero.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: However, from what we have been told here, in General Relativity the energy-mass equivalence is a true equivalence. Energy interacts with gravity in the same way that mass does. This would refute all your ideas about Dark Energy making the positive energy exceed the negative energy of the gravitational field. Yet you dismiss the idea without offering any rebuttal.
quote: Firstly that does NOT in any way justify your refusal to even acknowledge the point, You cannot reasonably assume that any feature of General Relativity will be completely negated. In fact the reverse is true - any viable replacement theory will be very close to GR in many ways, so we should expect this feature to remain largely unchanged. Secondly, in the Big Bang thread you attacked Hawking precisely BECAUSE he was dealing with some of the modifications required. That is exactly where Hawking's elimination of the singularity came from, another point that you refused to acknowledge because it contradicted your own (unsupported) ideas about his motivation. Make your mind up. Is General Relativity absolutely right so that we must accept the existence of a singularity - or does it need changing so that there may not have been a singularity in the first place ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It seems how one defines energy has a lot to do with the result you get from calculations. It seems Professor John Baez does not think too highly of any definition which requires energy to net to zero. He omitted to say so in the paper, but fortunately you can read minds. That's how you found out that Stephen Hawking didn't believe in the Big Bang, wasn't it ... oh, no, you made that up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So far as I can tell from reading it , this is false. THe fact that you have yet to provide any quotes supporting your assertion rather suggests that you could not find any such statements either. But it does say:
A naive or ideological reading of twentieth century cosmology might count big bang cosmology as providing new support for theism, and alternatives such as steady-state cosmology as atheistic backlashes. (And of course, the work of apologists such as W.L. Craig lends credence to this sort of picture.) But such a view misses many nuances, both in the historical record, as well as in the logical structure of these issues. From a historical point of view, there has been little correlation between religious views of scientific cosmologists and their proposed cosmological models.
It seems that you are simply promoting a "naive or ideological view". (Also, it goes on to say something relevant to the earlier Big Bang thread:
From a epistemological point of view, there are numerous obstacles to claiming that the big bang confirms the hypothesis that God exists. And from a metaphysical point of view, God's hand is not manifest even in big bang models: these models have no first state for God to create, and these models have no time for God to exist in before the big bang.
)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
You claim that you understand what I have been writing yet here I find you writing this:
While doing a little reading tonight, I learned that under certain definitions of energy the net total is always zero. yet you managed to completely miss this in message 40:
cd writes: The fact is, if we are being very colloquial, that General Relativity is almost the statement that the gravitational energy is always equivalent to the mass-energy. That is the very constraint that dictates what is and what is not allowed in space-time physics. So there is nothing surprising in any of this. Adding in dark energy, dark matter, etc makes absolutely no difference to this - GR is essentially balancing the gravitational energy against all the other inputs. And then we have...
It seems how one defines energy has a lot to do with the result you get from calculations. when 76 messages earlier I had written
CD writes: I have often repeated that there is no good definition of energy in General Relativity.......There are some ways of making semi-rigorous definitions of the total energy, and this is what we see discussed in the literature and made reference to in the colloquial presentations by Hawking, Krauss, etc. It seems Professor John Baez does not think too highly of any definition which requires energy to net to zero. Really? Or perhaps he just knows that " there is no good definition of energy in General Relativity..." If it wasn't for weveryone else here, I'd wonder why I bother. Try not being so so very desperate to be right...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024