Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,555 Year: 4,812/9,624 Month: 160/427 Week: 73/85 Day: 10/12 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 151 of 305 (665555)
06-14-2012 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Son Goku
06-14-2012 5:52 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Son my friend, please proceed with the exercise.
Interesting to see your treatment of the momentum.
However, I am more interested in the conservation of energy at this time. Conservation of energy deals more with red shifting and the accelerating expansion. Quick question
Does the FRW model address conservation of energy in a global sense? Is there some term we can identify as energy in the metric to say it is conserved?
Dark energy is filling the expanded space and growing in a three dimensional way to maintain the same force, thus increasing energy is taking place (if it is energy at all?). If it is energy then it is a contradiction to the conservation of it.
I like to coin a phrase now Dark Acceleration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Son Goku, posted 06-14-2012 5:52 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2012 10:11 AM zaius137 has replied
 Message 161 by Son Goku, posted 06-16-2012 5:47 PM zaius137 has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 305 (665580)
06-14-2012 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Son Goku
06-14-2012 5:52 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
I'm interested.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Son Goku, posted 06-14-2012 5:52 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Son Goku, posted 06-16-2012 5:43 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 153 of 305 (665588)
06-14-2012 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
I was just making the point that new truths can be extracted from existing knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2012 9:58 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 305 (665618)
06-15-2012 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by zaius137
06-14-2012 6:55 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Dark energy is filling the expanded space and growing in a three dimensional way to maintain the same force, thus increasing energy is taking place (if it is energy at all?). If it is energy then it is a contradiction to the conservation of it.
How many of the things stated as facts in the above are simply made up by you?
1. The amount of dark energy is growing?
2. A constant force is maintained by the dark matter?
3. Increasing energy is taking place?
An analogous question: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by zaius137, posted 06-14-2012 6:55 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by zaius137, posted 06-15-2012 6:55 PM NoNukes has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 155 of 305 (665696)
06-15-2012 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by NoNukes
06-15-2012 10:11 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
NoNukes my friend
quote:
In the case of dark energy, that evolution is pretty simple: the density of vacuum energy in empty space is absolute constant, even as the volume of a region of space (comoving along with galaxies and other particles) grows as the universe expands. So the total energy, density times volume, goes up.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/...energy-is-not-conserved
This seems to be explanatory. The convenient out that is usually applied is the fact Quantum physics allows for occasional spontaneous breaking of symmetry. However, if this Quantum effect" is responsible you must tell me why that the observed Dark Energy is only about 1/20000 the amount predicted by the quantum origin. Now explain what is responsible for throttling the vacuum energy? Every time you invoke ad-hoc explanations, you only increase a patchwork theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2012 10:11 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2012 8:43 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 156 of 305 (665697)
06-15-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Son Goku
06-14-2012 5:52 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
I still hope Son is busily applying Noether’s theorems We wait in great anticipation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Son Goku, posted 06-14-2012 5:52 PM Son Goku has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by vimesey, posted 06-15-2012 8:00 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 157 of 305 (665703)
06-15-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by zaius137
06-15-2012 7:00 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
I still hope Son is busily applying Noether’s theorems We wait in great anticipation.
We can be patient Trying to translate the sort of maths that is Son Goku's day job into language that people like me can have even a ghost of a chance of understanding must not be at the top of his list of priorities, and I am really grateful to him for doing so when he can.
(And there's a big soccer tournament in Europe at the moment, and with Ireland fighting a valiant battle last night against a superb Spanish team, I guess that a Guinness or two might have been consumed)
Edited by vimesey, : Typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by zaius137, posted 06-15-2012 7:00 PM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Son Goku, posted 06-19-2012 12:47 PM vimesey has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 305 (665704)
06-15-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by zaius137
06-15-2012 6:55 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
In your haste to be correct, perhaps you neglected this passage from further on in the same article.
quote:
Having said all that, it would be irresponsible of me not to mention that plenty of experts in cosmology or GR would not put it in these terms. We all agree on the science; there are just divergent views on what words to attach to the science. In particular, a lot of folks would want to say energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on. Which seems pretty sensible at face value.
There’s nothing incorrect about that way of thinking about it; it’s a choice that one can make or not, as long as you’re clear on what your definitions are. I personally think it’s better to forget about the so-called energy of the gravitational field and just admit that energy is not conserved, for two reasons.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by zaius137, posted 06-15-2012 6:55 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by zaius137, posted 06-16-2012 1:49 AM NoNukes has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 159 of 305 (665710)
06-16-2012 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by NoNukes
06-15-2012 8:43 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
NoNukes my friend
It still seems to say energy is not conserved. Have you reviewed any articles that say there is no problem in the global conservation of energy in the universe? I have one article in particular but it seems to waffle on the issue.
quote:
and just admit that energy is not conserved

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2012 8:43 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by NoNukes, posted 06-16-2012 10:10 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 160 of 305 (665735)
06-16-2012 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by NoNukes
06-14-2012 9:41 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics... Not
Well here goes!
The Friedmann—Lematre—Robertson—Walker metric is given as follows:
This formula gives you the distance between any two events in space time, but I need to explain the variables it uses:
is cosmological time. That is, time measured by somebody at rest with respect to the motion of the homogeneous fluid the universe looks like on large scales. Or, in slightly different words, somebody moving at the average speed of the universe. is the difference time difference between two events as measured by this notion of time.
are co-moving coordinates, coordinates that ignore the expansion of the universe.
Imagine if New York was suddenly inflated to be ten times larger, but you gave everything the same address, even though Manhattan is now ten times further away from Brooklyn. The street index would then be a comoving coordinate system. are the differences in the co-moving locations of events.
In the distance formula there is the scale factor , this accounts for the fact that the comoving coordinates don't give you the real distance. tells you how big one unit of comoving coordinate really is, at the time
So, if you take two events and plug their coordinate differences into the formula above you get how far away the events are from each-other in spacetime.
This formula is the metric and describes the expanding universe of the Big Bang model.
So, conservation of momentum.
Conservation of momentum is related to spatial translation invariance.
Spatial invariance:
This means that if I take some physical system and let it evolve in time, let's say it moves from point a to point b. Then if I took the exact same system and started it off at a point c, two meters from a, then it would end up and a point d, two meters from b.
That is the laws of physics wouldn't care about the particular point you choose to start the system at, the end points will be as far away from each-other as the beginning points, but outside that there is no difference.
How could it not? The systems have the same momentum to start with, so the basic trajectory is the exact same. The only way to make the system evolve differently at the two locations is if it gained or lost momentum over time depending on where you placed it. That is, the laws of physics would have to be different in different places. So,
Laws of physics identical in different locations (known as spatial translation symmetry) implies conservation of momentum.
So in order to show the Big Bang model conserves momentum we'd have to show it doesn't care about location in space. So lets me take two terms as an example:
1. Let's say I move everything in space by some amount of comoving units. Well the time difference between two events is unaffected. So is unaffected.
2. I'll just take on of the space terms as they are all the same. is the difference in the x-coordinate between two events. That is: , where is the location of the first event and the second. So if I move everything by units then these locations become: and
The difference between the events is then: So, it's exactly the same as before.
Hence the whole metric notices no difference between moving everything by some amount "a", there is no difference between different points of space as far as it is concerned.
So momentum is conserved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2012 9:41 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-25-2012 5:54 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 161 of 305 (665736)
06-16-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by zaius137
06-14-2012 6:55 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Energy is not a relativistically invariant notion, so to use it in general in General Relativity is meaningless. You should instead look at Stress-Energy, the relativistic analogue of energy. This is in fact conserved always.
Edited by Son Goku, : Changed spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by zaius137, posted 06-14-2012 6:55 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 1:33 AM Son Goku has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 162 of 305 (665758)
06-16-2012 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by zaius137
06-16-2012 1:49 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
It still seems to say energy is not conserved.
quote:
and just admit that energy is not conserved
You could not possibly have missed the sentence in the quote I provided in which the author says the exact opposite. Note that the author's two reasons for using a definition of energy that is not conserved are directed primarily at keeping explanations simple for lay people. He explicitly says that the scientists who say that energy is conserved are perfectly correct.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by zaius137, posted 06-16-2012 1:49 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 163 of 305 (665873)
06-19-2012 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Son Goku
06-16-2012 5:47 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Son my friend
Energy is not a relativistically invariant notion, so to use it in general in General Relativity is meaningless. You should instead look at Stree-Energy, the relativistic analogue of energy. This is in fact conserved always.
Your solution is very Newtonian, let me explain. Newton uses two separate laws, the first and second, to describe the conservation of momentum and energy. Now Einstein’s field equation lumps both identities into one law (energy-momentum 4-vector). I was hoping that you might treat conservation of momentum with Noether’s theorem and not in a local Newtonian way.
As I had mentioned previously, I was particularly interested in global energy conservation because it is fundamental in the Big Bang. Now it turns out that the FLRW metric will be of no use in that regard because of the lack of something called time like killing vectors in the terms. Therefore, we must talk about energy conservation in General Relativity.
I would like to talk about four problem areas for conservation of energy namely
For case # 1 there is the Schwarzschild metric, which concerns relatively local conservation (not in my argument).
For case #2 observations have verified that orbital periods in binary systems have changed over time thus implying that gravitational waves could be the cause. However, to date, physicists have failed to close the gap on how energy is being conserved in these situations.
For case #3 Cosmological redshifts from the CMB is lose of energy many times the amount of energy present in the universe today, considering a 13 billion year existence. Here is a paper by Gentry http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF12-04Gentry.pdf
For Case #4 Energy is being pumped into the universe by some unidentified source. Proposals like zero point energy have failed to match theoretical values. The placement of dark energy in the Field equation leaves little doubt that it is considered energy.
I hope we can stop talking local energy-momentum conservation and discuss global energy conservation.
Energy is not conserved globally in a universe described by FLRW metric. Lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Son Goku, posted 06-16-2012 5:47 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by NoNukes, posted 06-19-2012 8:18 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 165 by JonF, posted 06-19-2012 8:22 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 06-19-2012 11:44 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 167 by Son Goku, posted 06-19-2012 12:17 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 168 by Straggler, posted 06-19-2012 12:36 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 164 of 305 (665877)
06-19-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by zaius137
06-19-2012 1:33 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
I would like to talk about four problem areas for conservation of energy namely
Before diving down this rabbit hole, let's remember that your claim is that the Big Bang violates physics. I think Son Goku's responses have shown this to be wrong. Your argument has mutated into "the Big violates physics as Zaius137 would like physics to be". That's a decidedly less interesting proposition.
Edited by NoNukes, : Rabbit hole, not whole.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 1:33 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 165 of 305 (665878)
06-19-2012 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by zaius137
06-19-2012 1:33 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Energy is not conserved globally in a universe described by FLRW metric. Lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe.
The universe is not required to conform to your concept of a "materialistic rationalistic" view. FYI, a materialistic rationalist has no difficulty accepting the universe the way it is, without "global energy conservation".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by zaius137, posted 06-19-2012 1:33 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024