Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
232 online now:
(232 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
nwr
Member
Posts: 5715
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 16 of 404 (643689)
12-10-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by designtheorist
12-10-2011 10:19 AM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
Here's something to keep in mind when looking at hypotheses from theoretical physicists.

  1. Theoretical physicists are mostly pretty good mathematicians;
  2. mathematics is all about idealizations;
  3. scientific theories are often idealizations;
  4. zero is the most ideal numeric value.

We don't have the ability to exactly measure the total net energy. Hypotheses such as these are used to generate testable predictions. And then, whether or not those predictions stand up to the tests will be taken as information supporting or contradicting the hypothesis.

In short, hypotheses such as the one you are discussing, is part of how physics works. Non-physicists should sit back and watch, but there's no reason to get all excited or upset about it.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 10:19 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 12:35 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1032 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 17 of 404 (643690)
12-10-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by designtheorist
12-10-2011 10:19 AM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
quote:
So Krauss, Hawking, Silk, Davies - all of the leading authors in physics and astronomy - seem to agree that the net total energy for the universe is zero or close to zero.

I am extremely skeptical of this. The total net energy of the universe looks to be strongly, strongly positive.


I'm interested in this question, too. I hope Cavediver or someone else who really understands it can explain it to us.

The popular "history of the universe" graphic on NASA's WMAP site has the universe starting with a "quantum fluctuation". By Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, this would only be possible for a 13.7 billion year old universe if the total energy of the universe were almost exactly zero.

As Designtheorist says, the mass energy is large, and dark matter makes it even larger. Gravitational energy is negative, but is it enough to balance the mass energy? And what about dark energy? Since it is repulsive rather than attractive, it should add more positive energy that would have to be balance by gravity.

Can someone explain how the total mass-energy can be zero?


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 10:19 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 18 of 404 (643693)
12-10-2011 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
12-10-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
I completely agree that zero is an attractive number to a theoretician. In fact, I am planning a thread on why mathematics works in the physical realm somewhere down the line. It is a very interesting subject.

If the net was close to zero, I could see how a theoretical physicist could assume it was zero. In this case, zero does not even seem to be close. The negative energy is absolutely swamped by positive energy at almost every turn. That is, of course, unless I'm missing something.

I have emailed Paul Davies, Joseph Silk and Lawrence Krauss about this question and also invited them to contribute on this thread. Perhaps they can point us to the paper where the original calculations were made. I have not been able to find that paper so far. If anyone else can, please let me know. I would love to read it.

As of right now, I have to believe they left something out of the equation.

Edited by designtheorist, : Just emailed Lawrence Krauss too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 12-10-2011 11:42 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2011 12:53 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2011 1:08 PM designtheorist has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 19 of 404 (643696)
12-10-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by designtheorist
12-10-2011 12:35 PM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
As of right now, I have to believe they left something out of the equation.

Please forgive my lack of tact, but I think being direct is more efficient here.

Someone who knows as little physics as you do really ought to check the scientist's math before assuming that they anything is left out. Your initial question captured this sentiment perfectly.

But even a simpleton is capable of summing things up as you do. Surely you would expect that if things were so simple, somebody would have noticed. Making the assumptions you make is tantamount to starting out with the assumption that cosmologists are complete morons.

That attitude is the reason why I have so little tolerance for your posting style. You are incredibly quick to assume that experts are either idiots, haters in direct rebellion against their creator, dishonest or [insert your own belittlement here] before you do even the minimal amount of introspection and investigation.

This topic is indeed very interesting, and I'm glad you proposed it. But let's talk about some science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 12:35 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 1:12 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 12-10-2011 5:56 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 404 (643698)
12-10-2011 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by designtheorist
12-10-2011 12:35 PM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
I completely agree that zero is an attractive number to a theoretician.

And also Joseph Silk, as quoted in your OP, says:

Gravity accounts for negative energy, whereas the mass of a star is undeniably positive. On large enough scales, once one counts all the black holes, stars, and empty space, the overall energy of the universe is close to zero (as measured). If the universe has zero energy, then it could have been spontaneously created from nothing by quantum fluctuations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 12:35 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 1:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 21 of 404 (643699)
12-10-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
12-10-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
Great! Let's talk science. I have not been able to locate a paper on the topic which I think addresses the issues clearly.

We have TOTAL ENERGY OF THE BIANCHI TYPE I UNIVERSES but if you run a "find" on "negative" or "dark energy," you learn the paper does not even mention them. Not much help there.

We also have Energy Associated with the Bianchi Type VI0 Universe. This is somewhat more interesting because it contains the sentence:

"The energy due to the matter plus field is equal to zero."

If this is all they did, then the conclusion is wrong because they are not calculating the thermal energy or the dark energy.

I am hoping that either someone will show me where I am wrong or we can just drop this whole "total net energy is zero" meme.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2011 12:53 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 22 of 404 (643700)
12-10-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
12-10-2011 1:08 PM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
Yes, that was why I quoted Silk. The normal claim is that net energy is zero as measured/calculated/estimated (measured is not the best word because you cannot directly measure the energy of the entire universe).

I am asking for help in finding a persuasive paper which makes the argument Silk and the others are putting forward. i can't find it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2011 1:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2011 2:12 PM designtheorist has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 404 (643701)
12-10-2011 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by designtheorist
12-10-2011 1:15 PM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
I'm not a physicist, and I can't offer you a persuasive paper. I can offer a badly designed home webpage of a physics tutor which gives back of an envelope calculations. See here

To summarize

positive energy content = mc2
negative energy content = m Mu G / R u

The little m's can be ignored so now we get

positive = c2
negative = Mu G / R u

All you need to do is know the speed of light, the mass and radius of the universe and the gravitational constant. The web page gives some numbers for this and we end up with

positive energy = 9 x 1016
negative energy = - 9.77 x 1016

And so positive energy ≈ -negative energy. Obviously we don't know the exact radius and mass of the universe so it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that it balances out equally.

Of course I need to repeat my non-physicist status so that might all be bollocks but it is the most accessible resource for explaining this that I can find. Physics papers tend to give more complex, but probably more accurate, descriptions - for example:

ON THE ZERO-ENERGY UNIVERSE, Berman, 2009

quote:
The zero result for the spatial components of the energy-momentum-pseudotensor calculation,
are equivalent to the choice of a center of Mass reference system in Newtonian theory,
likewise the use of comoving observers in Cosmology. It is with this idea in mind, that we are
led to the energy calculation, yielding zero total energy, for the Universe, as an acceptable
result: we are assured that we chose the correct reference system

Hope that proves to be of use, but I've no idea if it'll prove 'persuasive' to you.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 1:15 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 11:49 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 26 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 12:17 AM Modulous has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 24 of 404 (643703)
12-10-2011 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
12-10-2011 12:53 PM


Re:Content deleted by Buzsaw
Content deleted by Buzsaw. Got reading and forgot it was in a science forum. My apologies.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2011 12:53 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 25 of 404 (643719)
12-10-2011 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Modulous
12-10-2011 2:12 PM


Reply to Modulous
Thank you for the Berman paper. This is definitely a contribution to the discussion as I had not seen this paper before and it cites a number of interesting references.

A quick reading of the paper did not convince me the author is correct. For one thing, I'm not sure what pseudo-tensors are or how they might be helpful in estimating total net energy.

One portion of the paper I did find interesting was where he indicated Feymann was the first to conclude the total net energy was zero back in 1962/63. This was intriguing because back then, the CMB radiation had not yet been discovered. The steady state theory was still in play. And we did not know the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate due to dark energy. One would expect that learning these important facts would have a major impact on total net energy of the universe calculations. Yet this author did not think there was anything wrong with following earlier authors who did not know as much as we know now.

We are still faced with the fact that dark energy is positive and more abundant that gravitational field energy.

I have just found the website you mentioned and will see what I can find there of interest. I will probably have a separate comment on the website.

Edited by designtheorist, : too many words

Edited by designtheorist, : Regarding the Berman paper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2011 2:12 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 12-11-2011 3:38 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 5:20 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 26 of 404 (643720)
12-11-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Modulous
12-10-2011 2:12 PM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
Regarding the website you linked, I believe the argument has a fatal flaw. The author writes:

"We can eliminate m from both terms (since it is a hypothetical particle anyway)..."

Not true. The m is not a hypothetical particle; the m stands for mass. E=mc2 is Einstein's equation for calculating how much energy you can get from matter or how much matter you can get from energy. The equation shows that mass and energy are two sides of the same coin and relates to the law of conservation of energy.

Without the m, the equation doesn't mean anything. The author is basically saying energy equals the speed of light squared so this is not a compelling argument.

Edited by designtheorist, : Typo!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2011 2:12 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2011 12:20 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 37 by Trixie, posted 12-11-2011 5:54 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 12-11-2011 7:17 PM designtheorist has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 27 of 404 (643721)
12-11-2011 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 12:17 AM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
Regarding the website you linked, I believe the argument has a fatal flaw. The author writes:
"We can eliminate m from both terms (since it is a hypothetical particle anyway)..."

Do you understand math? Basic algebra?

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 12:17 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 12:22 AM DrJones* has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 28 of 404 (643722)
12-11-2011 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by DrJones*
12-11-2011 12:20 AM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
Yes, I do. Do you think you can just remove mass from Einstein's equation without damaging the equation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2011 12:20 AM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2011 12:23 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 29 of 404 (643723)
12-11-2011 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 12:22 AM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
take a look at the equations posted on the website and you'll see why m can be dropped out.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 12:22 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 404 (643728)
12-11-2011 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by designtheorist
12-10-2011 11:49 PM


pseudo tensors
A quick reading of the paper did not convince me the author is correct. For one thing, I'm not sure what pseudo-tensors are or how they might be helpful in estimating total net energy.

I can see why not understanding the physics could render the paper unpersuasive to you. I propose that given that you don't know what a pseudo-tensor is, that this topic may simply be beyond your expertise to fully grasp.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 12-10-2011 11:49 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Chuck77, posted 12-11-2011 4:19 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 41 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 11:22 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021