Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 42 of 404 (643752)
12-11-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Trixie
12-11-2011 5:54 AM


Reply to Trixie - #37
What you have supplied is a circular argument. According to the author of the website:
(a) E (positive) = mc 2
and
(b) E (negative) = - m M u G / R u
The negative energy equation relates to gravity. So, as you point out, if the positive and negative are equal, then you can say:
mc 2 = m M u G / R u
But this is exactly what I deny.
Look at the effect this has on Einstein's equation. The author changes E = mc 2 into E = c 2. He is changing one side of the equation without changing the other. This damages the equation. The equation now says Energy = Velocity (the specific velocity of speed of light squared) - which is nonsense.
Edited by designtheorist, : Italicized the "if"
Edited by designtheorist, : Clarification
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Trixie, posted 12-11-2011 5:54 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 12:07 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 56 by Trixie, posted 12-11-2011 1:46 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 43 of 404 (643753)
12-11-2011 12:00 PM


Gravity and Pseudotensors
This forum is about "Understanding through Discussion" so I appreciate the participation from everyone.
Earlier I mentioned the paper discussing pseudotensors was not persuasive to me. Based on the context, pseudotensors appeared to be some kind of modeling element but I did not know know what they represented. I stumbled across this article in Wikipedia which provides a decent definition.
See Gravitational energy - Wikipedia
This article contains one very interesting sentence:
Some people object to this derivation on the grounds that pseudotensors are inappropriate in general relativity, but the divergence of the combined matter plus gravitational energy pseudotensor is a tensor.
This seems to be a defense of the use of pseudotensors, but not a strong defense.
I am still looking for a paper that provides actual data used to estimate the total net energy. I have not found one. I am curious how Feynmann's calculation (which I am betting did use actual data) may have found net zero energy when dark energy was unknown and people still come up with net zero when we know the universe is 72% dark energy. It doesn't make sense.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 45 of 404 (643755)
12-11-2011 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
12-11-2011 12:07 PM


Reply to PaulK #44
There are several errors in the website argument. I don't think we need to go into all of them. Both Trixie and the website author are providing circular arguments.
Trixie uses the word "if." The word "if" is required. She is assuming the two equations are equal. i deny this.
The website author does not use the word "if" but he makes the same assumption when he writes:
We can eliminate m from both terms (since it is a hypothetical particle anyway) and compare:
(a) the value of c 2
with
(b) the value of - M u G / R u
Do you see how he is assuming they are equal?
The website author ends by saying
positive energy = 9 x 10 16
negative energy = - 9.77 x 10 16
Since this is only about 8% difference, he is saying the answer is probably zero. The problem is his calculation for positive energy is nothing but the speed of light squared - it is velocity.
So what does this do to Einstein's equation? The author is saying that Einstein is wrong. E does not equal mc 2. Instead, E = c 2.
C'mon. Seriously? Do we have to spend any more time on this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 12:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 12:36 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 50 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2011 12:59 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 48 of 404 (643758)
12-11-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
12-11-2011 12:36 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
All he is doing is cancelling the numerical value of m on each side.
But both sides of the equation have to be equal for such an operation to be valid, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 12:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 12:47 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 51 of 404 (643761)
12-11-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by PaulK
12-11-2011 12:47 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
You're right. The author of the website is not assuming equivalency as I first thought. There are still problems with his equations.
He is saying velocity of the speed of light squared equals all of the positive energy of the universe. This is untrue. Even if everything he presented was true, this would only show the rest energy of all matter is the speed of light squared - which is a claim I could accept. The equation does not account for thermal energy, dark energy or kinetic energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 12:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2011 1:12 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 1:16 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 54 of 404 (643764)
12-11-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
12-11-2011 1:16 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #53
He is saying that the (positive) energy equivalent of the mass of a particle is about the same as the negative energy of the gravitational field relating to that particle.
Not true. I think this is a fairly common misapprehension. I quoted Hawking in the OP:
The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy.
You say
Thermal and kinetic energy are essentially the same thing...
At the quantum or atomic level perhaps. But I am referring to the thermal energy of CMB radiation, the thermal output of the stars and the kinetic energy of the galaxies in motion. Most people would not consider these "the same thing."
That really leaves only Dark Energy, and given the questions about whether it exists or what it is if it does I think it is a little premature to point to it as a problem.
In Message 11 I provided you with evidence that the existence of dark energy is no longer in doubt. See Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and read #6 in the list. The fact dark energy completely swamps the effects of gravitation should be obvious by the fact the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 1:16 PM PaulK has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 55 of 404 (643765)
12-11-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by DrJones*
12-11-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
Actually, that is what I'm saying his equations prove. He appears to be claiming total net energy is zero. His equations do not account for thermal energy, kinetic energy of galaxies or dark energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2011 1:12 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 2:06 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 58 of 404 (643769)
12-11-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Trixie
12-11-2011 1:46 PM


Re: Strewth!
Note the part that I bolded. Has it occurred to you that if you only understood a part of what the author is saying, then you don't actually understand what he is saying in toto? If you don't know what he is saying, i.e., what case he is making , you have no way that you can objectively determine whether he is right or wrong.
But I did present an argument about why Berman was wrong and why the author of the website was wrong. You did not address the arguments at all. You have only attacked me which is not very helpful in terms of increasing "Understanding through Discussion."
In brief, neither of the two is addressing dark energy which obviously swamps the negative energy of the gravitational field since the universe is accelerating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Trixie, posted 12-11-2011 1:46 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Trixie, posted 12-11-2011 2:26 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 59 of 404 (643770)
12-11-2011 2:15 PM


A Simple Thought Experiment
PaulK makes the claim:
He is saying that the (positive) energy equivalent of the mass of a particle is about the same as the negative energy of the gravitational field relating to that particle.
We all know that the law of conservation of energy tells us mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass. Keeping in mind this law, try to imagine this conversion happening and PaulK's assertion being true.
You have mass X with at rest energy of Y. This mass creates a gravitational field energy of -Y. Now when you convert this mass into positive energy, the gravitational field energy goes to zero. How much positive energy did the mass actually create when converted to energy?

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 2:22 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 6:02 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 12-11-2011 8:35 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 61 of 404 (643772)
12-11-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
12-11-2011 6:55 AM


Reply to cavediver #38
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 6:55 AM cavediver has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 63 of 404 (643774)
12-11-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Trixie
12-11-2011 2:26 PM


Re: Strewth!
Your mission is accomplished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Trixie, posted 12-11-2011 2:26 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Trixie, posted 12-11-2011 3:01 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 65 of 404 (643781)
12-11-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by cavediver
12-11-2011 8:04 AM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 8:04 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 12-11-2011 5:47 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 5:55 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2011 10:16 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 70 of 404 (643787)
12-11-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
12-11-2011 5:47 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 12-11-2011 5:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 12-11-2011 7:42 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 71 of 404 (643788)
12-11-2011 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by cavediver
12-11-2011 6:02 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 6:02 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 7:40 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 72 of 404 (643789)
12-11-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
12-11-2011 7:17 PM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
I misspoke several times when discussing that website.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 12-11-2011 7:17 PM Modulous has seen this message but 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