Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
95 online now:
DrJones*, nwr (2 members, 93 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,022 Year: 3,668/14,102 Month: 288/321 Week: 104/44 Day: 20/26 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 2771 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 yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 62 of 404 (643773)
12-11-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 2:09 PM


Re: Strewth!
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:09 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:54 PM Trixie has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 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 responded

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

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2644 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 64 of 404 (643775)
12-11-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 2:54 PM


Re: Strewth!
Glad to be of service. Hope it helps, Trixie out!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:54 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 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 responded

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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 66 of 404 (643782)
12-11-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 5:36 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 5:36 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 7:26 PM jar has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2581 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 67 of 404 (643783)
12-11-2011 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 5:36 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 5:36 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 7:34 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2581 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 68 of 404 (643784)
12-11-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 2:15 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
Now when you convert this mass into positive energy, the gravitational field energy goes to zero.

Why on earth would this happen?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:15 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 7:28 PM cavediver has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1042 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 69 of 404 (643786)
12-11-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 12:17 AM


Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
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.


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 72 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 7:29 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 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 responded

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

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 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 responded

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

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 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 acknowledged this reply

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 73 of 404 (643790)
12-11-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by cavediver
12-11-2011 5:55 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 5:55 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2011 2:24 AM designtheorist has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2581 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 74 of 404 (643791)
12-11-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 7:28 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 7:28 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 12:51 AM cavediver has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 75 of 404 (643792)
12-11-2011 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 7:26 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 7:26 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 12:57 AM jar has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021