Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
253 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1 (2 members, 251 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,693 Year: 3,339/14,102 Month: 280/724 Week: 38/91 Day: 3/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 404 (643793)
12-11-2011 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 2:15 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
designtheorist writes:

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?

I'm not the expert that our resident professors are, but I can state flatly that the above is wrong at the most basic level. The gravitational field energy does not disappear when mass is converted into energy. I can also state that nobody familiar with GR mathematics would make such a mistake.

Yet you know better. And if someone is supposed to teach you general relativity while you struggle with algebra.

As I understand cavediver's explanation, it seems to me that the question of zero energy is a tiny bit less interesting. At best, if the total energy of the universe is "significantly" greater than zero, quantum fluctuations explanations are a tougher sell. But that kind of salesmanship would not be all that important to the BBT as it really doesn't deal with that issue of T=0 at all.

Is that really your point? That the quantum fluctuations explanation cannot be correct? Once you have a number for the net energy of the universe, perhaps we can discuss that.


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 81 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 1:40 AM NoNukes has responded

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


Message 77 of 404 (643798)
12-11-2011 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 5:36 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
But if we can know the total energy is strongly positive - as the evidence seems to indicate ...

Please show your working.


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 80 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 1:23 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2735 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 78 of 404 (643802)
12-12-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by cavediver
12-11-2011 7:40 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
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.

It is my understanding that massless particles are subject to gravitational attraction from other massive bodies but massive bodies (or massless particles) are not subject to attraction to massless particles. If you believe this is incorrect, please provide a reference or link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 7:40 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2011 2:09 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 84 by NoNukes, posted 12-12-2011 8:31 AM designtheorist has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2735 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 79 of 404 (643804)
12-12-2011 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by jar
12-11-2011 7:42 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
Atheists such as Krauss and Hawking have used this particular claim as evidence that a Creator God is not needed at the start of the universe. Did you watch the video of Lawrence Krauss?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfOL_oGgRVk

It was given at Atheist Alliance International in 2009.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 12-11-2011 7:42 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 12-12-2011 9:56 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2011 1:09 PM designtheorist has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2735 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 80 of 404 (643806)
12-12-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
12-11-2011 10:16 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
You ask me to show my working so I will restate it.

When the average person looks at the universe, he or she would see only positive energy. But a form of negative energy also exists in the form of gravitational field energy. Gravity is the weakest of the four forces (but acts over large distances). On the local level, gravitational field energy is quite small - for example, the gravitational field energy for the earth is about one billionth the rest energy of the mass of the earth. However, it is claimed that on larger scales the negative energy of gravity can be equal to all of the rest energy in matter - meaning the universe has zero net total energy.

Richard Feynmann appears to have been the first to make this estimation back in 1962/63, when it was still thought the universe might end in a Big Crunch. In 1974, Allan Sandage discovered the expansion of the universe was accelerating and then Gunn published a famous paper in Nature in 1975 based on his data titled "An Accelerating Universe." However, the scientific community was not really persuaded until another paper came out in 1998 which showed the same result (and the authors were awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics).

The accelerating universe shows another force is at work - an antigravity force - known as dark energy. We now know dark energy accounts for 74% of the energy in the universe. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ See #6. Dark energy is far more abundant and more forceful than gravity. If gravity was as abundant as dark energy and the rest energy of matter combined (as is claimed by Krauss and others), then the universe would end in a Big Crunch.

Since we know the universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating, we know the universe has net total energy which is strongly positive.

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2011 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2735 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 81 of 404 (643807)
12-12-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NoNukes
12-11-2011 8:35 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
Once you have a number for the net energy of the universe, perhaps we can discuss that.

Here is what we know about the universe based on the latest and best cosmology from WMAP.

- 74% Dark energy
- 22% Dark matter
- 4% Atoms

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060916/index.html

Feynmann calculated the force of gravity at about equal to the rest energy of atoms. I'm not certain that is correct, but let's grant it for the sake of this illustration. Since that time we have discovered dark matter and dark energy, both positive energy. Dark matter definitely creates a gravitational field. Let's assume it creates a gravitational field energy equal to itself. Again, I'm skeptical of this but willing to grant it for illustration.

But dark energy is different. It is an anti-gravity force. It appears to cancel out gravity and have lots of energy left over. The galaxies are growing further away from each other at an accelerating rate.

So we have Atoms (4%) and gravity - cancel out.
Dark matter (22%) and gravity - cancel out.
Dark energy (74%) and not enough gravity to cancel it out.

Of course, this ignores other types of energy in the universe such as thermal energy and kinetic energy of galaxies which shows the net total energy to be even more positive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 12-11-2011 8:35 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 12-12-2011 11:36 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 12-12-2011 1:48 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2545 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 82 of 404 (643809)
12-12-2011 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 12:51 AM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
It is my understanding that massless particles are subject to gravitational attraction from other massive bodies but massive bodies (or massless particles) are not subject to attraction to massless particles. If you believe this is incorrect, please provide a reference or link.

I do not *believe* you to be incorrect - you simply *are* incorrect. You keep asking for references and papers that would back up the most basic understanding of General Relativity and cosmology. Might I suggest you gain this understanding first, and then perhaps you wouldn't look quite so foolish. Go buy a copy of Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, and get back to us in a couple of years.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 12:51 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2545 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(3)
Message 83 of 404 (643810)
12-12-2011 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 7:34 PM


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

Purely theological?

Really? Here is one of the original papers discussing this possibility. To be honest, it doesn't look too much like any of the theological papers I have read. And given that different types of colliding brane ideas give rise to differrences in the very early Universe which in turn lead to different signatures within the CMBR, then your "no observational support" is also wrong.

You are really not doing too well in this thread, are you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 7:34 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 3:19 PM cavediver has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 404 (643826)
12-12-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 12:51 AM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
designtheorist writes:

It is my understanding that massless particles are subject to gravitational attraction from other massive bodies but massive bodies (or massless particles) are not subject to attraction to massless particles. If you believe this is incorrect, please provide a reference or link.

This isn't a matter of my belief. You are simply wrong. I'll provide a reference.

First I'd like to ask you where your "understanding comes from given that you don't have any appreciation of General Relativity. You don't have any basis to have an "understanding" that a physic-savvy person is bound to respect. (With apologies to the infamous Justice Taney).

You make stuff up, citing absolutely no references, and then someone else is supposed to disprove your contention with references. Why is it that you don't owe me a reference? Because according to you, designtheorist, alone among all other posters, does not have to establish anything. I, on the other hand, must provide references for such things as F=ma.

Because this is basic stuff, I'm going to use Wikipedia for a reference. If you continue to insist on your position, I'll make the attempt to find a physics text on the web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

quote:
In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

That's right, matter and radiation (among a couple other things) warp space, producing the geodesic that matter must follow.

The right hand Einstein's tensor equation, given on the same web page, is a constant (consisting only of fundamental values) times the energy-momentum tensor, said Tensor, as described in the Wikipedia article, includes the following:

quote:
In special relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general quantity called the energy-momentum tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress (that is, pressure and shear

For the above proposition, Wikipedia cites Ehlers, Jürgen (1973), "Survey of general relativity theory", in Israel, Werner, Relativity, Astrophysics and Cosmology, D. Reidel, pp. 1–125, ISBN 90-277-0369-8. I did not check the reference.

Let me know if these informal references are not enough.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 12:51 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 1:35 PM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 85 of 404 (643830)
12-12-2011 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 12:57 AM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
And as a Christian I must agree with them.

This is a science thread in a science sub forum and until you can bring a God in for testing, the God is irrelevant.

So again, what does either atheism or theism 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 79 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 12:57 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 12-12-2011 11:27 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 86 of 404 (643846)
12-12-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
12-12-2011 9:56 AM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
I would suggest that they matter to designtheorist because his threads are thinly veiled attempts at proselytizing in the science forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 12-12-2011 9:56 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 404 (643848)
12-12-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 1:40 AM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
Given the corrections to your "understandings" about gravity, perhaps you would want to recalculate this total.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 1:40 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(7)
Message 88 of 404 (643868)
12-12-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 12:57 AM


This ain't about the physics
Atheists such as Krauss and Hawking have used this particular claim as evidence that a Creator God is not needed at the start of the universe.

Ah, so this is the crux of the issue for you. Somebody has an argument against god and it relies on the total net energy to be zero. You want to believe in god, therefore, you can't allow for the total net energy to be zero.

All this stuff:

quote:
When I first watched the clip, I laughed out loud. I thought "Larry's lost it! No one is going to believe the net energy in the universe is zero or even close to zero!"

...

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


Doesn't really have anything to do with the physics at all, does it?

This isn't about physics, this is about you feeling a belief of yours being threatened, and you want to keep that belief, so you're gonna attack it by pretending to talk about physics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 12:57 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 2:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 96 by Larni, posted 12-12-2011 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1006 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 89 of 404 (643872)
12-12-2011 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Chuck77
12-11-2011 4:30 AM


positive and negative
Ok, but there is still energy right?

Right.

A neutron is made of an up quark which has a charge of +2/3e and two down quarks each with a charge of -1/3e.

There is charge, but a neutron has no net charge.

Im just not sure the theme is supposed to be, what the thread means. Zero energy or infinate energy, what means what?

The idea is that the energy is comprised of negative and positive energy. The question is, what is the net result of those negatives and positives in the universe at large? Some physicists believe that the net result is zero, just as with the charges in the neutron.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Chuck77, posted 12-11-2011 4:30 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 2:00 PM Modulous has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2735 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 90 of 404 (643873)
12-12-2011 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by NoNukes
12-12-2011 8:31 AM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
Thank you for a helpful post. Anytime someone can point me to new information which can correct and clarify my thinking, I appreciate it. While Wikipedia articles themselves may not be reliable sources, they often provide quality sources.

My limited understanding of physics and cosmology has been gained through informal education and there are bound to be gaps in my knowledge. I am surprised radiation is considered to warp space. I cannot help but wonder (based on my limited understanding) if this view may be controversial at all?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by NoNukes, posted 12-12-2011 8:31 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 12-12-2011 8:51 PM designtheorist 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