Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
562 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, Parasomnium, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, Tangle (7 members, 555 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,284 Year: 4,930/14,102 Month: 528/707 Week: 83/176 Day: 12/34 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2824 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 106 of 404 (643901)
12-12-2011 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by PaulK
12-12-2011 3:38 PM


General relativity and dark energy
General relativity has been a very successful theory for a long time, one of the most successful theories we have had. General relativity was not a notion formed out of an atheistic motivation like colliding branes.

But we now know General Relativity is not as descriptive or predictive as we once thought and needs to be modified. GR predicted an expanding universe. Einstein was uncomfortable with that and so he inserted his "cosmological constant" notated with a lambda (sorry I do not know to type Greek characters here). The cosmological constant was designed to keep the universe from expanding. When Hubble learned the universe really was expanding, Einstein said the lambda was the biggest mistake of his career. Now we know the expansion of the universe is accelerating due to dark energy. GR did not predict dark energy or an acceleration of the expansion. Instead of the lambda, we need a symbol to represent dark energy. Instead of preventing the universe from expanding, it needs to accelerate the expansion.

A new and more precise theory of gravitation and cosmology may arise to replace GR. We don't know when this will happen or who will work out the issues involved, but we do know it is needed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 12-12-2011 3:38 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 12-12-2011 7:18 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 12-13-2011 1:33 AM designtheorist has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33415
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 107 of 404 (643902)
12-12-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 7:04 PM


Re: General relativity and dark energy
The cosmological constant was designed to keep the universe from expanding.

HUH?

I expect you can explain what you mean in that sentence?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 7:04 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 7:25 PM jar has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2824 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 108 of 404 (643903)
12-12-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by cavediver
12-12-2011 3:44 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
You claim to have never heard the criticism that colliding branes was born of purely atheistic motives. Forgive me for being skeptical. Did you happen to read the Stanford website I linked. It quoted a number of physicists talking about the theological motivations for several theories thought to do away with God. You asked for names. The names are right there for you to read. I don't mean to say everyone who has ever worked in the area is an atheist. But it is the kind of thing only an atheist would conceive of initially.

I have not see any evidence contradicting the central thesis of the OP.

You have seen my explanation. You have not understood it.

Unsupported assertions are of no use to me. I asked for a paper which would account for dark energy and show the data and methods used to calculate zero net energy. You have not provided such a paper or even attempted to explain how the calculations could be made and include dark energy. If you want to convince me, stop beating your chest and provide some evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2011 3:44 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2011 10:06 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 12-13-2011 1:42 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2824 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 109 of 404 (643904)
12-12-2011 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by jar
12-12-2011 7:18 PM


Re: General relativity and dark energy

The cosmological constant was designed to keep the universe from expanding.
HUH?

I expect you can explain what you mean in that sentence?

I will try again. Einstein was slow to accept the ramifications of his own theory of general relativity. His theory indicated the universe was expanding. Einstein did not think this was so. He held to the static universe theory - that the universe had always existed and always would exist. Therefore, Einstein had to insert the idea of a "cosmological constant" - an unknown force which would keep the universe from expanding. To represent this idea in his equations, Einstein used a letter from the Greek alphabet, a lambda.

I'm sorry if I wrote a little too informally there and confused you.

Does this clear it up for you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 12-12-2011 7:18 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 12-12-2011 7:29 PM designtheorist has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33415
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 110 of 404 (643905)
12-12-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 7:25 PM


Re: General relativity and dark energy
I suggest that you do just a little bit of research because once again, you have totally misrepresented reality.

The cosmological constant was introduced to offset gravity and explain why the universe was not collapsing.

Yes, Einstein was disappointed that he did not predict an expanding universe before experimental evidence confirmed it, but the cosmological constant was not introduced to keep the universe from expanding.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 7:25 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 8:09 PM jar has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2824 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 111 of 404 (643906)
12-12-2011 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
12-12-2011 7:29 PM


Re: General relativity and dark energy
According to WMAP:

Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant (not to be confused with the Hubble Constant) usually symbolized by the greek letter "lambda" (Λ, as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion.

See http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 12-12-2011 7:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 12-12-2011 8:27 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33415
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 112 of 404 (643908)
12-12-2011 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 8:09 PM


Re: General relativity and dark energy
Learn more.

Yes, Einstein added the Cosmological Constant because he thought the universe was static, but NOT to keep it from expanding.

Go read about the cosmological constant.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 8:09 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 404 (643910)
12-12-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 1:35 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
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.

You are not going to see any such thing because you will not allow it.

Once you've acknowledged that energy contributes to the warping of space, unless you are capable of calculating the effect of dark energy on both gravitational energy and on the expansion of space, then you should understand that your musings on dark energy contributing significantly to the net energy calculation aren't going to persuade anyone, because they are going to be wrong. I think Modulus has already made the same point.

Further, your opinion that kinetic and thermal energy are unaccounted for is also clearly wrong.

I cannot help but wonder (based on my limited understanding) if this view may be controversial at all?

Maybe it was controversial at the turn of the century (i.e. early 20th century). Even E=mc*c was controversial in some circles. But wouldn't it be more controversial for gravitational energy to simply disappear when energy was converted away from mass? That's an implication of your proposal that photons don't warp space-time.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 1:35 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by designtheorist, posted 12-17-2011 1:31 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12722
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 114 of 404 (643912)
12-12-2011 9:26 PM


Moderator Request
I believe it is incumbent upon the person claiming someone else is wrong to explain why they are wrong.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 404 (643914)
12-12-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
Unsupported assertions are of no use to me. I asked for a paper which would account for dark energy and show the data and methods used to calculate zero net energy. You have not provided such a paper or even attempted to explain how the calculations could be made and include dark energy.

Try here.

Berman, Marcelo Samuel (2009). "On the Zero-energy Universe". International Journal of Theoretical Physics 48 (11): 3278

Let me know if you find any mistakes in his math.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 7:19 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by designtheorist, posted 12-17-2011 1:57 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2824 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 116 of 404 (643922)
12-13-2011 1:16 AM


Hamiltonian definition of energy always equals net zero
Amusingly, in Message 11 I made the point that Hawking had spoken of zero net energy as if it was a given or a law. I pointed out that this is unusual. Most physicists speak of the estimate/calculation of positive and negative energy netting out at zero or close to it. This comment of mine offended Dr. A so I struck the sentence from the message because it just was not worth arguing about.

While doing a little reading tonight, I learned that under certain definitions of energy the net total is always zero. The following comes from a website at the University of California at Riverside.

We will not delve into definitions of energy in general relativity such as the hamiltonian (amusingly, the energy of a closed universe always works out to zero according to this definition), various kinds of energy one hopes to obtain by "deparametrizing" Einstein's equations, or "quasilocal energy."

See http://math.ucr.edu/.../physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

It seems how one defines energy has a lot to do with the result you get from calculations. It seems Professor John Baez does not think too highly of any definition which requires energy to net to zero.


Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2011 1:33 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 120 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2011 2:53 AM designtheorist has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16978
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 117 of 404 (643923)
12-13-2011 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 7:04 PM


Re: General relativity and dark energy
quote:

General relativity has been a very successful theory for a long time, one of the most successful theories we have had. General relativity was not a notion formed out of an atheistic motivation like colliding branes.

However, from what we have been told here, in General Relativity the energy-mass equivalence is a true equivalence. Energy interacts with gravity in the same way that mass does. This would refute all your ideas about Dark Energy making the positive energy exceed the negative energy of the gravitational field. Yet you dismiss the idea without offering any rebuttal.

quote:

But we now know General Relativity is not as descriptive or predictive as we once thought and needs to be modified.

Firstly that does NOT in any way justify your refusal to even acknowledge the point, You cannot reasonably assume that any feature of General Relativity will be completely negated. In fact the reverse is true - any viable replacement theory will be very close to GR in many ways, so we should expect this feature to remain largely unchanged.

Secondly, in the Big Bang thread you attacked Hawking precisely BECAUSE he was dealing with some of the modifications required. That is exactly where Hawking's elimination of the singularity came from, another point that you refused to acknowledge because it contradicted your own (unsupported) ideas about his motivation. Make your mind up. Is General Relativity absolutely right so that we must accept the existence of a singularity - or does it need changing so that there may not have been a singularity in the first place ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 7:04 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by designtheorist, posted 12-17-2011 2:04 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 118 of 404 (643924)
12-13-2011 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by designtheorist
12-13-2011 1:16 AM


Re: Hamiltonian definition of energy always equals net zero
It seems how one defines energy has a lot to do with the result you get from calculations. It seems Professor John Baez does not think too highly of any definition which requires energy to net to zero.

He omitted to say so in the paper, but fortunately you can read minds. That's how you found out that Stephen Hawking didn't believe in the Big Bang, wasn't it ... oh, no, you made that up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by designtheorist, posted 12-13-2011 1:16 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16978
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 119 of 404 (643925)
12-13-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 7:19 PM


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

You claim to have never heard the criticism that colliding branes was born of purely atheistic motives. Forgive me for being skeptical. Did you happen to read the Stanford website I linked. It quoted a number of physicists talking about the theological motivations for several theories thought to do away with God.

So far as I can tell from reading it , this is false. THe fact that you have yet to provide any quotes supporting your assertion rather suggests that you could not find any such statements either.

But it does say:


A naive or ideological reading of twentieth century cosmology might count big bang cosmology as providing new support for theism, and alternatives such as steady-state cosmology as atheistic backlashes. (And of course, the work of apologists such as W.L. Craig lends credence to this sort of picture.) But such a view misses many nuances, both in the historical record, as well as in the logical structure of these issues. From a historical point of view, there has been little correlation between religious views of scientific cosmologists and their proposed cosmological models.

It seems that you are simply promoting a "naive or ideological view".

(Also, it goes on to say something relevant to the earlier Big Bang thread:


From a epistemological point of view, there are numerous obstacles to claiming that the big bang confirms the hypothesis that God exists. And from a metaphysical point of view, God's hand is not manifest even in big bang models: these models have no first state for God to create, and these models have no time for God to exist in before the big bang.
)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 7:19 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2634 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 120 of 404 (643928)
12-13-2011 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by designtheorist
12-13-2011 1:16 AM


Re: Hamiltonian definition of energy always equals net zero
You claim that you understand what I have been writing yet here I find you writing this:

While doing a little reading tonight, I learned that under certain definitions of energy the net total is always zero.

yet you managed to completely miss this in message 40:

cd writes:

The fact is, if we are being very colloquial, that General Relativity is almost the statement that the gravitational energy is always equivalent to the mass-energy. That is the very constraint that dictates what is and what is not allowed in space-time physics. So there is nothing surprising in any of this. Adding in dark energy, dark matter, etc makes absolutely no difference to this - GR is essentially balancing the gravitational energy against all the other inputs.

And then we have...

It seems how one defines energy has a lot to do with the result you get from calculations.

when 76 messages earlier I had written

CD writes:

I have often repeated that there is no good definition of energy in General Relativity....
...There are some ways of making semi-rigorous definitions of the total energy, and this is what we see discussed in the literature and made reference to in the colloquial presentations by Hawking, Krauss, etc.

It seems Professor John Baez does not think too highly of any definition which requires energy to net to zero.

Really? Or perhaps he just knows that " there is no good definition of energy in General Relativity..."

If it wasn't for weveryone else here, I'd wonder why I bother. Try not being so so very desperate to be right...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by designtheorist, posted 12-13-2011 1:16 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 12-13-2011 3:10 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 125 by kbertsche, posted 12-13-2011 11:36 AM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 129 by Omnivorous, posted 12-13-2011 6:27 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 136 by designtheorist, posted 12-17-2011 2:15 PM cavediver has not yet 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