Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
224 online now:
dwise1, ICANT, nwr, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 219 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,089 Year: 3,735/14,102 Month: 40/315 Week: 40/131 Day: 40/27 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

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


(1)
Message 204 of 404 (645001)
12-22-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Aware Wolf
12-22-2011 8:04 AM


Re: Designtheorist
My guess is that if he responds to the parable, he will focus on how the analogy breaks down, not with DT and the customer, but with the auto mechanic and cosmologists.

Except that DT claims to understand what cosmologists are saying and that he can tell that what they are saying is wrong. What's clear to me, however, is that DT cannot know whether cosmologists are wrong because he doesn't understand their work.

It might actually be possible to show that General Relativity is wrong using ordinary arithmetic. For example, I might be able to convince the mechanic that he cannot tune my engine to reach some target energy efficiency by comparing the gasoline engine to an ideal Carnot cycle. Such an argument would require very little knowledge of throttle valves or other internal combustion engine parts.

But so far DT has not managed to articulate such an argument. Hopefully the last bit of physics that was presented has him thinking a bit. After all, it is about the physics, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-22-2011 8:04 AM Aware Wolf has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 12-22-2011 9:41 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 404 (645007)
12-22-2011 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Percy
12-22-2011 9:41 AM


Re: Designtheorist
Are you sure you meant message 161?

That message contains questions based on designtheorist failure to understand a very simple thought experiment. Others have already handled the question as far as it can or should be handled. This isn't something I'd want the busy cavediver to bother with.

I don't think it's about the physics for DT.

Well, it ought to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 12-22-2011 9:41 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 404 (645214)
12-24-2011 10:43 AM


I thought we had been asked to stop harping on the foibles of the posters and to pony up the reasons why the poster or posters are wrong.

I'd be more than happy to return to my impatient cynic mode if we aren't going to talk about science. But as it is I think designtheorist owes us some answers and I'd sure like to see if he has any. Surely he's had time to read beyond the abstracts of those papers.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 404 (645487)
12-27-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by designtheorist
12-26-2011 7:34 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
Perhaps you missed the reasons the pseudotensor argument was rejected. The pseudotensors are not based on observational cosmology. Observation always trumps theory.

That's fine, but you haven't reported any observations that the net energy is not "about" zero. What you are either ignoring or failing to understand is that net energy being "about" zero is not incompatible with an expanding universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 7:34 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 11:56 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 404 (645505)
12-27-2011 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by designtheorist
12-27-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
BTW, in case it is not obvious, if empty space had infinity rest energy per cubic meter, there is no way the gravitational field energy could offset it so that the result could be net zero energy universe. But I am not about to declare victory on the basis of an obvious absurdity.

Even if empty space has a large finite energy, you still have to deal with whether that energy would generate a gravitational field and a corresponding negative energy.

My guess is that either Clarke or Cano picked up Feynman's calculations prior to the renormalization, a step Feynman certainly knew was necessary.

That's complete nonsense. It simply isn't the kind of thing someone who understood renormalization would ever say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 10:03 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 1:16 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 233 of 404 (645512)
12-27-2011 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by designtheorist
12-27-2011 12:55 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
Regarding pseudotensors being valid objects or not, perhaps I should have said "some people" instead of many people. Wikipedia says:

The Wikipedia article explains why pseudotensors are appropriate despite what "some people" say. But the question for me is why you reject them, and you have yet to give any answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 12:55 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 404 (645514)
12-27-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by designtheorist
12-27-2011 1:16 PM


Discussing physics, not parables...
Gravitational field energy cannot be strong in empty space since it is overpowered by the pressure of dark energy.

You are confusing the argument here. You haven't even established that the vacuum energy is the same as dark energy. Nobody has done any calculations that show the vacuum energy to match the magnitude given for dark energy.

And again, dark energy overcomes gravitational energy only on super cosmic distances. For example, neither dark energy nor vacuum energy prevents the Milky Way galaxy from being drawn into a collision with the Andromeda galaxy by gravity.

Why don't you give us something other than handwaving and assertions.

ABE:

Why would you say such a thing? Isn't it possible someone could present results prior to renormalization? I bet I can find modern papers, within the last decade, that do it. I don't know much about the history of renormalization.

This isn't about the history. You don't know anything about renormalization. You are attempting to fake it.

I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on vacuum energy before you begin your meaningless search for papers which do not use renormalization. In addition to clearing up a couple of the misconceptions I've already pointed out, there is a sentence or two about what results from calculating zero point energy without doing renormalization. Hint. Not performing renormalization does not result in the large finite value Prof. Feynman reported, where said large value is entirely consistent with quantum theory.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 1:16 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 4:15 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 237 of 404 (645520)
12-27-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Percy
12-27-2011 3:18 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
There are people here who would love to dispassionately discuss physics with you, but it seems like both sides have too big a stake in being right.

I don't have any stake in whether the net energy of the universe is zero. I don't have any attachment for the quantum fluctuations hypothesis.

On the other hand, I'll freely admit that I am not very tolerant of faux-scientific, double talk. It does nothing to establish that God exists, and in fact I believe fake science, such as can be found in lots of places on the web does Christianity a great disservice. Perhaps I've been too passionate about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 12-27-2011 3:18 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 242 of 404 (645528)
12-27-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by designtheorist
12-27-2011 4:15 PM


Re: Discussing physics, not parables...
I think it is time to put this thread on hiatus. We are approaching the 300 comment mark which will trigger the summation and Krauss's book is not even out yet. I would like to save some comments for discussing his evidence if he presents any.

Unless moderators deem otherwise, my intention is to address more of the bad science already posted regardless of whether you bail. I expect that you'll probably want to start a new thread to discuss the new book.

I'm clearly asking for observational evidence to support the position of net energy of zero.

My position is that you haven't presented any evidence that the net energy is not "about" zero, where "about" means close enough to allow a quantum fluctuations origin.

You've simply argue that such is the case, which has resulted in much of the discussion being aimed at pointing out the holes in your arguments.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 4:15 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 9:27 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 404 (645552)
12-27-2011 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by designtheorist
12-27-2011 9:27 PM


Re: Discussing physics, not parables...
The only evidence based on observation I have found so far was the Bradford table I linked above. When the ratio is off by more than three decimal places, you cannot say the net is "about" zero.

Hasn't this question already been addressed by cavediver with effectively no response or rebuttal from you?

What "observation" is Bradford's mass for the universe based on? You claim he calculated the mass, but there is no evidence of that calculation on Bradford's website. It seems to me that Bradford simply looked up the mass of the universe.

It is simply not the case that Bradford's calculation includes observations or some modern take on cosmology that Feynman's calculation does not. In fact, the calculation methods used by the two men are roughly equivalent. In both cases, gravitational energy is estimated using by integrating the same inverse square law force law.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 9:27 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 404 (645556)
12-27-2011 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2011 10:18 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
Discovering the existence of dark energy doesn't change that any more than discovering the thirteenth moon of Jupiter, they're both just one more thing in a universe which is still described by General Relativity.

I find that this one sentence says what I've attempted to demonstrate in 25+ posts, but with 1/3 less vitriol. Awesome.

Edited by NoNukes, : change vitriol estimate from zero, to very little.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2011 10:18 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 404 (645584)
12-28-2011 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by cavediver
12-28-2011 7:36 AM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
And how is the proper value for the cosmological constant determined? From the supernova data that demonstrated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

See "The Supernova legacy survey: Measurement of omega(m), omega(lambda) and W from the first year data set". Astronomy and Astrophysics,

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0510/0510447v1.pdf

And

Improved Cosmological Constraints from New, Old, and Combined Supernova Data Sets.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.4142v1.pdf

And

SUPERNOVA CONSTRAINTS AND SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES FROM THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF THE SUPERNOVA LEGACY SURVEY

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/...nley%20systematics.pdf

quote:
The Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) is a five year program to measure the expansion history of the universe using Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia). The goal of this survey is to measure the time-averaged equation of state of dark energy w to 0.05 (statistical uncertainties only) in combination with other measurements and to 0.10 including systematic effects.

So perhaps we can dispense with DT's unsupported argument that there is no tie to observation with the psuedotensor approach, as well as the argument that Bradford's data does reflect observation.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by cavediver, posted 12-28-2011 7:36 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 251 of 404 (646372)
01-04-2012 12:48 PM


State of the discussion.
Designtheorist stated three points in his OP. Since he has said that his central message has not been address, and because I don't expect DT to acknowledge that anyone other than DT has made any point whatsoever, I am going to provide my view of the discussion so far.

From the OP in message 11.

DT writes:

I understand that gravitational field energy can be negative, but the gravitational field energy between the earth and the moon is very small compared to the positive energy of the matter particles. Hawking says it less than a billionth of the positive energy. When can gravitational field energy be greater than the positive energy of the matter? If I read Hawking correctly, not until the matter is so dense it is a black hole. The entire universe would have to be a black hole for the net energy to be zero.

The basis for contrary calculations showing that the gravitational energy is about equal to the positive energy have been provided. In response, designtheorist (DT) has cited an article by Bradford in which the negative energy for various objects including the universe are calculated. DT indicates that he prefers Bradford's calculations because they are based on observation.

From Message 239

The only observational calculations presented so far show the ratio of positive to negative is not 1 but is off by three decimal places.

Of course in reviewing Bradford's calculations we see that no reference at all is made to an observations. As has been pointed out Bradford uses a mass for the universe of 10^50 kg which is about three orders of magnitude lower than the current estimate of 8 * 10^52kg. DT claims that Bradford calculated the mass of the universe, but it has been pointed out that there is evidence of that, and that Bradford does not claim to have done so. No response from DT.

Another point, which has not been highlighted previously is that Bradford and other physicists do not dismiss the possibility that the universe is a black hole. From Bradford's article:

quote:
However, for very large and massive black holes, such as might exist at the centers of galaxies, their average density drops inversely as the square of their radius. This could mean that the Schwartzchild radius of a very massive black hole could extend well beyond the "surface" of its massive component within. In such a case, the negative equivalent mass ratio could rise from the non-uniform density profile to unity or greater, creating a net zero or negative mass that would explode.

Perhaps this is what the universe is. An ultra massive black hole, from which nothing escapes. It has masses concentrated in the centers of galaxies in quark-gluon plasmas and smaller black holes that are themselves exploding as their radii reach the critical value where their mass goes into a net negative value.


On to the second point in the OP.

DT writes:

Second, there is nothing to offset the positive heat energy of the universe. In addition to the heat output from all the stars, we have the cosmic microwave background radiation. CMB radiation is only ~2.7 kelvin, so not much above absolute zero - but when spread out over billions of light years in every direction - that's a lot of joules! Plus, there is no way to go below absolute zero. You cannot have negative thermal energy.

As was pointed out general relativity includes energy as a source of gravitational energy. DT cannot accept this and cites a crank article (Gowan's) from the internet to show that the idea is controversial.

Of course in a debate, we should not dismiss things just because they are mainstream, but I should point out that Gowan's hypothesis is that dark energy is simply the missing gravitational energy of photons. Yet DT needs dark energy to make up 70+ percent of the universe in order to make his final point.

To address DT's point more directly, Kinetic energy and thermal energy are not photonic, and thus are not excused from contributing to negative gravitational energy even if Gowan were correct. Second, negative energy simply disappearing when mass is converted to its energy equivalent in photons would violate conservation of energy. DT makes no effort to explain why we should accept this or why we should accept Gowan's theory without adopting its consequences.

Third, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Theorists are postulating some type of "antigravity force" at work called dark energy. If a gravitational field has negative energy, then dark energy must be positive energy. Since the expansion is accelerating, the antigravity energy must be greater than the gravitational energy. The WMAP Project claims to have measured the amount of dark energy.

DT believes that dark energy is unaccounted for in the current calculations that show that net energy is zero. DT dismisses calculations based on pseudo-tensors because pseudo-tensors are controversial or for other reasons. He gives short shrift to explanations that pseudo-tensors are entirely appropriate. I doubt the DT even understands the explanations.

In fact, DT's dismissal of psuedo-tensors is not rational, but personal. The use of pseudo-tensors in general relativity is not controversial, and because DT doubtless has no idea what a pseudo-tensor is, let alone how to manipulate one, his personal distaste is of no value. If it is wrong for me to dismiss hypothesis merely because they are not mainstream, surely it is just as silly to dismiss real science because of a personal incredulity.

DT was also unaware, and was peeved to find that the accelerated expansion of the universe is actually modeled by including a cosmological constant into Einstein's equations. Evidence for this proposition has been provided. This evidence alone should be enough to address the argument that GR does not reflect observational evidence. Perhaps it has.

DT wants to investigate whether Feynman's calculations of zero point energy were based on observation or pseudo-tensors. But as has already been pointed out, the search is going to be futile. Zero point energy is not the same as dark energy. Zero point energy is calculated from quantum theory rather than general relativity. We know that quantum theory predicts an enormously huge value for vacuum energy that is not consistent with the dark energy of the universe which is merely an order of magnitude or so greater than that of ordinary matter.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 404 (648432)
01-15-2012 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Tangle
01-15-2012 4:48 AM


Re: Supersymmetry
If the universe was supersymmetrical it could not exist as we see it as everything would net to zero, it's only the fact that there is actually an inbalance that allows for existence.

Everything? Or is the imbalance you are describing merely between matter and anti-matter.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Tangle, posted 01-15-2012 4:48 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2012 4:46 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 404 (648522)
01-16-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Tangle
01-16-2012 4:46 AM


Re: Supersymmetry
I cannot access the program from the US, and only a brief clip is available on youtube. But apparently the video is "out there" and I'm sure I'll get to see it.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2012 4:46 AM Tangle 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