Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
238 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, candle2, driewerf, dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK (7 members, 231 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,086 Year: 3,732/14,102 Month: 37/315 Week: 37/131 Day: 37/27 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20119
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 211 of 404 (645202)
12-24-2011 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by designtheorist
12-24-2011 7:58 AM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
Vimesey's parable is about how preconceptions can get in the way of understanding, causing feelings of distrust and making communication difficult. Seems to describe this thread pretty well.

Your parable is about why you shouldn't trust anyone who refuses to show you evidence. Is anyone in this thread refusing to show you evidence?

A more accurate parable might be if the mechanic eventually threw his hands up in frustration and walked away because the customer kept insisting on referring to the engine as energy.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by designtheorist, posted 12-24-2011 7:58 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 4:01 PM Percy has responded

  
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.


  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 213 of 404 (645357)
12-26-2011 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Percy
12-24-2011 9:15 AM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
Vimesey's parable is about how preconceptions can get in the way of understanding, causing feelings of distrust and making communication difficult. Seems to describe this thread pretty well.

I see Vimesey's parable as illustrating the importance of believing those in authority and positions of power. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. Science does not proceed on faith. It proceeds on evidence. The man in Vimesey's parable never asked for evidence. He simply had faith the mechanic was dishonest. The fact so many commenters here liked the parable is bad for science. It shows that people don't understand the importance of asking for evidence. I have already linked to Wikipedia articles on data sharing and data archiving.

Your parable is about why you shouldn't trust anyone who refuses to show you evidence. Is anyone in this thread refusing to show you evidence?

My parable is about the importance of asking for evidence, especially when you have reason to doubt. You ask if anyone is refusing to show me evidence. They have not refused, but neither have they shown me evidence. The only evidence put forward relates to pseudotensors and we have already discussed why this is not acceptable. It is possible the claim of zero total net energy can be disproven if the evidence ever comes out. Without evidence, I cannot disprove it. All I can do, and what I have done, is show why I think it is unlikely to be true. I am looking forward to reading the book by Krauss to see if he presents evidence or just assumes it.

A more accurate parable might be if the mechanic eventually threw his hands up in frustration and walked away because the customer kept insisting on referring to the engine as energy.

Your point is unclear to me. I certainly agree that it is important that terms are defined and agreed upon. Am I missing an important point here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Percy, posted 12-24-2011 9:15 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by nwr, posted 12-26-2011 4:25 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 215 by Trixie, posted 12-26-2011 4:51 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 216 by Percy, posted 12-26-2011 5:00 PM designtheorist has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5731
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 214 of 404 (645362)
12-26-2011 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by designtheorist
12-26-2011 4:01 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
designtheorist writes:
I see Vimesey's parable as illustrating the importance of believing those in authority and positions of power.

Aha! Who would have guessed it. You are an alien from outer space. Taz recently made a post about that (Message 458).

In this world, the one where I live, mechanics have little power or authority. What little authority they do have, comes from their demonstrated abilities at solving mechanical problems.

When I take my automobile to a mechanic, I have the power and authority to take it somewhere if I don't like the color of the shirt that the mechanic is wearing.


Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 4:01 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 215 of 404 (645367)
12-26-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by designtheorist
12-26-2011 4:01 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
I see Vimsey's parable as showing what happens when someone who knows nothing about a subject, but thinks they do, is confronted by someone who does know about the subject. The man in the parable knows so little that he doesn't actually understand what the mechanic is telling him, (even though it's exactly what the man thinks himself), but is determined that it is wrong.

It's been brought up before in this thread. If you don't understand what someone is telling you, there is no way you can know whether they are right or wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 4:01 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20119
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 216 of 404 (645368)
12-26-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by designtheorist
12-26-2011 4:01 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
designtheorist writes:

They have not refused, but neither have they shown me evidence. The only evidence put forward relates to pseudotensors and we have already discussed why this is not acceptable.

It isn't that they haven't shown you any evidence but that your preconceptions have made you already decide which evidence is acceptable.

It's ironic that you're complaining about a focus on authority at the expense of evidence since that is your own modus operandi.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 4:01 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 7:34 PM Percy has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 217 of 404 (645386)
12-26-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by hooah212002
12-20-2011 9:20 PM


Re: How much energy is in empty space?
I mean, you've some nerve to call Feynman, Richard (expletive deleted) Feynman!, into question without so much as linking to some math proof that you've worked out elsewhere, let alone showing us directly. You've spent this whole thread calling numerous great minds into question and you've not even written up 2+2.

Calling into question those who have gone before is, at least in part, what science does. The fact you have the faith to accept the claim (third or fourth hand) that the energy of empty space is infinite or greater than the energy of U-238 of the same volume is... well... you have more faith than a scientist should ever have.

I have just found a web page by John Baez which discusses this issue in some detail. The answer Baez puts forward and I find convincing is that the energy density of the vacuum is very close to zero - approximately 7 × 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter or positive energy density of about 6 × 10-10 joules per cubic meter.

Perhaps more importantly from an educational point of view is Baez explains how the different answers were arrived at. Baez writes "The moral is: for a question like this, you need to know not just the answer but also the assumptions and reasoning that went into the answer. Otherwise you can't make sense of why different people give different answers." See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

I agree with Baez completely. I would add that observations, such as those done by WMAP and cited by Baez, trump any theory which may disagree with observation. Feynman's agreement on this point is on the record.

How does the energy density of the vacuum affect calculations of the net energy of the universe? Energy density of the vacuum refers to dark energy. While the density of dark energy is quite low measured by cubic meter, WMAP considers it to be about 74% of the energy of the universe. Consider also that gravitational field energy becomes stronger when matter is dense (like black holes) and is quite small otherwise. It would appear the negative gravitational field energy would be quite small, much smaller than the positive energy of the universe.

Regarding actual calculations, we will have to wait until we see some from those claiming the net energy is zero.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2011 9:20 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by hooah212002, posted 12-26-2011 7:35 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 220 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 7:36 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 218 of 404 (645390)
12-26-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Percy
12-26-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
It isn't that they haven't shown you any evidence but that your preconceptions have made you already decide which evidence is acceptable.

Perhaps you missed the reasons the pseudotensor argument was rejected. The pseudotensors are not based on observational cosmology. Observation always trumps theory. Many people reject pseudotensors saying they do not apply to general relativity. Since the pseudotensor approach gets the same result both before and after the discovery the universe is accelerating, it is not an approach that inspires confidence. Every good scientist wants observation when it is possible. Thanks to WMAP, our observational ability has greatly improved. But I have not been able to find any calculations of net energy based on the new observations yet. One may be available but it has not been put forward here. I am still looking.

It's ironic that you're complaining about a focus on authority at the expense of evidence since that is your own modus operandi.

That seems an odd comment since I am the one asking for evidence. The final outcome does not really matter to me. I believe all truth is one. If net energy is zero, it does not disprove the existence of God. The chance net energy is zero seems impossibly low. Extraordinary claims such as that one demand extraordinary evidence, which at this point is lacking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Percy, posted 12-26-2011 5:00 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 12-27-2011 6:25 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 11:36 AM designtheorist has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 52 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 219 of 404 (645391)
12-26-2011 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by designtheorist
12-26-2011 7:22 PM


Re: How much energy is in empty space?
Calling into question those who have gone before is, at least in part, what science does.

Quite right: when you've demonstrated yourself capable of doing so and are not some armchair hack. When you've done the former and disproved the latter, let us know.


“Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion.” Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 7:22 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 220 of 404 (645392)
12-26-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by designtheorist
12-26-2011 7:22 PM


Re: How much energy is in empty space?
Calling into question those who have gone before is, at least in part, what science does.

Yeah, but not at random.

The fact you have the faith to accept the claim (third or fourth hand) that the energy of empty space is infinite or greater than the energy of U-238 of the same volume is... well... you have more faith than a scientist should ever have.

Hooah didn't say he accepted Feynman's claim: he said that if you're going to claim that Feynman was wrong you should provide some sort of reasoning or math rather than just the gut feeling ("that seems a bit much to me") of someone who is, in matters of physics, a simpleton whose views have consistently been ill-informed nonsense.

Regarding actual calculations, we will have to wait until we see some from those claiming the net energy is zero.

These have already been provided and ignored, presumably because you find it easier to bullshit in English than in math.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 7:22 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 221 of 404 (645427)
12-26-2011 10:38 PM


Calculating negative equivalent mass for gravitational fields
Earlier we saw Hawking had described the ratio of rest energy of earth's particles to be one billion times greater than earth's negative gravitational field energy. As Hawking explained, the gravitational field energy is becomes much stronger when the particles are denser.

I just found an interesting website on this point. The author writes:

To get some idea about the amount of equivalent mass associated with the negative energy in the gravitational fields, it may be instructive to calculate the ratios of negative gravitational mass to ordinary mass for known objects.

See http://www.concentric.net/~pvb/conseq.html

Bradford presents a table of information of mostly known objects. Near the bottom, he includes 'Entire Universe.' He calcs the entire universe mass as 2 X 10^50 kg. He calcs the negative mass ratio of the gravitational field as -9 X 10^-4. To put this in standard notation, the mass of the universe is 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kgs and the negative mass ratio is -0.0009.

There are a couple of caveats that go along with this calculation. Bradford admits he may be low on the gravitational equivalent because "the formula provides the minimum amount of negative equivalent mass. The maximum value, however, is not easy to determine because one would need to know the mass density profile of the object with radius."

A second caveat is that Bradford does not discuss dark energy. One has a right to wonder about the age and provenance of these numbers.

For a thread that is low on actual numbers, I thought it worthwhile to present it here.


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20119
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 222 of 404 (645467)
12-27-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by designtheorist
12-26-2011 7:34 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
Hi DesignTheorist,

I don't have a horse in this race. It doesn't matter to me whether the universe has net zero energy of not. The "pseudotensor argument" was tangled up in the same sentence where you declared some evidence unacceptable and just went along for the ride. A better example was when you rejected Feynman because he isn't infallible, and I didn't see any evidence presented. I'm just commenting on your approach, which seems doomed to confirm your own beliefs rather than discover an accurate model of the universe.

--Percy


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 223 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 10:03 AM Percy has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 223 of 404 (645476)
12-27-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
12-27-2011 6:25 AM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
A better example was when you rejected Feynman because he isn't infallible, and I didn't see any evidence presented.

The Feynman discussion had to do with Cano's description of Clarke's analysis of Feynman's work. I did not present any evidence because none seemed necessary to me as the result was patently absurd. I did not know where the error occurred - with Feynman, Clarke or Cano - but it obviously was incorrect.

If you still think that result is plausible, please see the web page from Baez above. He explains how the different answers are arrived at, including the answer that empty space has infinity rest energy. It is clear that renormalization is necessary to get rid of the infinity but renormalization is not exactly satisfactory.

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

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.

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 12-27-2011 6:25 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 11:00 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 12:55 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 12-27-2011 3:18 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2583 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 224 of 404 (645480)
12-27-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by designtheorist
12-27-2011 10:03 AM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
My guess is that either Clarke or Cano picked up Feynman's calculations prior to the renormalization, a step Feynman certainly knew was necessary.

You are talking pure gibberish again. Renormalisation (a process typically used in quantum field theory) has nothing to do with the calculations that Feynman was performing (purely classical, i.e. non-quantum). If you are going to use big words from physics, please ensure you know what they mean and how they are used.

Talking of gibberish...

Perhaps you missed the reasons the pseudotensor argument was rejected.

By whom?

The pseudotensors are not based on observational cosmology.

No, they are mathematical entities used in calculations. Do you also object to vector components as they are also not based upon "observational comsology"?

Many people reject pseudotensors saying they do not apply to general relativity.

Who are these "many people"?

What do you mean by them "rejecting" pseudotensors?

What do you mean by pseudotensors not "applying" to General Relativity, given that it is precisley in the field of General Relativity where pseudotensors are used

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


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 228 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 12:55 PM cavediver has responded

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021