Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 61 (9041 total)
 50 online now: PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 48 visitors) Newest Member: maria Post Volume: Total: 885,920 Year: 3,566/14,102 Month: 186/321 Week: 2/44 Day: 2/5 Hour: 0/0

Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011

 Message 226 of 404 (645491) 12-27-2011 11:56 AM Reply to: Message 225 by NoNukes12-27-2011 11:36 AM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
 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.

Did you happen to read the web page by John Baez I linked above? According to the calculations he presents, the ratio of negative energy to positive energy is off by more than three decimal places. That is not close. I don't know if these calcs were done before or after the discovery of dark energy, so the difference could be even greater.

Edited by designtheorist, : Typo!

 This message is a reply to: Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 11:36 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

 Replies to this message: Message 227 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 12:22 PM designtheorist has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 2576 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 227 of 404 (645496) 12-27-2011 12:22 PM Reply to: Message 226 by designtheorist12-27-2011 11:56 AM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
 Did you happen to read the web page by John Baez I linked above? According to the calculations he presents, the ratio of negative energy to positive energy if off by more than three decimal places.

1) That wasn't John's site, it was Bradford's.

2) Bradford's mass of Universe figure is way out. Once corrected, you will see he will get equivalent negative mass ~ positive mass, as already shown by Feynman, Modulus, and just about everyone else.

This is getting really tedious now.

 This message is a reply to: Message 226 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 11:56 AM designtheorist has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 230 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 1:06 PM cavediver has responded

designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011

 Message 228 of 404 (645504) 12-27-2011 12:55 PM Reply to: Message 224 by cavediver12-27-2011 11:00 AM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
 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).

The Baez page made it clear the only way to get to infinity (or to the enormous but finite result) was through quantum field theory. I'm not sure why you are claiming Feynman was not working in quantum theory.

Regarding pseudotensors being valid objects or not, perhaps I should have said "some people" instead of many people. Wikipedia says:

 Some people object to this derivation on the grounds that pseudotensors are inappropriate objects in general relativity, but the conservation law only requires the use of the 4-divergence of a pseudotensor which is, in this case, a tensor (which also vanishes).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/...ress–energy–momentum_pseudotensor

 This message is a reply to: Message 224 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 11:00 AM cavediver has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 232 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 1:22 PM designtheorist has responded Message 233 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 1:28 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 229 of 404 (645505) 12-27-2011 12:55 PM Reply to: Message 223 by designtheorist12-27-2011 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

designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011

 Message 230 of 404 (645507) 12-27-2011 1:06 PM Reply to: Message 227 by cavediver12-27-2011 12:22 PM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
 1) That wasn't John's site, it was Bradford's.

My mistake. It was Bradford, not Baez.

 2) Bradford's mass of Universe figure is way out. Once corrected, you will see he will get equivalent negative mass ~ positive mass, as already shown by Feynman, Modulus, and just about everyone else.

I have not been able to locate the 1962/63 Feynman paper yet (too old to be available online and the university libraries are closed between terms) so I don't know if his calculation was based on observation or pseudotensors. The Berman paper offered by Modulus was based on pseudotensors. Evidence for the position is completely lacking. What I find tedious are your unsupported assertions.

 This message is a reply to: Message 227 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 12:22 PM cavediver has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 234 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 1:29 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011

 Message 231 of 404 (645509) 12-27-2011 1:16 PM Reply to: Message 229 by NoNukes12-27-2011 12:55 PM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
 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.

Gravitational field energy cannot be strong in empty space since it is overpowered by the pressure of dark energy.

Regarding my comment about Feynman and renormalization, you write:

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

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. Was it commonly done in the 1960s? I imagine it was. I simply cannot imagine that Feynman would consider energy density of a cubic meter of empty space to be infinity as even possibly physical. I can imagine Feynman writing up a paper saying "This is my result. I have not figured out how to do the renormalization yet." I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Edited by designtheorist, : Typo!

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 229 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 12:55 PM NoNukes has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 235 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 1:41 PM designtheorist has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 2576 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 (1)
 Message 232 of 404 (645511) 12-27-2011 1:22 PM Reply to: Message 228 by designtheorist12-27-2011 12:55 PM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
 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).

I'm not sure why you are claiming Feynman was not working in quantum theory.

What the hell are you gibbering about now? Feynman worked on many things in his life. At the moment, we are talking about a classical back-of the-envelope calculation he performed that has nothing to do with quantum theory.

 Regarding pseudotensors being valid objects or not, perhaps I should have said "some people" instead of many people. Wikipedia says:

So who are these "some people"? I note that no reference is given so you simply have a single unattributed comment from Wikipedia, which goes on in the same sentence to point out why these "some people" are wrong!! And from this, you have the gall to state:

 Perhaps you missed the reasons the pseudotensor argument was rejected.

 This message is a reply to: Message 228 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 12:55 PM designtheorist has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 239 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 4:07 PM cavediver has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 (1)
 Message 233 of 404 (645512) 12-27-2011 1:28 PM Reply to: Message 228 by designtheorist12-27-2011 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

cavediver
Member (Idle past 2576 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 (1)
 Message 234 of 404 (645513) 12-27-2011 1:29 PM Reply to: Message 230 by designtheorist12-27-2011 1:06 PM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
 I have not been able to locate the 1962/63 Feynman paper yet

Here's the relevant part:

“If now we compare this number (total gravitational energy M2G/R) to the total rest energy of the universe, Mc2, lo and behold, we get the amazing result that GM2/R = Mc2, so that the total energy of the universe is zero. — It is exciting to think that it costs nothing to create a new particle, since we can create it at the center of the universe where it will have a negative gravitational energy equal to Mc2. — Why this should be so is one of the great mysteries—and therefore one of the important questions of physics. After all, what would be the use of studying physics if the mysteries were not the most important things to investigate”.

 Evidence for the position is completely lacking.

Clearly

Every calculation and paper presented you have desperately dismissed despite your blatent incomprehension. You really are clutching at any available straw to be able to claim that you are right and Feynman, Hawking, Guth, Krauss, etc are wrong. You are hilarious.

 What I find tedious are your unsupported assertions.

I really couldn't give a shit about anything you find.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 230 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 1:06 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 designtheorist12-27-2011 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

Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3

 Message 236 of 404 (645518) 12-27-2011 3:18 PM Reply to: Message 223 by designtheorist12-27-2011 10:03 AM

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

Well, someone was incorrect, perhaps your list of possible culprits is incomplete.

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.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 223 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 10:03 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 237 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 3:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply Message 238 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 4:05 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 (2)
 Message 237 of 404 (645520) 12-27-2011 3:39 PM Reply to: Message 236 by Percy12-27-2011 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

cavediver
Member (Idle past 2576 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 (2)
 Message 238 of 404 (645523) 12-27-2011 4:05 PM Reply to: Message 236 by Percy12-27-2011 3:18 PM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
 There are people here who would love to dispassionately discuss physics with you

Really? Throughout this thread we have seen examples of designtheorist making dogmatic statements of "fact", only to be shown each time that he is incorrect; making accusations of errors, each time only revealing ignorance of the subject.

There is no disgrace for ignorance in this subject area - it is complex and immensely counterintuitive - and questions and requests for explanations will be treated with respect and courtesy by many here. But the hubris being shown by designtheorist is off the scale. Why on earth would anyone want to discuss physics with someone showing such characteristics?

 but it seems like both sides have too big a stake in being right.

Sides? I'm sorry, I don't see any sides. Unless a blind man declaring that the sky is orange is a "side".

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

designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011

 Message 239 of 404 (645524) 12-27-2011 4:07 PM Reply to: Message 232 by cavediver12-27-2011 1:22 PM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
 What the hell are you gibbering about now? Feynman worked on many things in his life. At the moment, we are talking about a classical back-of the-envelope calculation he performed that has nothing to do with quantum theory.

I see where you are confused. Feynman's name has come up on this thread in respect to two separate calculations. One is the net zero energy calculation. The other has to do with the energy density of empty space. According to Cano, Clarke wrote about Feynman's calculation saying the energy density of one cubic meter of empty space was infinity. I'm saying that is clearly an unphysical result and Cano and Clarke must be talking about Feynman's calculation prior to renormalization. It is an open question in my mind whether renormalization was a common practice in Feynman's time, but I think it is clear Feynman would recognize the result as unphysical.

 So who are these "some people"? I note that no reference is given so you simply have a single unattributed comment from Wikipedia, which goes on in the same sentence to point out why these "some people" are wrong!! And from this, you (DT) have the gall to state (that you (DT) have rejected the pseudotensor argument).

I quoted Joseph Silk in Message 11 saying:

 On large enough scales, once one counts all the black holes, stars, and empty space, the overall energy of the universe is close to zero (as measured).

I have clearly stated that I am more interested in observational cosmology because observation trumps theory. I am not expert in GR but the pseudotensor argument would be more persuasive to me if it was not controversial or was clearly confirmed by observation. Observational evidence for net zero energy, on this thread at least, is clearly lacking. The only observational calculations presented so far show the ratio of positive to negative is not 1 but is off by three decimal places.

Regarding the rejection of the pseudotensor argument, I was referring to myself. I make no claims about others either accepting or rejecting the argument.

 This message is a reply to: Message 232 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 1:22 PM cavediver has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 241 by cavediver, posted 12-27-2011 4:21 PM designtheorist has responded

designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011

 Message 240 of 404 (645525) 12-27-2011 4:15 PM Reply to: Message 235 by NoNukes12-27-2011 1:41 PM

Re: Discussing physics, not parables...
 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.

On local levels, gravitational energy is almost trivial compared to rest energy of matter. According to cavediver, it is only on cosmic scales that gravitational energy can scale up to offset the positive energy of matter. I'm saying that is nonsense since dark energy overcomes gravitational energy on cosmic scales.

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

I was able to find Bradford's table, but not much else. I'm clearly asking for observational evidence to support the position of net energy of zero. I have not found any and no one here has provided any. Until I have the evidence in hand, how can I find where the mistake was made?

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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 235 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 1:41 PM NoNukes has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 242 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 4:45 PM designtheorist has responded Message 248 by Admin, posted 12-28-2011 6:50 AM designtheorist has not yet responded Message 258 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2012 7:43 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)