Big Bang Theory Violates First Law of Thermodynamics

1. The universe appears to be expanding. The BB theory suggests that it has been expanding for nearly 14 billion years, due to a mysterious "Dark Energy". Where does this energy come from?

2. The expansion of the universe is causing light from distant galaxies to redshift to longer wavelengths. The energy of a photon of light is proportional to its wavelength. Therefore, cosmic redshift appears to reduce the energy of electromagnetic radiation. Where does this energy go?

Surely there isn't enough energy from redshifting of radiation to cause the universe to expand. I must conclude that the BB theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics - Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or transformed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
There are contrary views: https://vixra.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/energy-is-conserved/
No doubt you will gravitate to the latter one. But with gravitation involved things are not as cut and dried as you think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on relativity but it seems to me one needs to be careful when comparing energies in cases in which the spacetime metric is changing. When you consider that energy is the ability to do Fd work, and that d is affected by a change in the metric, I think I would expect that calculated values in two different metrics might look inconsistent.

In the simpler case of a Doppler red shift, as I understand it, the recessional velocity of the detector relative to the source reduces the measured energy, just as the kinetic energy of a massive object would also be reduced, i.e. measured values of kinetic energy and frequency are frame-dependent. I think something similar would go on with the red shift due to expansion of the metric.

But maybe Janus or someone who knows about this sort of thing will show up and provide a proper explanation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There doesn't have to be enough to cause the Universe to expand but that energy does go into the expanding Universe.

No one knows what Dark Energy is or it wouldn't be called Dark Energy.

 

A property of spacetime itself. Also the DE component applies to the observed acceleration in that expansion.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...hifted-where-does-the-energy-go/#7950ebe94891

That's nothing but pure ID and religiously inspired crap!
First, the BB says nothing about how or why the universe started...it tells us how it evolved. The other is that at the initial event, in fact up to t=10-43 seconds, our laws do not apply.

One thing is certain...whatever the reason for the universe/space/time, as we know them coming into existence, it is scientifically explained, and a future validated QGT may just enable us to have evidence of that....

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics is supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence - that's why it's called a "Law".

The BB theory is not. I am, therefore, more willing to conclude that the BB theory is not correct.

I would even say that photons are more likely to be losing energy to the interstellar medium, perhaps dark matter, that there is likely no expansion of the universe at all, no "Big Bang", and no convincing evidence for a beginning to the visible universe. A static universe is more convincing because it doesn't require me to believe in a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

I think more effort should be put into finding a candidate for an interstellar medium, e.g. dark matter, and/or the likely mechanism by which electromagnetic energy would be absorbed over long distances. This is simple transfer/transformation of energy, which is allowed by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Back to the drawing board.

 

You are not even bothering to address the points I raised, I notice.

I strongly suspect energy can perfectly well be conserved: it is just that you do not understand how work out what it is, correctly, in the presence of a spacetime metric that is changing.

So probably yes, back to the drawing board, but most likely for you (rather than the Big Bang theory), to learn how to assess energy correctly in this case.

 

I strongly suspect an ulterior motive, and agenda on your part. Probably religiously inspired?

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317341105_A_Review_on_Cosmic_Inflation
Creation of the Universe from nothing

Even though all the matter in the Universe including
rocks, planets, stars, galaxies, quasars, black holes and
clusters is huge and positive, the energy stored within
gravity may be negative which means the sum could add
nearly to zero. This means that creation of such Universe
from nothing doesn‟t violate the Conservation of Energy.
The very idea of creating Universe from nothing was
introduced by Edward Tryon who believed that the
Universe “happens from time to time” as a result of
quantum fluctuations in vacuum (MichioKaku, 2004).
The Universe-from-nothing theory is significant to
answer practical questions about why the Universe
doesn‟t spin and why the total spin of all the galaxies in
the Universe cancels out.

 

Consider all the fantastical notions that have been invented to get around the violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics by the BB theory....

- inflation
- accelerating expansion
- negative energy
- creation of space between galaxies
- dark energy
- creation of something from nothing

The list goes on.

Einstein himself believed the universe is static until around 1932. Something apparently changed his mind at that point. Or maybe he just didn't feel like being the sole voice opposing a widespread scientific consensus via group-think. Remember that just a couple centuries ago, the consensus among the most educated in society was that the world was created in 6 days. Today, the preponderance of evidence shows a rather much older planet. Consensus is no guarantee against being dead wrong.

On the balance of evidence, there simply isn't enough evidence to support the BB theory at the expense of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law of Thermodynamics has been tested and verified to a far greater extent.

IMO, there is reason to suggest that the units of the Hubble Constant should not describe the acceleration of distant galaxies in km/sec per mega-parsec, but rather describe the loss of energy by light over distance, in Joules per mega-parsec.

 

What you haven't considered, I believe, is that the Laws of Thermodynamics are true locally, for so-called closed systems. The observable universe is not one of these, it's the part of a larger universe we can see. It's my understanding that energy at cosmological scales can violate the principle of conservation.

Consider the following from an article by Tamara Davis:

 

Question first...So why do you chose to be so dishonest by posting this in the mainstream sciences, instead of alternative section? If you are not dishonest and simply ignorant of the meanings and sections, say so.
I'm sure you'll ignore that question too.

 

Reasons and links have already been given for you to answer, which cover most of your points...why are you ignoring them? Dishonesty? Ignorance?

 

Yes, irrefutable convincing evidence changed his mind and that of most scientists also.

Not sure if your "hear say" actually fits who Einstein was...afterall, he did smash the generally held belief about the so called constant nature of space and time, and showed they were exchangeable and two sides of the same coin.

The consensus you speak of was a religiously inspired myth, and science revealed that fraudulent claim...so?

You have already been informed about any connection or lack thereof between the first law and the BB. You either dishonestly refuse to address those reputable information and links, or you are simply too ignorant to comprehend?

Thank Christ that your obviously skewed opinion does not matter at all, in the grand scheme of things.
Of course if you were fair dinkum, and not dishonest, or ignorant, you would write up a paper for scientific review, listing all the evidence you supposedly have to support what essentially is nothing more then your own mythical thoughts.

 

Ahhh, I see...Looking back into your history, it appears you have made other alternative cosmology scenarios, which I take it, has not got very far?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just to refresh your memory.....
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-hole-inflation-paper-updated-28-nov-2006.60338/

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-hole-inflation-hypothesis.53527/

So again, why chose to post in the mainstream section, when it is obvious you have alternative hypothetic. Isn't that dishonest?

 

stuff up

 

A basic error no-one else has picked you up on in your first post this thread:
That in red is wrong. The inverse is true: E = hf = hc/λ.

 

Yes, the observed expansion of the universe over large scales, is/was the first pillar of cosmology, that led to the BB theory by Father George Lamaitre. And now overwhelmingly supported mainstream science, based the four main pillars.
Yet the title of this thread says in no uncertain terms, "
"Big Bang Theory Violates First Law of Thermodynamics"
Which if true, would mean that the BB would not have been accepted and have risen to the status it is today.
Obviously the BB does not contravene any thermodynamic law, which means the headline is misleading at best, and/or an ignorant lie at worst.
So why isn't this in the alternative section based on the heading claiming a non mainstream scenario.
Isn't this what the alternative section is for?

 

That amounts to an unambiguous repudiation of the position of many cosmologists/relativists such as well respected Sean Carroll I linked to in #2. A more detailed but still mostly lay-level defense of that position that BB evolution violates the 1st law can be read here:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-and-how-energy-is-not-conserved-in.html
Warning: It pays to actually read such material before passing judgement on it. Failure to do so can be quite embarrassing.
Well anyway you have made an absolute judgement already here. Care to personally justify it? Not by quoting say Lawrence Krauss as opposite opinion authority, but by you pointing out specific weaknesses of a technical nature. Good luck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!