exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I like the Sean Carroll link. Thanks for that.
Big Bang Theory Violates First Law of Thermodynamics
- Thread starter Harmonic_Subset
- Start date
It might be worth pointing out a couple of things:
Thermodynamics is a statistical theory, as shown by Ludwig Boltzman. That is, energy is overwhelming likely to be conserved rather than otherwise. The moments before $$t=10^{-43}$$ are unknown and unknowable, and it is possible that the so-called Laws of Physics did not apply.
Second the gravitational red-shift has nothing to do with photon energy - it occurs because the frequency of light (wave peaks per second) from a distant source is measured using a differently functioning clock as compared to that of the detector. This is called "gravitational time dilation". Actually, it is a second-order effect, since relative quasi-uniform motion should be factored in, using Special Relativity
Thermodynamics is a statistical theory, as shown by Ludwig Boltzman. That is, energy is overwhelming likely to be conserved rather than otherwise. The moments before $$t=10^{-43}$$ are unknown and unknowable, and it is possible that the so-called Laws of Physics did not apply.
Second the gravitational red-shift has nothing to do with photon energy - it occurs because the frequency of light (wave peaks per second) from a distant source is measured using a differently functioning clock as compared to that of the detector. This is called "gravitational time dilation". Actually, it is a second-order effect, since relative quasi-uniform motion should be factored in, using Special Relativity
I've made a judgement based on the mountains of evidence [the four pillars of cosmology] that support the BB and by extension GR, and referral to expert reputable links also. Krauss so far is not one of those, but if you like, just ask.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.
Actually [as Krauss puts it] we can get something from nothing within the bounds of physical law. It simply entails properly defining nothing.
And yes, I read the article among others.
Here is another very reputable answer from an astronomer...
" the “first law” is related to a symmetry in time – that the laws of physics today are the same as the laws yesterday – except that this symmetry does not exist in an expanding universe – the spacetime today is different to the spacetime tomorrow – there is no “conservation of energy” in an expanding universe"
This is also along the lines of Sean Carroll's take on it.
" the “first law” is related to a symmetry in time – that the laws of physics today are the same as the laws yesterday – except that this symmetry does not exist in an expanding universe – the spacetime today is different to the spacetime tomorrow – there is no “conservation of energy” in an expanding universe"
This is also along the lines of Sean Carroll's take on it.
It's easy to construct a thought experiment showing the usual gravitational redshift is in fact a direct measure of energy loss. Suppose a spherical shell of loose dust having negligible gravitational self-interaction is allowed to collapse uniformly to a much smaller size till the dust coalesces preventing further collapse. We assume there is overall conservation of energy at all times. Hence the gain in KE during inward collapse is offset by the increasingly negative gravitational PE of the more compact mass.
The initial final state has a heated mass owing to the dissipative crashing of dust particles into each other. Let that temperature drop to the larger environmental value as radiant heat is given off. Overall conservation of energy then requires the cooled compact shell to have less energy than when initially widely dispersed. But there are the same number of atoms present at all times. Suppose by some wizardry half the atoms are anti-matter ones that somehow have been carefully isolated from the normal atoms. Now let matter and anti-matter atoms begin to mutually annihilate at a very slow rate, and further that the resulting annihilation energy is purely EM radiation.
Clearly there is redshift of that radiation as received at large distance from the shell. The redshift will gradually decrease as more and more annihilations reduce the shell mass hence also the remaining shell negative gravitational potential. Finally the shell is gone and the initial diffuse dust shell is now entirely converted to photons that have all escaped to large radius.
There is no way to conserve overall energy unless the redshift of photons represents actual energy loss. Is that not now obvious? So clocks measuring differently, which is true, is also consistent with energy loss owing to redshift.
However, the above scenario involves a body of gravitating matter in an otherwise empty and static universe. This is very different to the case of a uniformly expanding universe. As covered already in previous posts. One can choose to follow one school of thought or another. To me it's clear the 'energy is not conserved' position makes most sense.
Last edited:
Ha ha ha. Nice find. Will the real Sean Carroll please stand up! The quote (from who?) you reproduce next post #25 is completely consistent with the Sean Carroll linked to in #2. Gawd. At least Lubos Motl takes a consistent stand. I could cite more but why bother.
Last edited:
Thank you, re the nice find...You will notice that Sean said no law is broken with regards to the BB, because of reasons already given and simply because we know nothing with regards to the instant of the BB. He did not say the laws of thermodynamics do not apply generally. They do. The laws of thermodynamics are fact, but those facts do not apply to the BB and GR. Energy need not be, nor is conserved in GR and by extension, the BB.
The BB model of universal evolution is still our overwhelmingly supported model, for reasons already stated many times.
Here's another Sean Carroll bit....
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
And all that goes totally against the message the OP poster is trying to foist on us. That is the BB is falsified. It isn,t
Last edited:
That post addressed to James was actually to highlight imo, a mis-leading heading.
While on face value, the BB seems to violate the first law of thermodynamics, the position is for reasons stated, that GR and the BB are "exempt" from that law and it is not applicable. Therefor it contravenes nothing. How do you contravene, violate something that isn't applicable?
That is far more realistic and evident then the message being conveyed by the originator of this thread.
Perhaps he, [as seems evident in his past posts years ago] has an interest elsewhere?
Not at all...you admonish wrongly a physicist, who you previously claimed as reputable, because you misinterpret another link from him, that actually aligned with my position.
That is far more realistic and evident then the message being conveyed by the originator of this thread. Which is that the BB is wrong or invalid. That isn't the view taken by the vast majority, based on the preponderance of the evidence available.
Perhaps he, [as seems evident in his past posts years ago] has an interest elsewhere?
Last edited:
Harmonic_Subset
Registered Senior Member
Paddoboy: Your ad hominem responses do not qualify as valid arguments. Your reference to my handful of past posts (from 10+ years ago) is just stalking. You have made over 25000 posts on this forum, by and large devoid of substance. Don't you have any ideas of your own? Go away.
I've read Sean Carrol's articles, watched his videos. He is a theoretical physicist and science communicator. He has an area of expertise and he sticks to it. No problem there.
Claims are being made that energy is not conserved by general relativity on cosmological scales. The math apparently works. From what I've read however, the math is based on an initial assumption of an expanding universe. What if that assumption is false? What if the redshift, originally attributed to the doppler effect that radial velocity has on light, was actually caused by something else, e.g. lossy transmittance across billions of light years of space? Whether correct or not, this alternative explanation of redshift is more intuitive and does not require the universe to possess magical properties, such as conjuring up more empty space (nothing from nothing) to raft the galaxies away from one another, an infinitely dense point of origin for all visible matter & energy, a faster-than-light inflation phase, violation of conservation of energy, etc. I think the Big Bang theory is likely just a modern creation myth, with a growing list of inconsistencies, and a growing list of ad hoc mathematics to resolve them - a theory doomed to be falsified in the long run.
I've read Sean Carrol's articles, watched his videos. He is a theoretical physicist and science communicator. He has an area of expertise and he sticks to it. No problem there.
Claims are being made that energy is not conserved by general relativity on cosmological scales. The math apparently works. From what I've read however, the math is based on an initial assumption of an expanding universe. What if that assumption is false? What if the redshift, originally attributed to the doppler effect that radial velocity has on light, was actually caused by something else, e.g. lossy transmittance across billions of light years of space? Whether correct or not, this alternative explanation of redshift is more intuitive and does not require the universe to possess magical properties, such as conjuring up more empty space (nothing from nothing) to raft the galaxies away from one another, an infinitely dense point of origin for all visible matter & energy, a faster-than-light inflation phase, violation of conservation of energy, etc. I think the Big Bang theory is likely just a modern creation myth, with a growing list of inconsistencies, and a growing list of ad hoc mathematics to resolve them - a theory doomed to be falsified in the long run.
And I take it you have a fully self-consistent alternative model? If so what are the basic attributes? Universe finite or infinite in spatial and temporal extent? Static or evolving? Etc.
Speaking of claims, can you claim to have written down the calculations regarding your claim
Big Bang Theory Violates First Law of Thermodynamics?
A peer reviewed published paper and a link to same would be helpful for us dumb dumb Minions to salivate over and dream of becoming as smart
Can you see your way clear to help?
Yours in anticipation
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
In the passage I have highlighted in red, you seem to be advocating a "tired light" hypothesis.
Such hypotheses were certainly considered at one time but they have all fallen away, due to making predictions that have been falsified. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
They are not consistent with observation, whereas the expanding universe, broadly speaking, is. Consistency with observation is what ultimately counts.
Firstly, no to the last arrogant demand. Secondly, that's quite an emotional response, simply because I checked your past posts on other unsupported "alternative" tripe...an aspect of the forum open to anyone. Your other emotional opinions are not worth much really.
Yes, a professional expert, who unlike you conducts himself according to the scientific method, and writes up proper scientific papers for proper review.
If you believe as you state, that the BB is wrong or invalid, try acting like a scientist, and follow the same procedure, instead of a remote science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, or even Harmonic to spout whatever they chose, and making emotional claims, based on "what ifs".
What if, what if, what if!! Is that all you have? Speculation?
You do know what the scientific method is don't you?
Your opinion on a remote science forum is just that. And as you have already been told, the BB while having some problems is still by far the best model we have.
When you finally have a better, validated model, that tells us more then the BB, or falsifies the BB, then come back. In the meantime, go away.
It is not an assumption - it is based on Hubble's experimental results.
I already (tried to) explain that the gravitational redshift is a feature of any gravitational field supplemented, in this case, by the Special Relativistic shift due to relative reccesion for an expanding universe.
I suppose you have another "creation model". Please do NOT share it here
Not even if the "creation model" is in the form of
?
I know the alternative "creation model", if it even exist, will NOT materialise but hope runs deep and who would not like to be present at such physic upset moment?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
That is what I think also however the theory does not in fact deal with a creation event it deals with the evolution of the universe from a hot dense state as far as I am aware.
So it fails to meet any qualification that it is a creation story..some may grab it that way but they would be wrong.
Such a situation I expect does not even present a proposition where you can comment upon any laws re energy being broken...now if someone says the universe was created from nothing all you need say to them is that the church may say that but it appears the big bang theory does not.
And for me something akin to tired light seems reasonable but that is a mere opinion and one must accept that folk who make their life work physics should be able to establish tired light as a theory if it was the reality but it seems they can not...and if you think it through if you were a physicist wanting to make a name for yourself and pick up a million in Noble prize money and you could present a solid tired light theory do you not think that you would go for it..I would...so it's reasonable to assume the science on all of this is pretty solid...and if it is not the theory will change as observations dictate...and even if you are right and the theory is no more than a modern creation myth I would see that as a great deal better than the creation myth humans have lived with in the past and that many still do...if the theory is no more than you say it has at least delivered many folk from the superstition of the past, and the best part is it is driving research...where would we be if we did not move past the creation myth of the church.
And all this is from someone who likes a steady state model but what you like should not have you hanging onto an idea that is not backed up by evidence and observation...sure consider alternatives but always remember to re center on where the mainstream are focused as they just may know more than you or the folk who host web sites with all the answers.
I don't think you have to worry about any laws re energy being broken is the point..further if they were that does not mean the theory is wrong..it would mean we just need to rethink things.
Alex