On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 9:22:28 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 8:54:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > >> On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-7 [email protected] >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 10:34 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> *> On the energy issue, what really bothers me about your stance on this >>>> issue, is NOT that you can't offer a possible model or explanation for >>>> where the energy comes from to create those other worlds, but that you >>>> don't even recognize that such an issue exists. Others in this MWI cult >>>> behave similarly. AG * >>> >>> >>> There is no energy issue, we've known from General Relativity as far >>> back as 1915 that the conservation of energy does not hold on the cosmic >>> level, not if completely empty space retains some residual energy and >>> General Relativity allows for this. The gravitational potential energy of a >>> sphere of particles of matter like sand is alway negative, this is true in >>> Newtonian Physics and remains true in General Relativity, so the >>> gravitational potential energy of a sphere of particles of mass-energy M >>> and radius R is PE= (-G*M^2)/R where G is the gravitational constant. It’s >>> important to note that this is negative energy so the larger R gets the >>> closer the potential energy gets to zero, and if it was at infinity it >>> would be precisely zero. if the sphere expands and is made of sand which is >>> normal matter then M stays the same but R increases so the gravitational >>> potential energy becomes less negative and more positive, and that means >>> it's uphill; It would take an external expenditure of work to do that, so >>> if you let the sphere go to rest it would fall inward as you'd expect. >>> >>> However if the sphere is primarily made of empty space and empty space >>> contains energy then things would be different because unlike an >>> expanding sphere made of sand the density of mass /energy inside an >>> expanding sphere of empty space would not decrease with expansion, so when >>> the sphere expands although R increases M^2 increases even more, so the >>> overall gravitational potential energy becomes larger and thus more >>> negative. So if the vacuum contains negative energy as this sphere >>> increases >>> in size it becomes more negative and that means expansion is downhill, >>> and thus no work is used but instead work is produced. So in any >>> universe in which vacuum energy dominates it will expand, it will fall >>> outward and accelerate. Regardless of if there are many worlds or only >>> one, most think vacuum energy is what makes our universe accelerate. You >>> might ask if the sphere gets larger what makes it get larger, where did >>> that mass/energy come from? The answer is It comes from the gravitational >>> energy released as the sphere of vacuum energy falls outward. So at any >>> point in this process if you add up all the positive kinetic energy and >>> energy locked up in matter (remember E=MC^2) of the universe and all the >>> negative potential gravitational energy of the universe you always get >>> precisely zero. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >> >> *First, thank you for taking my question seriously. Concerning your last >> sentence above, is your conclusion a matter of fact or faith? E.g., in the >> case of the Solar System, we know the masses and velocities of the planets, >> as well as their kinetic energies, inclusive of the kinetic energy of the >> SS as it travels around the Milky Way, all with pretty good accuracies. >> Have you done the calculation, and do you get "precisely zero" in total >> energy when the negative gravitational potential energy is accounted for? >> Personally, I strongly doubt it. Also, of note, is that Bruce vehemently >> denies your conclusion. I don't know Brent's position on this issue, but I >> suspect it's the same as Bruce's. I cite Bruce, and possibly Brent, because >> I regard them as most knowledgeable of physics on this MB. More later. AG* >> > > *Of course you must include the rest energies of the Sun, the planets, and > estimates of the contributions of the asteroid and Kuiper belts. I didn't > mean to slight LC, who clearly has a good grasp of physics, and I would be > interested in his take on the result of this calculation. AG * > *I'm not sure. Maybe you mean, for the universe as a whole, the net energy must be precisely zero. If this is what you mean, I don't see how this calculation could ever be done, and thus falls into the category of speculation. OTOH, if you consider a universe with a single material body, the net energy could not be precisely zero. In fact, it would take on various values. This is because the negative gravitation potential energy is independent of rotation, but it does nevertheless contribute to total kinetic energy. Since there could be different rates of rotation, and hence kinetic energies, for fixed values of mass, and therefore fixed rest energy, I think your claim fails. AG* *MOREOVER, if you want to take your inspiration from GR, you cannot dismiss the unstated postulate that universes evolves in time. They cannot, under GR, spontaneously expand to include what we would call a world, replete with copies of observers. In the MWI, this is exactly what's proposed; the instantaneous creation of complete worlds. AG* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b25eaa8f-d456-442d-9143-a8b59070555bn%40googlegroups.com.
