On Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 7:41:08 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> If you want to take the view that an entire new universe is created >>> instantaneously that's fine with MWI. >> >> > > *> Maybe fine with the MWI, but definitely not with GR, which you take as >> your inspiration on this issue. How can you apply GR and then claim the >> instantaneous creation of other worlds by the MWI? AG* >> > > Like every other scientific theory General Relativity is perfectly fine > with any assumption if its truth or falsity can never make any difference > to any observer anywhere at any time. So if you want to believe an entire > universe instantly pops into existence that's fine with General Relativity > and with the MWI; and if you want to believe it only comes into existence > at the speed of light that's fine with General Relativity and the MWI and > Darwins > theory and every other scientific theory you can think of. Whatever floats > your boat. > Who knows? Maybe a unicorn will pop out of an instantaneously created world. If not now, maybe sometime in the future, and we might have to revise our theories. AG > > *> Basically, I don't understand your argument (which doesn't mean it's >> wrong). For starters, where does the mass comes from, which contributes to >> the rest energy? TIA, AG * > > > In relativity mass and energy are the same thing, remember E=MC^2, so the > kinetic energy needed to do work comes from the mass/energy released by > vacuum potential energy falling outward. In a similar way a hydroelectric > dam produces electrical energy that can do work from the potential energy > released by water falling inward. > But rest energy is positive whereas potential energy is negative. How do you expect negative potential energy to transform into positive rest energy? AG > > *> Is this the GR expression for PE, which you earlier stated is different >> from Newtonian physics? * >> > > No. The formula for gravitational potential energy is the same in both > Newtons and Einstein's theory. > I could swear you posted the opposite recently. When I have the motivation, I'll try to find it. AG > > >> *> Now you want to assume rest mass exists in your sphere containing >> negative vacuum energy. AG* >> > > If vacuum energy really does exist then It's an intrinsic property of > space itself and so it doesn't move, it always stays the same, so I guess > you could call that rest mass if you want but I don't know why you'd want > to. Light moves as fast as things can go and has zero rest mass, but even a > photon of light has a gravitational field, in fact if you concentrated > light enough into a small enough volume it would turn into a Black Hole. > Such a ball of light is called a "Kugelblitz". > Didn't you assume your sphere has some initial mass in the form of "sand"? Or is it now light? Doesn't really matter, except you have to account for positive rest and kinetic energies equating to negative potential energy, and the more I critically think about your analysis, the less intelligible it becomes. AG > *> In an expanding sphere which is assumed to contain rest mass, why does > M or M^2 increase as R increases? AG* > > If empty space has residual vacuum energy (this is allowed by General > Relativity and through observation it now seems to actually exist) then a > sphere of radius 2R would contain 8 times the volume and thus 8 times the > amount of negative vacuum potential energy as a sphere of radius R. > > John K Clark > > > -- 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/26e1e1ab-e9f7-4eff-8501-d4cc1f4b655dn%40googlegroups.com.
