On Sunday, January 5, 2025 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, January 5, 2025 at 1:49:59 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 2:45 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> his answer to energy requirements for these new worlds seems weak, that energy is somehow globally conserved while the energy in particular branches can decrease,* *It doesn't matter if Many Worlds is correct or not, we've known for a century that in an expanding universe, like the one we live in, energy is NOT conserved at the cosmological scale; photons of light gets stretched to the red end of the spectrum and red photons have less energy than blue photons. In fact, unlike classical physics or even special relativity, the very concept of conservation of energy is not rigorously defined in General Relativity. GR does have something called the "stress-energy tensor" that includes contributions from all non-gravitational fields and matter, but gravity is not included. If you're interested Sean Carroll goes into much more detail here: * *Energy Is Not Conserved* <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/> * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* How could gravity be included as if it's something different from curvature of spacetime, which is caused by stress-energy tensor? I'm pretty sure Carroll said energy is conserved in the MWI, making it superior to the Copenhagan interpretations. AG If photons are losing energy as the universe expands, where does the lost energy go? 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1de3c9af-3905-4eda-a8fd-683d40ed721bn%40googlegroups.com.
