Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 12:50:43 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 11:02:10 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:33 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> *>> If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from 
 it to create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example 
 of something coming from nothing? AG *

>>>
>>> *> Two examples. The universe; Dark energy.*
>>>
>>
>> Alan Grayson kindly provides us with another example, words, they are not 
>> conserved, no matter how many he expells he never runs out of words and 
>> most of them pop into existence for no reason whatsoever.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> It's obviously an open question whether the universe and dark energy (and 
> everything else) came from nothing or something preexisting and possibly 
> eternal; obvious to those who can think clearly. That's why I was surprised 
> that Bruce would make such a claim, since he's about the clearest thinker 
> on these matters that I've the good fortune to have met (online) -- just as 
> it's obvious that the UP is a statistical statement, since uncertainty is a 
> synonym for *standard deviation*, the definition of which can be easily 
> found online or in any text on statistics. BTW, have you found the flaw in 
> the "proof" I found online and posted, of the time-energy form of the UP? AG
>

Clark imbecile; have you looked up *standard deviation?* Same as 
*uncertainty*. So much for your *denial* that the UP has nothing to do with 
*ensembles*! 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a5d225a9-c716-4a8d-afb1-f06abebbad19%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 11:02:10 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:33 AM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>  
>
>> *>> If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it 
>>> to create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of 
>>> something coming from nothing? AG *
>>>
>>
>> *> Two examples. The universe; Dark energy.*
>>
>
> Alan Grayson kindly provides us with another example, words, they are not 
> conserved, no matter how many he expells he never runs out of words and 
> most of them pop into existence for no reason whatsoever.
>
> John K Clark
>

It's obviously an open question whether the universe and dark energy (and 
everything else) came from nothing or something preexisting and possibly 
eternal; obvious to those who can think clearly. That's why I was surprised 
that Bruce would make such a claim, since he's about the clearest thinker 
on these matters that I've the good fortune to have met (online) -- just as 
it's obvious that the UP is a statistical statement, since uncertainty is a 
synonym for *standard deviation*, the definition of which can be easily 
found online or in any text on statistics. BTW, have you found the flaw in 
the "proof" I found online and posted, of the time-energy form of the UP? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff67068a-b4c8-4866-a07a-69162aed1933%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[John Clark]

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:33 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:


> *>> If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it
>> to create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of
>> something coming from nothing? AG *
>>
>
> *> Two examples. The universe; Dark energy.*
>

Alan Grayson kindly provides us with another example, words, they are not
conserved, no matter how many he expells he never runs out of words and
most of them pop into existence for no reason whatsoever.

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1Sdke21CrfNJX7%3DaO%3D-RC0VN%2BscQp59zHqDiqUXV466Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 7:00:20 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 5:49:07 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 6:22:44 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 4:58:20 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 9:28:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:50:55 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> There is no global meaning to energy conservation. There is the 
>> Hamiltonian constraint Nℌ = 0, which just says that for a local region 
>> where the lapse function can be parallel translated to the energy is 
>> zero. 
>> This is for Petrov type O solutions 
>>
>> Nℌ = 0 = ½(da/dt)^2 - 4πGρa^2/3c^3 - k
>>
>> Which leads to the FLRW constraint
>>
>> (a’/a)^2 = 8πGρ/3c^3 – k/a^2 a’ = da/dt
>>
>> Where the Hubble parameter H = 70km/s-Mpc  is (a’/a)^2 = H^2. This 
>> means that in a local region we have energy conservation FAPP. The 
>> difficulty is this is not a property of the symmetries of the system so 
>> we 
>> have no way to extend this globally.
>>
>> What this ultimately means is that all physics is local. It does not 
>> mean we have mass-energy locally vanishing. The apparent increase in the 
>> kinetic energy due to expansion is well enough compensated for by a 
>> decease 
>> in gravitational potential energy.
>>
>
> This is the claim, but I haven't seen any proof of it. Do you have 
> one? Take a planet. Can you show that Mc^2, where M is the planet's mass, 
> is equal to its negative gravitational potential energy? AG
>

> *Sorry; I may have been confused about what you were claiming. I thought 
> you claimed the total energy of the cosmos is zero, in which case the role 
> of rest energy cannot be ignored. But apparently you just meant that 
> kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy sum to zero, which is 
> apriori plausible. AG *
>

The condition Nℌ = 0, for ℌ = ½√(g)[Tr(K^2) - (TrK)^2] - R^(3), means the 
normal vector or lapse N, with dN = Kdx for K the extrinsic curvature, can 
be parallel translated to define an extrinsic curvature so that mass-energy 
is localized. An addition requirement is needed. A manifold with an even or 
homogeneous distribution of particles is such that a Gaussian surface can’t 
be found that defines mass-energy on the manifold. This is whether the 
manifold is open as in ℝ^3 or the sphere S^3. The above Hamiltonian has as 
its first part is the kinetic energy ½a’^2, a’ = da/dt with a the scale 
factor and the potential energy part is ℝ^3, or the Ricci scalar curvature 
of the spatial manifold. 

LC 
 
 

>
 The Hamiltonian constraint above and the FLRW equation are all you 
 need. It is right there.

>>>
>>> If it's so obvious, there'd be no dispute about this. But there 
>>> definitely is! Bruce, e.g. Can you cite a paper where it's explicitly 
>>> proven? TIA, AG 
>>>
>>
>> Tolman computed some of this early on, His old book Relativity, 
>> Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1934 is a source. 
>> There is nothing about physical cosmology that says we will witness some 
>> horrendous violation of energy conservation locally. It does tell us that 
>> since GR is a local principle, based on local translations of vectors etc, 
>> there is then no general symmetry rule for energy conservation. 
>>
>>
>>  
>
>> There is nothing mysterious going on here. All this means is there is 
>> a limitation or horizon to our ability to know if there are global 
>> symmetries to the universe. 
>>
>
>>>
>>> There are surely limitations on our observational abilities, but why is 
>>> a symmetry necessary? Nature seems pretty asymmetric; e.g., imbalance of 
>>> matter and anti-matter. AG 
>>>
>>
>> That has nothing in particular to do with this.
>>
>
> *You're probably right. I was just inquiring why symmetry principles are 
> so important. AG *
>
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>>> As such there is no meaning to conservation principles.
>>
>
> We can estimate the volume of the observable universe and its average 
> mass-energy density. So it seems we can estimate its total energy. Does 
> that energy remain constant or not as the universe expands? This seems 
> like 
> a reasonable question to ask. AG 
>

 Consider a quantum gravitational wave, say at or near the Planck scale, 
 in the earliest phase of the universe. For that now redshifted or expanded 
 to the scale of the CMB this means such data, from the near Planck time of 
 the earliest universe, is around 2 trillion light years away. I have 
 indicated numerous times how this comes about, This is as far as we can 
 say 
 anything about the physics of cosmology. Beyond that scale we are faced 
 with a  fundamental 

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 5:49:07 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 6:22:44 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 4:58:20 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 9:28:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:



 On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:50:55 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> There is no global meaning to energy conservation. There is the 
> Hamiltonian constraint Nℌ = 0, which just says that for a local region 
> where the lapse function can be parallel translated to the energy is 
> zero. 
> This is for Petrov type O solutions 
>
> Nℌ = 0 = ½(da/dt)^2 - 4πGρa^2/3c^3 - k
>
> Which leads to the FLRW constraint
>
> (a’/a)^2 = 8πGρ/3c^3 – k/a^2 a’ = da/dt
>
> Where the Hubble parameter H = 70km/s-Mpc  is (a’/a)^2 = H^2. This 
> means that in a local region we have energy conservation FAPP. The 
> difficulty is this is not a property of the symmetries of the system so 
> we 
> have no way to extend this globally.
>
> What this ultimately means is that all physics is local. It does not 
> mean we have mass-energy locally vanishing. The apparent increase in the 
> kinetic energy due to expansion is well enough compensated for by a 
> decease 
> in gravitational potential energy.
>

 This is the claim, but I haven't seen any proof of it. Do you have one? 
 Take a planet. Can you show that Mc^2, where M is the planet's mass, is 
 equal to its negative gravitational potential energy? AG

>>>
*Sorry; I may have been confused about what you were claiming. I thought 
you claimed the total energy of the cosmos is zero, in which case the role 
of rest energy cannot be ignored. But apparently you just meant that 
kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy sum to zero, which is 
apriori plausible. AG *

>
>>> The Hamiltonian constraint above and the FLRW equation are all you need. 
>>> It is right there.
>>>
>>
>> If it's so obvious, there'd be no dispute about this. But there 
>> definitely is! Bruce, e.g. Can you cite a paper where it's explicitly 
>> proven? TIA, AG 
>>
>
> Tolman computed some of this early on, His old book Relativity, 
> Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1934 is a source. 
> There is nothing about physical cosmology that says we will witness some 
> horrendous violation of energy conservation locally. It does tell us that 
> since GR is a local principle, based on local translations of vectors etc, 
> there is then no general symmetry rule for energy conservation. 
>
>
>  

> There is nothing mysterious going on here. All this means is there is 
> a limitation or horizon to our ability to know if there are global 
> symmetries to the universe. 
>

>>
>> There are surely limitations on our observational abilities, but why is a 
>> symmetry necessary? Nature seems pretty asymmetric; e.g., imbalance of 
>> matter and anti-matter. AG 
>>
>
> That has nothing in particular to do with this.
>

*You're probably right. I was just inquiring why symmetry principles are so 
important. AG *

>
> LC
>  
>
>> As such there is no meaning to conservation principles.
>

 We can estimate the volume of the observable universe and its average 
 mass-energy density. So it seems we can estimate its total energy. Does 
 that energy remain constant or not as the universe expands? This seems 
 like 
 a reasonable question to ask. AG 

>>>
>>> Consider a quantum gravitational wave, say at or near the Planck scale, 
>>> in the earliest phase of the universe. For that now redshifted or expanded 
>>> to the scale of the CMB this means such data, from the near Planck time of 
>>> the earliest universe, is around 2 trillion light years away. I have 
>>> indicated numerous times how this comes about, This is as far as we can say 
>>> anything about the physics of cosmology. Beyond that scale we are faced 
>>> with a  fundamental horizon of unobservability. As a result all we can say 
>>> is that for any local system energy is conserved, but this conservation law 
>>> is not due to any global symmetry. The Hamiltonian constraint is a 
>>> manifestation of a local gauge-like principle of general relativity, and it 
>>> has no global content. On a global level we cab' say anything; it is 
>>> unknowable.
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics is curiously similar. We have nonlocality of a wave, 
>>> but we can only infer some things from that by local measurements that 
>>> localizes waves or fields. We are not able to ever perform a perfect 
>>> observation of a global wave. There is an epistemic horizon in QM that I 
>>> think is dual or complementary to that of spacetime or general relativity.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>  
>>>

> LC
>
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 3:00:18 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> If it's not 

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 6:22:44 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 4:58:20 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 9:28:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:50:55 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 There is no global meaning to energy conservation. There is the 
 Hamiltonian constraint Nℌ = 0, which just says that for a local region 
 where the lapse function can be parallel translated to the energy is zero. 
 This is for Petrov type O solutions 

 Nℌ = 0 = ½(da/dt)^2 - 4πGρa^2/3c^3 - k

 Which leads to the FLRW constraint

 (a’/a)^2 = 8πGρ/3c^3 – k/a^2 a’ = da/dt

 Where the Hubble parameter H = 70km/s-Mpc  is (a’/a)^2 = H^2. This 
 means that in a local region we have energy conservation FAPP. The 
 difficulty is this is not a property of the symmetries of the system so we 
 have no way to extend this globally.

 What this ultimately means is that all physics is local. It does not 
 mean we have mass-energy locally vanishing. The apparent increase in the 
 kinetic energy due to expansion is well enough compensated for by a 
 decease 
 in gravitational potential energy.

>>>
>>> This is the claim, but I haven't seen any proof of it. Do you have one? 
>>> Take a planet. Can you show that Mc^2, where M is the planet's mass, is 
>>> equal to its negative gravitational potential energy? AG
>>>
>>
>> The Hamiltonian constraint above and the FLRW equation are all you need. 
>> It is right there.
>>
>
> If it's so obvious, there'd be no dispute about this. But there definitely 
> is! Bruce, e.g. Can you cite a paper where it's explicitly proven? TIA, AG 
>

Tolman computed some of this early on, His old book Relativity, 
Thermodynamics, and Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1934 is a source. 
There is nothing about physical cosmology that says we will witness some 
horrendous violation of energy conservation locally. It does tell us that 
since GR is a local principle, based on local translations of vectors etc, 
there is then no general symmetry rule for energy conservation. 


 
>>>
 There is nothing mysterious going on here. All this means is there is a 
 limitation or horizon to our ability to know if there are global 
 symmetries 
 to the universe. 

>>>
>
> There are surely limitations on our observational abilities, but why is a 
> symmetry necessary? Nature seems pretty asymmetric; e.g., imbalance of 
> matter and anti-matter. AG 
>

That has nothing in particular to do with this.

LC
 

> As such there is no meaning to conservation principles.

>>>
>>> We can estimate the volume of the observable universe and its average 
>>> mass-energy density. So it seems we can estimate its total energy. Does 
>>> that energy remain constant or not as the universe expands? This seems like 
>>> a reasonable question to ask. AG 
>>>
>>
>> Consider a quantum gravitational wave, say at or near the Planck scale, 
>> in the earliest phase of the universe. For that now redshifted or expanded 
>> to the scale of the CMB this means such data, from the near Planck time of 
>> the earliest universe, is around 2 trillion light years away. I have 
>> indicated numerous times how this comes about, This is as far as we can say 
>> anything about the physics of cosmology. Beyond that scale we are faced 
>> with a  fundamental horizon of unobservability. As a result all we can say 
>> is that for any local system energy is conserved, but this conservation law 
>> is not due to any global symmetry. The Hamiltonian constraint is a 
>> manifestation of a local gauge-like principle of general relativity, and it 
>> has no global content. On a global level we cab' say anything; it is 
>> unknowable.
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is curiously similar. We have nonlocality of a wave, 
>> but we can only infer some things from that by local measurements that 
>> localizes waves or fields. We are not able to ever perform a perfect 
>> observation of a global wave. There is an epistemic horizon in QM that I 
>> think is dual or complementary to that of spacetime or general relativity.
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>>>
 LC


 On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 3:00:18 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
> expansion, where does it go? TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5d39c152-1ca4-4edb-b7fd-6da1e44716b9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, May 9, 2020 at 4:58:20 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 9:28:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:50:55 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no global meaning to energy conservation. There is the 
>>> Hamiltonian constraint Nℌ = 0, which just says that for a local region 
>>> where the lapse function can be parallel translated to the energy is zero. 
>>> This is for Petrov type O solutions 
>>>
>>> Nℌ = 0 = ½(da/dt)^2 - 4πGρa^2/3c^3 - k
>>>
>>> Which leads to the FLRW constraint
>>>
>>> (a’/a)^2 = 8πGρ/3c^3 – k/a^2 a’ = da/dt
>>>
>>> Where the Hubble parameter H = 70km/s-Mpc  is (a’/a)^2 = H^2. This means 
>>> that in a local region we have energy conservation FAPP. The difficulty is 
>>> this is not a property of the symmetries of the system so we have no way to 
>>> extend this globally.
>>>
>>> What this ultimately means is that all physics is local. It does not 
>>> mean we have mass-energy locally vanishing. The apparent increase in the 
>>> kinetic energy due to expansion is well enough compensated for by a decease 
>>> in gravitational potential energy.
>>>
>>
>> This is the claim, but I haven't seen any proof of it. Do you have one? 
>> Take a planet. Can you show that Mc^2, where M is the planet's mass, is 
>> equal to its negative gravitational potential energy? AG
>>
>
> The Hamiltonian constraint above and the FLRW equation are all you need. 
> It is right there.
>

If it's so obvious, there'd be no dispute about this. But there definitely 
is! Bruce, e.g. Can you cite a paper where it's explicitly proven? TIA, AG 

>  
>
>>  
>>
>>> There is nothing mysterious going on here. All this means is there is a 
>>> limitation or horizon to our ability to know if there are global symmetries 
>>> to the universe. 
>>>
>>

There are surely limitations on our observational abilities, but why is a 
symmetry necessary? Nature seems pretty asymmetric; e.g., imbalance of 
matter and anti-matter. AG 

> As such there is no meaning to conservation principles.
>>>
>>
>> We can estimate the volume of the observable universe and its average 
>> mass-energy density. So it seems we can estimate its total energy. Does 
>> that energy remain constant or not as the universe expands? This seems like 
>> a reasonable question to ask. AG 
>>
>
> Consider a quantum gravitational wave, say at or near the Planck scale, in 
> the earliest phase of the universe. For that now redshifted or expanded to 
> the scale of the CMB this means such data, from the near Planck time of the 
> earliest universe, is around 2 trillion light years away. I have indicated 
> numerous times how this comes about, This is as far as we can say anything 
> about the physics of cosmology. Beyond that scale we are faced with a  
> fundamental horizon of unobservability. As a result all we can say is that 
> for any local system energy is conserved, but this conservation law is not 
> due to any global symmetry. The Hamiltonian constraint is a manifestation 
> of a local gauge-like principle of general relativity, and it has no global 
> content. On a global level we cab' say anything; it is unknowable.
>
> Quantum mechanics is curiously similar. We have nonlocality of a wave, but 
> we can only infer some things from that by local measurements that 
> localizes waves or fields. We are not able to ever perform a perfect 
> observation of a global wave. There is an epistemic horizon in QM that I 
> think is dual or complementary to that of spacetime or general relativity.
>
> LC
>  
>
>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 3:00:18 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
 If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
 expansion, where does it go? TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/893e4103-eade-461a-ba0e-ea0536bc6f96%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 9:28:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:50:55 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> There is no global meaning to energy conservation. There is the 
>> Hamiltonian constraint Nℌ = 0, which just says that for a local region 
>> where the lapse function can be parallel translated to the energy is zero. 
>> This is for Petrov type O solutions 
>>
>> Nℌ = 0 = ½(da/dt)^2 - 4πGρa^2/3c^3 - k
>>
>> Which leads to the FLRW constraint
>>
>> (a’/a)^2 = 8πGρ/3c^3 – k/a^2 a’ = da/dt
>>
>> Where the Hubble parameter H = 70km/s-Mpc  is (a’/a)^2 = H^2. This means 
>> that in a local region we have energy conservation FAPP. The difficulty is 
>> this is not a property of the symmetries of the system so we have no way to 
>> extend this globally.
>>
>> What this ultimately means is that all physics is local. It does not mean 
>> we have mass-energy locally vanishing. The apparent increase in the kinetic 
>> energy due to expansion is well enough compensated for by a decease in 
>> gravitational potential energy.
>>
>
> This is the claim, but I haven't seen any proof of it. Do you have one? 
> Take a planet. Can you show that Mc^2, where M is the planet's mass, is 
> equal to its negative gravitational potential energy? AG
>

The Hamiltonian constraint above and the FLRW equation are all you need. It 
is right there.
 

>  
>
>> There is nothing mysterious going on here. All this means is there is a 
>> limitation or horizon to our ability to know if there are global symmetries 
>> to the universe. As such there is no meaning to conservation principles.
>>
>
> We can estimate the volume of the observable universe and its average 
> mass-energy density. So it seems we can estimate its total energy. Does 
> that energy remain constant or not as the universe expands? This seems like 
> a reasonable question to ask. AG 
>

Consider a quantum gravitational wave, say at or near the Planck scale, in 
the earliest phase of the universe. For that now redshifted or expanded to 
the scale of the CMB this means such data, from the near Planck time of the 
earliest universe, is around 2 trillion light years away. I have indicated 
numerous times how this comes about, This is as far as we can say anything 
about the physics of cosmology. Beyond that scale we are faced with a  
fundamental horizon of unobservability. As a result all we can say is that 
for any local system energy is conserved, but this conservation law is not 
due to any global symmetry. The Hamiltonian constraint is a manifestation 
of a local gauge-like principle of general relativity, and it has no global 
content. On a global level we cab' say anything; it is unknowable.

Quantum mechanics is curiously similar. We have nonlocality of a wave, but 
we can only infer some things from that by local measurements that 
localizes waves or fields. We are not able to ever perform a perfect 
observation of a global wave. There is an epistemic horizon in QM that I 
think is dual or complementary to that of spacetime or general relativity.

LC
 

>
>> LC
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 3:00:18 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
>>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27a71852-84da-4b37-9711-26f8985ed4ba%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 8:28:02 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:50:55 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> There is no global meaning to energy conservation. There is the 
>> Hamiltonian constraint Nℌ = 0, which just says that for a local region 
>> where the lapse function can be parallel translated to the energy is zero. 
>> This is for Petrov type O solutions 
>>
>> Nℌ = 0 = ½(da/dt)^2 - 4πGρa^2/3c^3 - k
>>
>> Which leads to the FLRW constraint
>>
>> (a’/a)^2 = 8πGρ/3c^3 – k/a^2 a’ = da/dt
>>
>> Where the Hubble parameter H = 70km/s-Mpc  is (a’/a)^2 = H^2. This means 
>> that in a local region we have energy conservation FAPP. The difficulty is 
>> this is not a property of the symmetries of the system so we have no way to 
>> extend this globally.
>>
>> What this ultimately means is that all physics is local. It does not mean 
>> we have mass-energy locally vanishing. The apparent increase in the kinetic 
>> energy due to expansion is well enough compensated for by a decease in 
>> gravitational potential energy.
>>
>
> This is the claim, but I haven't seen any proof of it. Do you have one? 
> Take a planet. Can you show that Mc^2, where M is the planet's mass, is 
> equal to its negative gravitational potential energy? AG
>
>>
Apriori, the claim seems unreasonable -- because the mass-energy equivalent 
of a material body like a planet is huge, but the negative gravitational 
energy seems small by comparison --goes as -1/r. AG

There is nothing mysterious going on here. All this means is there is a 
>> limitation or horizon to our ability to know if there are global symmetries 
>> to the universe. As such there is no meaning to conservation principles.
>>
>
> We can estimate the volume of the observable universe and its average 
> mass-energy density. So it seems we can estimate its total energy. Does 
> that energy remain constant or not as the universe expands? This seems like 
> a reasonable question to ask. AG 
>
>>
>> LC
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 3:00:18 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
>>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d181eebd-c5b9-4a6e-b2d3-d1273fcc047a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 7:05:07 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 5:33:53 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:02 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:24:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
 expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG

>>>
>>> Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go 
>>> anywhere -- it just vanishes.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to 
>> cause the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come 
>> from nothing, but something can become nothing? AG
>>
>
>
> That's what non-conservation means -- something can come from nothing 
> and go to nothing.
>
> Bruce
>

 If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it 
 to create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of 
 something coming from nothing? AG 

>>>
>>> Two examples. The universe; Dark energy. 
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> We have no clue how the universe began, or even IF it began; and we have 
>> zero understanding of dark energy, other than it probably exists and 
>> gravitationally interacts with ordinary matter. Where's the rigor? AG 
>>
>
> In my reply above, I was really referring to dark matter. However, the 
> same argument (wrt origin) can be said of dark energy (except that it seems 
> to have the opposite sign (repulsive) of the gravity we're familiar with). 
> More important though for this discussion, is that its *origin* is 
> completely unknown, as is the case for ordinary matter and dark matter. We 
> just can't assert they arose from nothing. So what would non-conservation 
> of energy mean? Maybe, the apparent loss of energy as the universe expands, 
> causes it to expand. IOW, not a real loss but a lower energy density spread 
> over larger volumes of space, keeping the total energy unchanged. AG 
>

Another hypothetical possibility is that the energy lost by photons, and 
observed by the cosmological red shift, is gained by the Cosmological 
Constant.  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/108c64b5-9c55-4897-a692-0f146eeac8f9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:50:55 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> There is no global meaning to energy conservation. There is the 
> Hamiltonian constraint Nℌ = 0, which just says that for a local region 
> where the lapse function can be parallel translated to the energy is zero. 
> This is for Petrov type O solutions 
>
> Nℌ = 0 = ½(da/dt)^2 - 4πGρa^2/3c^3 - k
>
> Which leads to the FLRW constraint
>
> (a’/a)^2 = 8πGρ/3c^3 – k/a^2 a’ = da/dt
>
> Where the Hubble parameter H = 70km/s-Mpc  is (a’/a)^2 = H^2. This means 
> that in a local region we have energy conservation FAPP. The difficulty is 
> this is not a property of the symmetries of the system so we have no way to 
> extend this globally.
>
> What this ultimately means is that all physics is local. It does not mean 
> we have mass-energy locally vanishing. The apparent increase in the kinetic 
> energy due to expansion is well enough compensated for by a decease in 
> gravitational potential energy.
>

This is the claim, but I haven't seen any proof of it. Do you have one? 
Take a planet. Can you show that Mc^2, where M is the planet's mass, is 
equal to its negative gravitational potential energy? AG
 

> There is nothing mysterious going on here. All this means is there is a 
> limitation or horizon to our ability to know if there are global symmetries 
> to the universe. As such there is no meaning to conservation principles.
>

We can estimate the volume of the observable universe and its average 
mass-energy density. So it seems we can estimate its total energy. Does 
that energy remain constant or not as the universe expands? This seems like 
a reasonable question to ask. AG 

>
> LC
>
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 3:00:18 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17826f8e-cdf8-4b25-9803-3c4bdfa6a92e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 1:45:15 PM UTC-6, smit joshi wrote:
>
> Just a laymen curiosity
> Alan Gray by your thought that "When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the 
> energy go into work done to cause the expansion". Let us assume that the 
> energy loss of red shift fuels the expansion of our universe. We know that 
> E=hc/(lamda) and derivative of energy w.r.t wavelength is -hc/(lamda)^2 so 
> as wavelength increase the loss in energy decreases so the rate of 
> expansion should decelerate rather than accelerating.
> So I think we cannot compare this two observations.
>

The expansion is probably not caused solely by loss of energy by photons as 
I *hypothesized*. It could also be caused by dark energy, which we know 
virtually nothing about, and is more or less a placeholder to explain 
repulsive gravity. AG

>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:35 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 5:33:53 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:02 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:24:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
 expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG

>>>
>>> Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go 
>>> anywhere -- it just vanishes.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to 
>> cause the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come 
>> from nothing, but something can become nothing? AG
>>
>
>
> That's what non-conservation means -- something can come from nothing 
> and go to nothing.
>
> Bruce
>

 If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it 
 to create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of 
 something coming from nothing? AG 

>>>
>>> Two examples. The universe; Dark energy. 
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> We have no clue how the universe began, or even IF it began; and we have 
>> zero understanding of dark energy, other than it probably exists and 
>> gravitationally interacts with ordinary matter. Where's the rigor? 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d4d24ff0-aa11-4a19-a2a5-00052afa0491%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/53f33221-9df8-4cea-b175-81353e1a6b39%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 12:43:55 PM UTC-6, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> If you attempt to Sum up all of the components, how close to 0 do you get?
> Ronald
>

I didn't try to do that. And I am not asserting the total energy of the 
observable universe is zero. AG 

>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:00:18 AM UTC-4, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/57bb48df-40b7-4723-92a3-539fa3f6c2ab%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Lawrence Crowell]

There is no global meaning to energy conservation. There is the Hamiltonian 
constraint Nℌ = 0, which just says that for a local region where the lapse 
function can be parallel translated to the energy is zero. This is for 
Petrov type O solutions 

Nℌ = 0 = ½(da/dt)^2 - 4πGρa^2/3c^3 - k

Which leads to the FLRW constraint

(a’/a)^2 = 8πGρ/3c^3 – k/a^2 a’ = da/dt

Where the Hubble parameter H = 70km/s-Mpc  is (a’/a)^2 = H^2. This means 
that in a local region we have energy conservation FAPP. The difficulty is 
this is not a property of the symmetries of the system so we have no way to 
extend this globally.

What this ultimately means is that all physics is local. It does not mean 
we have mass-energy locally vanishing. The apparent increase in the kinetic 
energy due to expansion is well enough compensated for by a decease in 
gravitational potential energy. There is nothing mysterious going on here. 
All this means is there is a limitation or horizon to our ability to know 
if there are global symmetries to the universe. As such there is no meaning 
to conservation principles.

LC


On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 3:00:18 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to expansion, 
> where does it go? TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d248d40-ee28-4b58-9822-78f59fe3d173%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[smit joshi]

Just a laymen curiosity
Alan Gray by your thought that "When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the
energy go into work done to cause the expansion". Let us assume that the
energy loss of red shift fuels the expansion of our universe. We know that
E=hc/(lamda) and derivative of energy w.r.t wavelength is -hc/(lamda)^2 so
as wavelength increase the loss in energy decreases so the rate of
expansion should decelerate rather than accelerating.
So I think we cannot compare this two observations.


On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:35 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 5:33:53 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:02 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:24:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson 
 wrote:

> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to
>>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go anywhere
>> -- it just vanishes.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to
> cause the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come
> from nothing, but something can become nothing? AG
>


 That's what non-conservation means -- something can come from nothing
 and go to nothing.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it to
>>> create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of
>>> something coming from nothing? AG
>>>
>>
>> Two examples. The universe; Dark energy.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> We have no clue how the universe began, or even IF it began; and we have
> zero understanding of dark energy, other than it probably exists and
> gravitationally interacts with ordinary matter. Where's the rigor? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d4d24ff0-aa11-4a19-a2a5-00052afa0491%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAEupHCifBF5qii8bE311oaKAQCqgN1p6WUg%2BV%2BYxWkCvAE%2Bk0w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[ronaldheld]

If you attempt to Sum up all of the components, how close to 0 do you get?
Ronald

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:00:18 AM UTC-4, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to expansion, 
> where does it go? TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7636d99a-9cc5-45bb-8808-7a16dd662d99%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 7:05:07 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 5:33:53 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:02 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:24:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson  
 wrote:

> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
>>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go anywhere 
>> -- it just vanishes.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to 
> cause the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come 
> from nothing, but something can become nothing? AG
>


 That's what non-conservation means -- something can come from nothing 
 and go to nothing.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it to 
>>> create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of 
>>> something coming from nothing? AG 
>>>
>>
>> Two examples. The universe; Dark energy. 
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> We have no clue how the universe began, or even IF it began; and we have 
> zero understanding of dark energy, other than it probably exists and 
> gravitationally interacts with ordinary matter. Where's the rigor? AG 
>

In my reply above, I was really referring to dark matter. However, the same 
argument (wrt origin) can be said of dark energy (except that it seems to 
have the opposite sign (repulsive) of the gravity we're familiar with). 
More important though for this discussion, is that its *origin* is 
completely unknown, as is the case for ordinary matter and dark matter. We 
just can't assert they arose from nothing. So what would non-conservation 
of energy mean? Maybe, the apparent loss of energy as the universe expands, 
causes it to expand. IOW, not a real loss but a lower energy density spread 
over larger volumes of space, keeping the total energy unchanged. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/788b6d75-2ab7-4484-b9fa-fccd8786bda2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 5:33:53 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:02 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:24:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
 On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson  
> wrote:
>
>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG
>>
>
> Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go anywhere 
> -- it just vanishes.
>
> Bruce
>

 When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to 
 cause the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come 
 from nothing, but something can become nothing? AG

>>>
>>>
>>> That's what non-conservation means -- something can come from nothing 
>>> and go to nothing.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it to 
>> create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of 
>> something coming from nothing? AG 
>>
>
> Two examples. The universe; Dark energy. 
>
> Bruce
>

We have no clue how the universe began, or even IF it began; and we have 
zero understanding of dark energy, other than it probably exists and 
gravitationally interacts with ordinary matter. Where's the rigor? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d4d24ff0-aa11-4a19-a2a5-00052afa0491%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:02 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:24:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

 On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson 
 wrote:

> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to
> expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG
>

 Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go anywhere
 -- it just vanishes.

 Bruce

>>>
>>> When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to
>>> cause the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come
>>> from nothing, but something can become nothing? AG
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's what non-conservation means -- something can come from nothing and
>> go to nothing.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it to
> create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of
> something coming from nothing? AG
>

Two examples. The universe; Dark energy.

Bruce

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS8KipTLAxcc2cDawLGt_R582oJowvTwV%2BAM5egBuC8Sw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:24:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>>
 If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
 expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG

>>>
>>> Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go anywhere -- 
>>> it just vanishes.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to 
>> cause the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come 
>> from nothing, but something can become nothing? AG
>>
>
>
> That's what non-conservation means -- something can come from nothing and 
> go to nothing.
>
> Bruce
>

If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it to 
create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of 
something coming from nothing? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b4aac9f0-ad1d-4ab3-966a-0d6f1d11a36f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to
>>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go anywhere --
>> it just vanishes.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to cause
> the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come from
> nothing, but something can become nothing? AG
>


That's what non-conservation means -- something can come from nothing and
go to nothing.

Bruce

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQaSizeLYMpkutiN9e9daS9%3D9%2B5mwh4-BryRSwdT2U11w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to 
>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG
>>
>
> Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go anywhere -- 
> it just vanishes.
>
> Bruce
>

When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to cause 
the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come from 
nothing, but something can become nothing? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/13d74778-3511-4b22-a811-1f789b039bdd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to expansion,
> where does it go? TIA, AG
>

Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go anywhere -- it
just vanishes.

Bruce

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQMxWpXB1B6Xqy8xeGdy_6QOjWtEhywiOv61pXPRtG9aw%40mail.gmail.com.

Total energy of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to expansion, 
where does it go? TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7cc7c764-41ca-4fee-a299-2efd8b4de2ec%40googlegroups.com.