Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B I Don't agree with law of conservation of energy

  1. Dec 30, 2015 #1
    Well this question has been in the mind since a long time. I believe that the law of conservation of energy is not true. If it is/was true then why would the universe expand and into what is it expanding ? obviously energy is created when the universe expands into "NOTHING".
    I will be waiting for arguments in favour or against my point from the fellow PF users !!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 30, 2015 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Those questions have nothing to do with conservation of energy.
    That's double-false:
    1. There is no reason why the expansion of the universe should create energy.
    2. The universe is not expanding "into" anything.

    You have a lot of misconceptions about the Big Bang and they have nothing to do with conservation of energy. This thread is better put in cosmology. Moved.
     
  4. Dec 30, 2015 #3

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    You really should ask yourself if you believe that physicists are so stupid that they promote a theory that is not true. To say you don't understand it makes good sense. To say that you don't believe it makes it sound like you don't care what you are talking about.
     
  5. Dec 30, 2015 #4

    jambaugh

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually there are two issues. Global conservation of energy and Local conservation of energy. The local case can be pretty easily verified***. You observe that the change in energy within a region is equal to the energy flux across the boundary. The global picture is less clear from an empirical standpoint.

    I have cooked up a toy theory where global energy is not conserved while local energy is. The key ingredient was non-trivial topology (cartoon like "wormholes"). You could in essence build an Escher waterfall and have it create energy out of nothing. Of course this toy theory of mine did not conform to empirical observation, but it was self consistent. (I was playing with a science fiction plot device).

    That having been said I would echo Russ' comments but I would also ask you this, what make you think the universe is expanding?

    If you are taking the word of those self same physicists and astronomers who also tell you energy is conserved then why do you believe one thing and not the other? If you are rather interpreting the observations that the astronomers have made using a framework which does not incorporate energy conservation then you need to explain how your revised ideas still imply an expanding universe from say observed redshifting of distant astronomical objects. Otherwise your are being self contradictory or at least you are not being consistent.

    ***(Actually there are a few definitional issues but that's another discussion.)
     
  6. Dec 31, 2015 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Fortunately, the laws of physics require no consensus.
     
  7. Dec 31, 2015 #6

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Well, energy is not globally conserved (it is even doubtful if you can define global energy). Energy conservation (global) is directly tied to time translation invariance which does not hold for an expanding universe. However, your OP suggests that you do not really understand how the expansion of the universe works - it is not an expansion into something, it is just that space itself becomes larger.
     
  8. Dec 31, 2015 #7

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Why are we discussing this? There is no question here - just a crackpot theory and an invitation to discuss it. If the PF Rules have changed to allow this, they should be updated so the rest of us know.

    And for those of you who brought GR into this, do you really think it helped?
     
  9. Dec 31, 2015 #8

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 31, 2015
  10. Jan 1, 2016 #9
    agree
     
  11. Jan 1, 2016 #10

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I Agree.
     
  12. Jan 1, 2016 #11
    There is not even a crackpot theory but just some misconceptions that have already been addressed.
     
  13. Jan 2, 2016 #12
  14. Jan 2, 2016 #13
    I really respect your views but the thing is what is the purpose of PF
    If someone haves some misconceptions then I would really appreciate if you correct us
     
  15. Jan 2, 2016 #14

    davenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    someone = you
    and they have already been addressed, its time for you to start doing some serious physics study :smile:
    have fun learning how it all works

    D
     
  16. Jan 2, 2016 #15

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You should be asking questions, then. Not peddling a crackpot theory.
     
  17. Jan 2, 2016 #16
    The Universe is not expanding into nothing. I think your question is where the rest of the energy to compensate for the expansion and the answer is we don't know that is why it is called dark energy.
     
  18. Jan 2, 2016 #17
    For all we know it might be a better question to ask why isn't space expanding within atoms and molecules as it appears to do between galaxies? No one has a complete theory of everything to say why protons are stable perhaps indefinitely just as photons seem to have been travelling over 13 billion years and redshifted to the CMB, but still going. Just because we don't have a complete understanding does not automatically imply one cannot be found, that we can just throw every law of physics out the window in some extreme case is inconsistent with observations.
     
  19. Jan 2, 2016 #18

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    This is not an open question. It is well understood that the local effect of dark energy is utterly trivial. It can't overcome the gravitational attraction inside galactic clusters, so you CERTAINLY can't expect it to over come the strong force, for example.
     
  20. Jan 2, 2016 #19
    I didn't intend to state anything contrary to popular consensus, everyone in their "right" mind knows the magnitude of gravity is minuscule to the other forces and therefore irrelevant but unaccounted for in a complete theory.
     
  21. Jan 2, 2016 #20

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    This

    Belies this:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: I Don't agree with law of conservation of energy
Loading...