I Don't agree with law of conservation of energy

[Salman Ranjha]

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 !

 

[russ_watters]

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 ?

Those questions have nothing to do with conservation of energy.

obviously energy is created when the universe expands into "NOTHING".

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.

 

[phinds]

I believe that the law of conservation of energy is not true.

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.

 

[jambaugh]

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.)

 

[Chronos]

Fortunately, the laws of physics require no consensus.

 

[Orodruin]

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

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?

 

[Dale]

I would recommend Salman Ranja should read this excellent FAQ on the topic:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

 

[lychette]

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?

agree

 

[phinds]

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?

I Agree.

 

[DrStupid]

There is no question here - just a crackpot theory and an invitation to discuss it.

There is not even a crackpot theory but just some misconceptions that have already been addressed.

 

[Salman Ranjha]

I would recommend Salman Ranja should read this excellent FAQ on the topic:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

Thank You

 

[Salman Ranjha]

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?

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

 

[davenn]

If someone haves some misconceptions then I would really appreciate if you correct us

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

D

 

[Vanadium 50]

If someone haves some misconceptions then I would really appreciate if you correct us

You should be asking questions, then. Not peddling a crackpot theory.

 

[drphysica]

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.

 

[jerromyjon]

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.

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 traveling 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.

 

[phinds]

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?

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.

 

[jerromyjon]

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.

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.

 

[phinds]

This

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?

Belies this:

I didn't intend to state anything contrary to popular consensus

 

[sophiecentaur]

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

The purpose and ethos of PF can be found here and it is not a platform for unsubstantiated theories. There are dozens of forums where you can air any old nonsense and it will be accepted on the grounds that it is 'another view'. (Like MMR and Climate Change denial) That's not how PF works, as the mission statement spells out.
You will find that it's possible to ask a question without raising PF hackles and then you will get a much gentler and helpful response. A lot of PF members are old and some of them are even wise. They can help you a lot if you press the right buttons but they / we have some old fashioned ideas about politeness and respect (for the subject).

 

[jerromyjon]

It is well understood that the local effect of dark energy is utterly trivial.

Yet it and dark matter dominate the universe? Spins my head right round...

 

[phinds]

Yet it and dark matter dominate the universe? Spins my head right round...

Cosmological scales are not the same as human scales.

Here's my take on cosmological scales vs human scales:

Expansion, even with acceleration, is so staggeringly slow on small scales that it might as well not be happening. Over cosmological distances, it has a huge effect, but here’s my favorite analogy to show local effect. Even though the universe is expanding, it’s still going to be hard to find a parking place. This is just a simple-minded way of thinking about the local effects of the expansion. If you could go out into intergalactic space and magically draw a set of parking place lines, it would be about TWENTY BILLION YEARS before they had moved far enough apart to let you park a second car. Now, I’m willing to circle the block a couple of times to get a parking place, but twenty billion years is just too much. I’d be late for the movie.

 

[Dale]

OK, this time the thread is closed permanently.