The answer for the total mass of the Universe?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of the total mass of the universe and the implications of relativistic principles on this concept. Participants explore the relationship between the mass of an object and the mass of the universe, examining the assumptions behind the equations used to describe these relationships. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, mathematical reasoning, and challenges to the initial claims made by participants.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if it requires less energy to impart acceleration to an object than to the entirety of the universe, this could imply a total mass of zero for the universe.
  • Others challenge the assumption that the rest of the universe has acceleration equal and opposite to that of the object, questioning the justification for this assumption.
  • A participant argues that to demonstrate a violation of the principle of relativity, one must analyze the situation in two different reference frames, noting that measurable outcomes remain consistent across frames.
  • Concerns are raised about the algebraic manipulation in the original claim, with a participant pointing out a sign error and emphasizing that the forces should be equal and opposite.
  • Some participants express confusion about the acceleration of the universe and the implications of assuming it to be zero, suggesting that the mass of the universe could be infinitely large under certain conditions.
  • There is a critique of using Newtonian physics to analyze the universe, with participants noting that gravity is not treated as a force in General Relativity, which invalidates the original analysis.
  • Participants discuss the limitations of Newtonian models when applied to the universe as a whole, suggesting that the foundational assumptions of the original analysis may be flawed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the original claims regarding the mass of the universe. Multiple competing views are presented, with ongoing debate about the assumptions and mathematical reasoning involved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the acceleration of the universe, the applicability of Newtonian physics to cosmological scales, and the need for calculations in different reference frames to support claims about the principle of relativity.

  • #31
WeirdUniverse said:
However, what could potentially refute the conclusions drawn from my second proof?
In Newtonian physics, acceleration is frame invariant, so all frames measure the same acceleration ##a##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
WeirdUniverse said:
what could potentially refute the conclusions drawn from my second proof?
Um, the fact that it's wrong?

WeirdUniverse said:
observers moving at constant velocities relative to one another will observe the same physical phenomena
This is not correct. What is correct is that the laws of physics will be the same in all inertial frames. But that does not mean that all physical phenomena will be the same. For example, if you and I are moving relative to each other, we will measure the same light beam to have different energy and frequency--different physical phenomena. But the relationship between the light beam's energy and momentum will be the same for both of us--same laws of physics.

So your so-called "proof" is based on a false premise and is invalid.
 
  • #33
But If they have different physics phenomena in different inertial frames, doesn't mean that we would know if we are moving or not?
 
  • #34
WeirdUniverse said:
If they have different physics phenomena in different inertial frames, doesn't mean that we would know if we are moving or not?
You would know you were moving or not moving relative to something else--such as the light source in my example. "Moving" is relative. You would not know you were moving or not moving in any absolute sense.
 
  • #35
You mean the universe is actually absolute, but it appears relative to us?
 
  • #36
WeirdUniverse said:
You mean the universe is actually absolute, but it appears relative to us?
"The universe" is way too vague. The geometry of spacetime and the stress-energy tensor distribution that gives rise to it via the Einstein Field Equation are absolute, yes. But those things have nothing to do with any particular reference frame.
 
  • #37
WeirdUniverse said:
Yes, it does because both objects were added with the same velocity so the difference in their velocities don't change.
Exactly. That is how the principle of relativity works. Different reference frames are related by the Galilean transformation which is simply adding the same velocity to everything.

WeirdUniverse said:
But I'm not talking about their collisions,
Nor am I. I am talking about an arbitrary force acting between them according to Newton's laws.

WeirdUniverse said:
If we push a box, either the box gained the acceleration of a or the rest masses gained the acceleration of -a as we have experienced
This is false as I showed above. ##\vec a \ne -\vec A## in general.

WeirdUniverse said:
the total energy must be the same for that two inertial frames
This is not correct. Energy is frame variant. In every frame, energy is conserved. But different frames will disagree on the total energy.

At this point you need to either engage with the corrections that you have received and start learning the physics that you are missing or there will be no point in further discussion. Do not re-assert the mistakes that have already been pointed out to you. If you do not understand why they are mistakes, then ask for clarification on the specific points that you do not understand. But they are in fact mistakes that indicate some misunderstandings of Newtonian physics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeterDonis

Similar threads

  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K