No energy conservation in photon by E=hf (f↓) in space of expansion

[Jinsuk Kim]

Let’s assume that frequency is reduced by expansion of space. Then the energy of photon is reduced by E=hf. This is against the law of energy conservation. Though the energy of photon is small, but we have no reason why the law of energy conservation is destroyed. The law of energy conservation must be kept and the big bang theory was developed from it. In the big bang theory, it doesn’t need anything, for example energy, to obtain 1 m³ space. Space of 1 m³ is unconerned with energy so it cannot be replaced by the energy of one electron or all the energy in the universe. This means that though the energy of photon is small, but it should not be reduced by expansion of space. We can suppose that the reduced energy of photon can be transferred to something. But it is just the alternative in the previous discussion, and space doesn’t need to be expanded to explain redshift.

[Q-reeus]

One camp among GR/cosmologist buffs holds that energy lost via photon redshift is gained elsewhere - presumably in aiding cosmic expansion itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
Another camp says no, on  a cosmological scale energy is not conserved (Noether's theorem fails because time translation symmetry fails in cosmic expansion setting)
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

[Jinsuk Kim]

Your advice is very helpful and proper to my argument. I completely agree with you. I attach some comments.

In relation to “energy lost via photon redshift is gained elsewhere~”

1. This is related(similar) to my alternative. I proposed that the redshifts of stars explained by expansion of space are due to the reduction of frequency according to the distance of propagation. It means the energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason, for example, aether, dark matter, or vacuum. The relation between the frequency and distance can be obtained from the careful review of redshift results.

 

In relation to “Another camp says no, on  a cosmological scale energy is not conserved”

2. The law of energy conservation is also very important in the big bang theory. The big bang theory was developed from it.

- Equation including kinetic, potential, and dark energy(sorry, equation is not marked)-

May we say that energy cannot be conserved in the big bang theory?

 

3. Though the big bang theory was developed in detail, we should not forget that the biggest weakness of big bang theory is that it has only one evidence, redshift. As you know, CMB is an indirect and self-supporting evidence. So should we abandon the law of conservation of energy for redshift? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to find an alternative?

I was surprised at your comment “Another camp says no, on  a cosmological scale energy is not conserved”. I didn't know that the loss of photon energy has been already discussed. Later, when I say this, I will say that this is not my own idea. 

[Q-reeus]

2 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

 

Quote

Your advice is very helpful and proper to my argument. I completely agree with you.

But I made no judgement there - just briefly outlined the main two differing positions, with a link to each.
There is a third position (variant of 2nd one given earlier): 'Energy cannot in general be determined uniquely or even unambiguously defined in a non-static universe. All that matters is the dynamical evolution.'

Quote

 

 I attach some comments.

In relation to “energy lost via photon redshift is gained elsewhere~”

1. This is related(similar) to my alternative. I proposed that the redshifts of stars explained by expansion of space are due to the reduction of frequency according to the distance of propagation. It means the energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason, for example, aether, dark matter, or vacuum. The relation between the frequency and distance can be obtained from the careful review of redshift results.

 

Sorry but seems to me there is circular reasoning in that passage. Hubble's Law holds as a linear relation between redshift and distance on smaller scales but has to be modified on truly cosmological scales (accelerated expansion - or perhaps not depending on theoretical framework used).
 

Quote

 

In relation to “Another camp says no, on  a cosmological scale energy is not conserved”

2. The law of energy conservation is also very important in the big bang theory. The big bang theory was developed from it.

 

Not really. Standard BB not including inflationary epoch, assumes only an initial hot uniformly dense matter-radiation phase evolving according to GR's EFE's.

Quote

 

- Equation including kinetic, potential, and dark energy(sorry, equation is not marked)-

May we say that energy cannot be conserved in the big bang theory?

 

Have you actually read through at least the main article in that 2nd link I gave?

 

Quote

3. Though the big bang theory was developed in detail, we should not forget that the biggest weakness of big bang theory is that it has only one evidence, redshift.

Not true, e.g. : https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
There are alternate theories that don't posit a standard BB as such, but nevertheless they also cite multiple lines of evidence not just redshift.

 

Quote

As you know, CMB is an indirect and self-supporting evidence. So should we abandon the law of conservation of energy for redshift? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to find an alternative?

See my earlier comment re reading through ALL of article at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

Quote

I was surprised at your comment “Another camp says no, on  a cosmological scale energy is not conserved”. I didn't know that the loss of photon energy has been already discussed. Later, when I say this, I will say that this is not my own idea.

?? Anyway, see my last comment. Try and get used to the idea conservation of energy may not be sacrosanct and perhaps really does has a limited domain of validity. Here's another easy read on that:
https://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/energy_not_golden_holy_cow_urine-72881
Also see the links to similar at end of that rather amusing piece.

 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Let’s assume that frequency is reduced by expansion of space. Then the energy of photon is reduced by E=hf. This is against the law of energy conservation.

Energy conservation is not (always) conserved in GR 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

[swansont]

Energy is not invariant. You can't compare the value from one frame to another and expect the results to be equal. That says nothing about energy being conserved.

[Jinsuk Kim]

It's not confirmed experimentally that energy is not conserved or invariant. Such insist is only the theory and cannot be accepted objectively. So the loss of photon energy cannot be accepted as "deserved". It can be at least the weakness of big bang theory. If we insist that energy must be conserved, it can be the evidence that big bang theory is wrong.

[Jinsuk Kim]

"Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today."

- The above comment cannot become the evidence of the big bang theory compared to "redshift", so I said "indirect evidence".

- Now I can't immediately show you but I suppose that CMB data "2.7 K" was feedbacked to the big bang theory. So I said "self-supporting evidence".

Edited November 23, 2018 by Jinsuk Kim

[Q-reeus]

1 hour ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Quote

"Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today."

Jinsuk Kim - it's poor etiquette to cut & paste a quote like above without detailing precisely where it came from - including page number and/or paragraph. I wasted time looking through all the links provided by myself and others before finding it comes from para immediately below the WMAP image in article:
https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/
That part red highlighted above is plain wrong-headed. To be detected here at all, it must have been heading towards us! The writer likely confused a rarely adopted pov that says the redshift can be interpreted as velocity Doppler shift from distant sources having a high recession speed wrt us, owing to cosmic expansion.
Most cosmologists simply adopt the view light originally emitted long ago has stretched in the intervening time before we detect it.

Quote

 

- The above comment cannot become the evidence of the big bang theory compared to "redshift", so I said "indirect evidence".

- Now I can't immediately show you but I suppose that CMB data "2.7 K" was feedbacked to the big bang theory. So I said "self-supporting evidence".

 

You have been given numerous links to articles explaining why conservation of energy should not be treated as 'golden holy cow urine' as per one linked article put it. In particular the article Strange linked to:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
goes into quite some detail to explain just why. Your choice to ignore it all, but if so I suspect there is a likely religious ideological reason for doing so.
Care to confirm or deny that?

 

[Jinsuk Kim]

-The CMB essentially confirms the Big Bang theory. In the late 1940s Alpher and Herman reasoned that if there was a big bang, the expansion of the universe would have stretched and cooled the high-energy radiation of the very early universe into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and down to a temperature of about 5 K.

- The cosmic microwave background was first predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman.^{[19][20][21][22]} Alpher and Herman were able to estimate the temperature of the cosmic microwave background to be 5 K, though two years later they re-estimated it at 28 K.

- Measurements of the CMB have made the inflationary Big Bang theory

The above comments are copied from Wikipedia.

I know well why people consider CMB as the evidence of the big bang theory. But I suppose CMB isn't sufficient to be the direct evidence of expansion of space. Let's leave this issue and if we have the other opportunity to discuss this as a main issue, talk about at that time after the examination of Alpher and Herman's papers.

 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

 The above comments are copied from Wikipedia.

How about providing a link to the page?

6 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

 I know well why people consider CMB as the evidence of the big bang theory. But I suppose CMB isn't sufficient to be the direct evidence of expansion of space. Let's leave this issue and if we have the other opportunity to discuss this as a main issue, talk about at that time after the examination of Alpher and Herman's papers.

We were discussing conservation of energy, not evidence for the big bang. 

[Jinsuk Kim]

Mr. Q-reeus, you said that"it's poor etiquette to cut & paste a quote like above without detailing precisely where it came from - including page number and/or paragraph.".

I am sorry. "Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today." was copied from your recommendation from https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

Please don't be unhappy because of me. My English is poor and using this foum is also poor. But I have no mind to make you unpleasant.

Rather I thank your comments. Especially I thank you because you told me that the loss of photon energy has been already discussed. It is important and I was surprised because I really didn't know it.

If you have time, please give me your comments continuously for the other discussions .

 

Mr. Strange, you recommended that "Energy conservation is not (always) conserved in GR 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html"

O.K. I know, but for GR, let's discuss later. We can have the opportunity to discuss GR seriously. Thank you.

Mr. swansont, as you say, we were discussing energy conservation.

To summarize, the loss of energy occurs in the expansion of space.

"The law of energy is not conserved." We cannot say that it is true or false because it was not confirmed experimentally.

This argument will be brought up for two similar reasons.

- It is necessary ahead to make a new theory.

- It is necessary unavoidably to maintain the theory

Maybe the loss of photon energy will be the second case.

So I said "It can be at least the weakness of big bang theory. If we insist that energy must be conserved, it can be the evidence that big bang theory is wrong."

[Q-reeus]

44 minutes ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Quote

Mr. Q-reeus, you said that"it's poor etiquette to cut & paste a quote like above without detailing precisely where it came from - including page number and/or paragraph.".

I am sorry. "Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today." was copied from your recommendation from https://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

Please don't be unhappy because of me. My English is poor and using this foum is also poor. But I have no mind to make you unpleasant.

Rather I thank your comments. Especially I thank you because you told me that the loss of photon energy has been already discussed. It is important and I was surprised because I really didn't know it.

If you have time, please give me your comments continuously for the other discussions .

I appreciate that response and applaud your respectful attitude. The main things is to learn and not serially repeat offend. And hopefully the articles already linked to have been studied and not just skimmed over. I do understand how hard it can be to shift perspective. Intuition is never really 'innate' but something accreted over time. It gets better as one learns and experiences more, but never is an infallible guide.

 

 

[MigL]

Where is the energy 'loss' when light is climbing out of a gravitational potential well ?

As Swansont says, energy is frame dependent; you cannot make a measurement from a different frame and expect energy conservation to hold.
No point in the universe is expanding or experiencing accelerated expansion ( strictly Hubble ) in its OWN frame.

The expansion is only apparent from other frames.
( and globally, we and GR cannot say anything about energy conservation )

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

So I said "It can be at least the weakness of big bang theory. If we insist that energy must be conserved, it can be the evidence that big bang theory is wrong."

As we know that energy conservation doesn't apply, this is not evidence against the big bang model 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 11/24/2018 at 12:50 AM, MigL said:

Where is the energy 'loss' when light is climbing out of a gravitational potential well ?

As Swansont says, energy is frame dependent; you cannot make a measurement from a different frame and expect energy conservation to hold.
No point in the universe is expanding or experiencing accelerated expansion ( strictly Hubble ) in its OWN frame.

The expansion is only apparent from other frames.
( and globally, we and GR cannot say anything about energy conservation )

Would that not be conserved as gravitational potential energy?

Globally, we could assume a Frame that is consistent as neutral to the CMBR, which (I think) would be a growing continuum of a set of local inertial frames. With that we could ask whether energy is conserved with the expansion, and how and why, or even if the question is valid for that Frame.

[MigL]

I probably wasn't very clear, JC.

When light is climbing out of a gravitational potential well, it is also red-shifted. And to an external observer, who doesn't mind his frames, it also appears to be 'losing' energy  ( as the OP implies is happening with light due to universal expansion ).

But when frames are properly considered, there is no loss of energy.

Globally, the concept of energy conservation is not valid.
Markus Henke had explained it a while back ( but I'll be damned if I can find it ).

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

I probably wasn't very clear, JC.

When light is climbing out of a gravitational potential well, it is also red-shifted. And to an external observer, who doesn't mind his frames, it also appears to be 'losing' energy  ( as the OP implies is happening with light due to universal expansion ).

But when frames are properly considered, there is no loss of energy.

Globally, the concept of energy conservation is not valid.
Markus Henke had explained it a while back ( but I'll be damned if I can find it ).

Thanks MigL

Maybe if Markus sees this he will comment.

Edited November 26, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

On 11/23/2018 at 10:40 PM, Jinsuk Kim said:

  Mr. swansont, as you say, we were discussing energy conservation.

To summarize, the loss of energy occurs in the expansion of space.

No, the expansion of space renders this moot, since two areas of space that can see the expansion are not in the same frame. Energy is only conserved in the same frame of reference. Energy is not invariant.

 

Quote

"The law of energy is not conserved." We cannot say that it is true or false because it was not confirmed experimentally.

Energy conservation has been observed/confirmed many, many, many times.

 

[Jinsuk Kim]

Hello, Mr.swansont,

I didn't reply you, but I feel it's better to reply you to make some consensus with you.

You said that "Energy is only conserved in the same frame of reference. Energy is not invariant."

Maybe you mean: Space is expanding

time t1    Space(t1)   Energy of photon=E(t1)  : Frame 1

time t2    Space(t2)   Energy of photon=E(t2)  : Frame 2 

Because two frames are different, we cannot say that energy isn't coserved or invariant though E(t1) > E(t2).

I understand you exactly? O.K. I don't oppose you.

But now I will say the meaning of my comments.

If E(t1)=E(t2), there is no problem. The big bang theory is not challenged by this problem.

But because E(t1) isn't same with E(t2), the physicists have a job to explain this problem.

If this problem isn't explained completely as general understanding(not special person, theory),

"It can be at least the weakness of the big bang theory. If we insist that energy must be conserved, in other expression, if we insist that E(t1) should be same with E(t2), it can be the evidence that big bang theory is wrong."

Reasonable Doubt is necessary for scientists. I think, as shown above, this problem is worthwhile to doubt.

 

[MigL]

Let's see if we can put it another way...

If you are standing at the injector and shoot a proton into the  accelerator at CERN, you can give it enough kinetic energy so that when it collides, it can create particles that are orders of magnitude more massive/energetic than a proton's rest mass/energy ( like a Higgs boson ).
Yet if you were moving along with that proton, you would measure its kinetic energy to be zero, and then you would scratch your head when these massive decay particles are produced in the collision.
you would not understand where this 'extra' energy came from, and assume that conservation laws are violated.

And you would be wrong !
Do you see why frames matter ?

[Jinsuk Kim]

Mt. MigL,

I know why frames matter. I agree with you.

Let's see one frame, train, the other frame, ground.

Energy of a moving cat in the train frame is different from energy in ground frame.

I understand. But what do you mean

"it can create particles that are orders of magnitude more massive/energetic than a proton's rest mass/energy"

Energy is increased after collision while considering kinetic and potential energy? Please explain me again.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Hello, Mr.swansont,

I didn't reply you, but I feel it's better to reply you to make some consensus with you.

You said that "Energy is only conserved in the same frame of reference. Energy is not invariant."

Maybe you mean: Space is expanding

time t1    Space(t1)   Energy of photon=E(t1)  : Frame 1

time t2    Space(t2)   Energy of photon=E(t2)  : Frame 2 

Because two frames are different, we cannot say that energy isn't coserved or invariant though E(t1) > E(t2).

I understand you exactly? O.K. I don't oppose you.

But now I will say the meaning of my comments.

If E(t1)=E(t2), there is no problem. The big bang theory is not challenged by this problem.

But because E(t1) isn't same with E(t2), the physicists have a job to explain this problem.

If this problem isn't explained completely as general understanding(not special person, theory),

"It can be at least the weakness of the big bang theory. If we insist that energy must be conserved, in other expression, if we insist that E(t1) should be same with E(t2), it can be the evidence that big bang theory is wrong."

Reasonable Doubt is necessary for scientists. I think, as shown above, this problem is worthwhile to doubt.

 

You say you don't oppose me, but then you do exactly that. There is no expectation in physics that E(t1)=E(t2), because the measurements are not being made in the same inertial frame. Physics doesn't have to explain a result that's consistent with its expectations. Physics doesn't have to explain why something doesn't fall up, or why entropy didn't spontaneously decrease, because it does not predict that those things will happen.

Energy will not generally be the same if it's measured from two different frames of reference. 

 

[Jinsuk Kim]

You said "Energy will not generally be the same if it's measured from two different frames of reference."

I don' oppose. In this case, obviously I agree with you.

I said "If E(t1)=E(t2), there is no problem."

Please don't miss "If"

 

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

You said "Energy will not generally be the same if it's measured from two different frames of reference."

I don' oppose. In this case, obviously I agree with you.

I said "If E(t1)=E(t2), there is no problem."

Please don't miss "If"

You have completely misunderstood the explanations provided. 

The whole point about the the energy not being the same when measured from different frames of reference is that E(t1) is not equal to E(t2).

So, If E(t1) != E(t2), there is no problem.