The Paradox

[David Levy]

Dear Strange

 

The Paradox is real.

It had been confirmed by Mordred.

If it is difficult for you to accept the paradox, then I can't help any more.

[Mordred]

David if the conservation of energy/mass holds true for the Universe as a whole then the postulates you posted would be accurate.

 

However energy/mass of the universe as the system state may or may not hold true. (There is no right or wrong answer, not with our current understanding)

 

 

Please note the following.

[ajb]

Now, do you see the paradox?

 

I do not see the paradox, you are just restating what you have said earlier.

 

 

 

So, why do you reject the following mathematical study on Friedmann equation?[/size]

I have not rejected anything.

 

 

 

Why you do not agree with their prediction?

Where did I say that I agree or disagree? My statement is only that calculating the age of the Universe is highly model dependent.

 

 

So, if I understand you correctly, there is small possibility that the total energy of the Universe is not constant.

Basically as space-time is dynamical, and for sure in the case of an expanding Universe the physics is not time-transnationally invariant so we cannot apply Noether's theorem to define an energy and argue that it is conserved.

[Mordred]

OK David I've asked this question before "what is mass"

 

[latex]E^2=(pc^2)+(m_o^2)[/latex]

 

now in the past radiation is extremely high, so there is more kinetic energy. Today radiation is low and there is more matter. Remember matter and energy is interchangeable. The paper you posted before had metrics that showed BOTH conserved quantities as well as not being conserved. T

 

The part you keep missing is "HOW you define the system your measuring and by what metrics"

 

 

The other detail is the paper was written in 2008, This was prior to the discovery of the Higgs Boson. So the Higgs field contribution was never included in his calculation.

 

The other part you need to grasp is that energy is the ability to perform work, mass is resistance to inertia. When you have more radiation there is more kinetic energy. When you have more mass, (ressitance to inertia you have less ability to perform work) Now if you look at the equation above you can see that energy and mass is not interchanged on a unit per unit basis.

 

 

We've also mentioned that GR doesnt work well on energy conservation on a global scale. The FLRW metric by default will suffer the same problem. However thats an artifact of the metrics.

 

So here is a different metric approach

 

"It is a well known fact that one cannot construct a conserved stress-energy tensor in

general relativity except for space-times having particular symmetries [7]. The fact that

the stress-energy tensor for the matter fields alone is not conserved is not surprising

since they exchange energies and momenta with the gravitational field. Furthermore,

there is no notion corresponding to the stress-energy of the gravitational field which is

a generally covariant tensor. However, we can introduce the concept of stress-energy

for the gravitational field if we take the view that the general relativity can be treated

as a spin-2 field theory in Minkowski background."

 

has potential but still being developed.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9502078

Edited March 4, 2016 by Mordred

[David Levy]

David if the conservation of energy/mass holds true for the Universe as a whole then the postulates you posted would be accurate.

 

Thanks

That was fully clear to me.

Therefore, you have already confirmed that if the conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe, than we have the following paradox:

 

1. The cosmologic constant must be constant

2. The Total Energy of the Universe must be constant

 

If you wish, you can change your confirmation.

 

However,

 

However energy/mass of the universe as the system state may or may not hold true. (There is no right or wrong answer, not with our current understanding)

 

So, currently, the science doesn't know for sure if the conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe or not.

Therefore, we need to understand what could be the outcome in case that the conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe.

 

In this case, do you agree that Universe should increase its Energy/Mass as the Universe expands?

 

As a direct outcome – There is new Energy/mass creation in the Universe. This actually confirms Fred Hoyle expectation, as It is stated:

https://en.wikipedia...dy_State_theory

"..This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing."

 

Therefore, in order to conclude this explanation:

There are two options:

A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe - Therefore - There is a paradox

B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - Therefore - There is new Energy/mass creation

Please chose one!

A or B

Never the less, those two options are totally unaccepted by the Science.

(It is like asking a person - how do you want to die. chose two options...)

Therefore, the science has decided to claim - We don't know... (Which is quite logical based on the difficulties for the science.)

Hence, by assuming that they don't know, then they don't have to deal with the outcome.

(Well, I also assume that this might be the answer from any logical person which is going to lose his life.)

However, I would expect that the science should take responsibility.

They can't just hide behind – "We don't know…"

Edited March 4, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

There are two options:

 

There are more than two.

 

Never the less, those two options are totally unaccepted by the Science.

 

And yet you base those two options on science. Once again, you are contradicting yourself.

This actually confirms Fred Hoyle expectation, as It is stated:

https://en.wikipedia...dy_State_theory

"..This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing."

 

It does not confirm Hoyle's steady state theory. Apart from anything else, the theory cannot explain the CMB (the discovery of the CMB was what finally killed the theory).

 

There is a lot of other evidence against Hoyle's theory, for example:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9410070

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

[David Levy]

There are more than two.

 

How could it be that for a simple question of: Does the conservation of Energy/Mass hold for the Universe or not, there are more than two options?

I had the impression that there must be only two options: Yes or No.

However, you claim that there are more than two options.

So let see:

One option is - Yes, other option is - No, and then there are many more: Maybe, Perhaps, Could be, Might be, Don't know...

Did I understand it correctly?

 

It does not confirm Hoyle's steady state theory. Apart from anything else, the theory cannot explain the CMB (the discovery of the CMB was what finally killed the theory).

There is a lot of other evidence against Hoyle's theory, for example:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9410070

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

 

 

This isn't the main issue of this thread, however, let me highlight the following:

Why there are only two options? BBT or steady state.

Why not more than two options?

How could it be that for a simple question of Yes or No, there are more options then two, while for a whole theory of the Universe - there are only two options?

Why 50 years ago, there were only two options on the table?

Why can't we assume that some ideas of the BBT are corrected as well as other ideas from the Steady state?

Why it is some sort of package deal? One or the other.

How could it be that a discovery of a CMB had eliminated completely the whole key ideas by Fred Hoyle?

 

In any case,

Why, when it comes to the Steady state or BBT - It was perfectly O.K. for the science to request only one option, while, when it comes to a simple question of Yes or No, then there are more than two options?

Edited March 4, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

Did I understand it correctly?

 

Of course not.

 

How could it be that for a simple question of: Does the conservation of Energy/Mass hold for the Universe or not, there are more than two options?

 

 

So you don't understand your own words, as well as not understanding what others say. Lets look at one of your options, for example:

"B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - Therefore - There is new Energy/mass creation"

Firstly, your "therefore" is wrong because the second part does not follow from the first.

Secondly, there are (at least) three possible options here that I can think of immediately:

"B1. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is new Energy/mass creation"

"B2. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is a decrease in Energy/mass"

"B3. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - But Energy/mass stays constant [on average] anyway for some other reason"

 

There are other possibilities. For example, we may find that there is some other conserved quantity that makes sense of all this in a completely different way so that the question about mass-energy becomes irrelevant.

 

Why there are only two options? BBT or steady state.

Why not more than two options?

 

There are not just two options. These are two broad classes of theories. One where the universe expands and cools over time and one where it doesn't. There are many variations within these (within the steady state theories this is partly because it had to keep changing to cope with all the contradictory evidence). And possibly some that don't really fit in either.

 

Why can't we assume that some ideas of the BBT are corrected as well as other ideas from the Steady state?

 

Well, we shouldn't assume anything. We should find the models that best fit the evidence. That is what science does.

 

On the other hand, what you do is decide that cosmology is wrong and then cherry pick and invent evidence to support that.

 

How could it be that a discovery of a CMB had eliminated completely the whole key ideas by Fred Hoyle?

 

Because there is no mechanism in his model (or any variations of it) to explain the CMB. And yet it is predicted, very accurately, by the big bang model.

 

Clearly you are too lazy to read the links I provide that explain all this. (Or too worried that it will prove that you are wrong.)

 

In summary, what you claim to be "paradox" is, like all so-called paradoxes in physics, purely a result of a lack of understanding or misapplication of theory..

Edited March 4, 2016 by Strange

[David Levy]

Thanks

 

After so long time...

 

So you don't understand your own words, as well as not understanding what others say. Lets look at one of your options, for example:

"B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - Therefore - There is new Energy/mass creation"

Firstly, your "therefore" is wrong because the second part does not follow from the first.

Secondly, there are (at least) three possible options here that I can think of immediately:

"B1. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is new Energy/mass creation"

"B2. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is a decrease in Energy/mass"

"B3. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - But Energy/mass stays constant [on average] anyway for some other reason"

 

 

Why it was so difficult for you to share with me the other options?

Instead of insulting and just claim that my understanding is very poor, why can't you just answer to the point?

 

I will keep asking till I get a valid answer.

So, let's go back to the following options:

A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe - Therefore - There is a paradox

B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - Therefore - There is new Energy/mass creation

 

With regards to "A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe - Therefore - There is a paradox"

Do you agree that under A there is only one option?

If not, please specify the options.

With regards to B

You claim that some of the options are as follow:

"B1. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is new Energy/mass creation"

"B2. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is a decrease in Energy/mass"

"B3. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - But Energy/mass stays constant [on average] anyway for some other reason"

With regards to "B1. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is new Energy/mass creation"

Yes, I fully agree, this is a feasible option.

 

With regards to B2 - The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - There is a decrease in Energy/mass"

As the Universe increase in its size due to the expansion, and as Fred Hoyle had stated:

..This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing."

There is no possibility that there will be a decrease in the Energy/mass. Therefore it is irrelevant option.

 

With regards to "B3 - The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe - But Energy/mass stays constant [on average] anyway for some other reason"

What does it mean - "for some other reason". Please specify. Otherwise, there is no meaning for this statement. It is not even close to science. You can do better than that. Please try.

In any case, based on the same explanation for B2. In order to keep the universe's density from decreasing while the size of the universe increase, then the Energy/Mass should also be increased.

Therefore, this option is irrelevant.

Would you kindly offer all the options so I can eliminate them one by one?

Edited March 4, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

Why it was so difficult for you to share with me the other options?

 

It wasn't difficult. I just thought it was rather obvious and didn't need spelling out in such painful detail.

 

 

As the Universe increase in its size due to the expansion, and as Fred Hoyle had stated:

..This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing."

 

But Fred Hoyle was wrong (about that) and so you can't use that as evidence.

 

 

Would you kindly offer all the options so I can eliminate them one by one?

 

I don't know what "all" the options are. I was simply pointing out that you have, as usual, cherry picked some information because it suits your beliefs.

[David Levy]

It wasn't difficult.

 

Sorry strange

 

You didn't answer the following question:

 

With regards to "A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe - Therefore - There is a paradox"

Do you agree that under A there is only one option?

If not, please specify all the other options.

In any case that you don't know:

I don't know what "all" the options are. I was simply pointing out that you have, as usual, cherry picked some information because it suits your beliefs.

 

How can you argue about something which you don't know???

Edited March 5, 2016 by David Levy

[Mordred]

I'd hate to see you struggle with energy conservation in the zero energy universe model

[Strange]

How can you argue about something which you don't know???

 

You do it all the time.

[David Levy]

I'd hate to see you struggle with energy conservation in the zero energy universe model

 

Dear Mordred

You should be proud of this discussion.

 

It's a simple issue of science.

 

You have confirmed the paradox under this restriction.

 

This paradox could be an indication that Fred Hoyle approach with regards to mass creation was correct.

 

As stated:

 

..This requires that matter be continually created in order to keep the universe's density from decreasing."

 

Somehow, we do not appreciate correctly the real contribution of Fred Hoyle to modern science.

Do you agree with that?

[Mordred]

I really wish you would actually study the models your defending. The steady state model required matter creation at a rate to keep the average density CONSTANT. A constant density means a constant temperature. We know for MEASURED FACT this isnt true. A constant energy density as Strange pointed out to you the CMB would never have occured. However you choose to ignore this detail.

 

Even Hoyle himself admitted his model was wrong. So why would you claim it is right.?

 

Hoyles model is not the only one that has matter creation, or mass creation. However you obviously don't understand that mass and energy are interchangeable. NOT on a unit per unit basis. but via a ratio.

 

The reason I pointed out the zero energy density model is the model starts with ZERO energy and builds a universe, Yet maintains conservation of energy. Via potential energy vs kinetic energy.

 

 

Ive continously pointed out how You model conservation of energy DEPENDS on the metrics in use and how you define the state your modelling. Youve been shown numerous links that tell you it doesnt work in an evolving spacetime accurately and its more for localized systems. Ive repeatively mentioned that the FLRW metric doesnt handle conservation of energy well due to be 100% conpatible with GR which doesn't particularly cover conservation on a Universe scale well.

 

Yet you continously insist that this means the Hoyle model is correct when you obviously never looked at why the Hoyle model was proved wrong in the first place.

 

here is an explanation of matter creation

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation

 

we can create matter in the lab why shouldn't the universe be able to create matter?

Edited March 5, 2016 by Mordred

[David Levy]

Even Hoyle himself admitted his model was wrong. So why would you claim it is right.?

 

I'm not sure about it as it is stated that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

"Hoyle died in 2001 never accepting the Big Bang theory"

I really wish you would actually study the models your defending.

Yes, I did.

The steady state model required matter creation at a rate to keep the average density CONSTANT.

I have never claimed that the steady state is fully correct. Never the less, that specific request should be perfectly O.K.

It also had no expansion or contraction.

That is also perfectly O.K.

A constant density means a constant temperature. We know for MEASURED FACT this isnt true.

What do you mean by - Measured fact? Is it CMB?

A constant energy density as Strange pointed out to you the CMB would never have occured.

I disagree with that statement.

You have told me (If I recall correctly) that the 1100 is just an average value of the redshift reflections.

Is it correct?

If so, the CMB should represent wide range of redshift Values

Redshift by definition is an indication for a distance, or rate of increase distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

 

"A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Another kind of redshift is cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth".

 

Therefore, those redshift values could be an indication of the distance to the Light/radiation source.

We can see a galaxy with a redshift of almost 11. This galaxy is located at a distance of over than 13 Bly away.

Why a redshift of 50 or 100 can't represent a distance which is over than 20 Bly?

Why a redshift of 1000 can't represent a distance which is over than 100 or 1000 Bly?

If there is a redshift value which is close to 1500 in the CMB, why it can't represent a very far end distance. (almost infinite?..)

It is also black body.

For quite long time the science had believed that - this is perfectly O.K.

However, now they do understand that this Black body isn't feasible for our current Universe

Therefore, they have stated to assume that this black body is a reflection from the Universe when it was quite young. (400 Mly?)

How can we proof that at this age the Universe was a black body?

Is only assumption or some sort of speculation?

So, do we have a solid proof for that?

I'm not sure that we do understand the real meaning of CMB.

Edited March 5, 2016 by David Levy

[Mordred]

Hoyle tried working on a different model in his later years not the steady state.

 

 

 

 

what do you think time line on this link you previously mentioned means?

 

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

 

it means that as the temperature drops from 10^19 Gev due to expansion different particle mixtures drop out of thermal equilibrium.

 

This process is what led to the CMB. We not only measure the CMB temperature we also measure its mixture of elements. This mixture percentage matches what is predicted by the BB model.

 

Not Hoyles steady state.

 

"Recombination/Decoupling, from 240,000 to 300,000 years:

As the temperature of the universe falls to around 3,000 degrees (about the same heat as the surface of the Sun) and its density also continues to fall, ionized hydrogen and helium atoms capture electrons (known as recombination), thus neutralizing their electric charge. With the electrons now bound to atoms, the universe finally becomes transparent to light, making this the earliest epoch observable today. It also releases the photons in the universe which have up till this time been interacting with electrons and protons in an opaque photon-baryon fluid (known as decoupling), and these photons (the same ones we see in todays cosmic background radiation) can now travel freely. By the end of this period, the universe consists of a fog of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with just traces of lithium.

 

 

I also posted you several reference papers that detail BB nucleosynthesis.

 

 

Here this wikilink has a better timeline

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Edited March 5, 2016 by Mordred

[David Levy]

Thanks

 

With regards the CMB:

 

Is it correct that there is wide range of redshift values?

 

If so, what is the Min and the Max levels which we have found in the CMB?

 

How can we explain these variations?

 

Would you kindly answer my questions with regards to the CMB' redshift and blackbody

 

[Strange]

I'm not sure about it as it is stated that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

"Hoyle died in 2001 never accepting the Big Bang theory"

 

Your inability understand is stunning.

Not accepting the big bang model is not the same as not admitting his model was wrong.

 

What do you mean by - Measured fact? Is it CMB?

 

Among other things.

 

You have told me (If I recall correctly) that the 1100 is just an average value of the redshift reflections.

Is it correct?

If so, the CMB should represent wide range of redshift Values

You have an entire thread devoted to your inability to understand this. Do we really have to go through it all again?

The CMB, as has been explained repeatedly, has a single red-shift value.

You are also introducing yet more meaningless terminology: what does "average value of the redshift reflections" mean?

Why a redshift of 50 or 100 can't represent a distance which is over than 20 Bly?

 

Because, as the source you just cited says, the red-shift is related to distance.

It is also black body.

For quite long time the science had believed that - this is perfectly O.K.

However, now they do understand that this Black body isn't feasible for our current Universe

Who says it is not feasible?

Therefore, they have stated to assume that this black body is a reflection from the Universe when it was quite young.

It is not a reflection. Please stop posting ignorant nonsense.

How can we proof that at this age the Universe was a black body?

Physics.

Is only assumption or some sort of speculation?

 

It is based on the well understood physics of hot plasmas.

I'm not sure that we do understand the real meaning of CMB.

 

Only if you are using the "royal we". It is understood perfectly well by science.

With regards the CMB:

 

Is it correct that there is wide range of redshift values?

 

No. That is a lie that you invented. And it has been thoroughly debunked and explained (repeatedly) in the thread where you first brought it up.

 

Did you forget you have tried this lie before?

Did you not understand the explanations given? (Very likely)

Did you hope no one would notice that you were using the same lie again?

[David Levy]

Mordred

 

Do I recall you correctly?

 

Does the CMB represent a range of redshift Values?

 

[Mordred]

No you don't recall correctly.( Or your not understanding correctly)

 

Redshift isn't directly related to blackbody temperature.

 

The emitter wavelength is related to the blackbody temperature via Weins displacement law.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law

 

The redshift affects the wavelength due to the distance change from the time the wavelength is emitted to the observer. It's change is a measure of the amount of expansion that has occurred.

 

[latex]z=\frac{\lambda_{emitter}}{\lambda_{observer}}[/latex]

 

Z=1100 represents the amount of expansion and is used to determine the proper distance.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Does the CMB represent a range of redshift Values?

 

I think that what you are confused by (maybe) is the fact that the CMB, being a black body spectrum, contains a wide range of frequencies. However, all these frequencies are shifted by the same amount. If they weren't then it would no longer be a black body spectrum.

 

You see, the problem is, you keep saying "I understand" (and presumably you believe this) but then you repeatedly post things that make it clear that you don't understand. And that you are incapable of learning.

 

I think that, more importantly than learning any of this stuff, you need to recognise your own inadequacies. So:

• Next time you feel tempted to write "I understand" stop, and remember that you probably don't (based on past experience).
• Next time you are about to write "Do you agree?" change it to "What have I misunderstood?"

And, more generally, don't refuse to learn about modern science just because you don't like the results it comes up with.

[David Levy]

O.K.

 

Thanks for the support with regards to CMB.

 

 

It's required a wide world of knowledge.

 

 

 

In any case, we have started our discussion about the paradox.

 

The CMB by itself is not a solution for the paradox. It can't eliminate the problem!

 

 

The paradox is a pure logical problem.

 

 

We must deal with the roots of the paradox.

 

Therefore, we can't continue to claim - It isn't our problem.. We don't know...We also don't care... We have the CMB... We know that the steady state is incorrect...

 

 

It is requested from the science community to evaluate all the possibilities of that paradox under the following requirements:

 

A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe

 

 

B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe

 

 

C. ?

 

Each option should be verified - carefully and logically, (even if there are 10,000 options).

 

If at the end of this process, we will find that the paradox is still applicable, then:

 

The science should understand that something is terribly wrong in the current approch.

 

[Strange]

The science should understand that something is terribly wrong in the current approch.

 

You should realise there is something terribly wrong with your level of understanding and your attitude.

[Mordred]

Why can't you accept option C?

 

C: we do not have enough conclusive evidence to fully define conservation of energy on the scale of the Universe. More research is underway

 

David you keep trying to force an answer on a question that cannot be conclusively answered.

 

If a poster says a is correct another poster can argue b is correct.

 

So please try to understand their is no conclusive answer.

 

 

Let's try this minor thought experiment.

 

You have an object emitting a wavelength due to its blackbody temperature.

 

Observer a is moving toward the emitter so he measures a higher temperature.

 

Observer b is moving away from the emitter so sees a lower temperature.

 

However both measurements are dependent on the observer. According to the reference frame of the emitter the temperature hasn't changed.

 

Now here is the question....

 

1) What performs the work to cause a temperature change for observer a and b (Work must be performed to change the energy level)?

 

(The work is needed on the signal between emitter and observer)

Edited March 7, 2016 by Mordred