Non-Conservation Of Energy & Multiverse Madness

Before unreason took over physics, one of the major principles was energy conservation. However, this was before. Now Sean Carroll, following other Multiversists (as I call them insolently) crucially depend upon nonconservation of energy.

Sean wrote an article, short and to the point: “Energy is not conserved.

Well written, indeed. Carroll glibly asserts that “see, it was not so hard” (to throw away the most fundamental principle of physics, energy conservation).

Galactic Cluster Focuses Blue Galaxy Light

Galactic Cluster Focuses Blue Galaxy Light

All the blue blotches are images of a far-away galaxy, which are focused by the cluster of galaxies in front. By the way, both Newtonian Theory and Einstein Theory predict the deviation of light by matter (more so with Einstein, as time slows down, allowing for more time to deviate).

The Universe we have, and can see, is so immense, we can’t comprehend it. There is no need to claim there are more of them than atoms. Except if there is a need to go completely crazy (something Putin and other plutocrats are all for!)

That energy is NOT conserved is essential to enable the creation of universes at the drop of a hat.

Nothing is really true anymore, even energy is not conserved. It costs nothing to create a universe.

Next we will all be led to believe plutocrats create not just jobs, but universes.

It’s probably related. Thanks, Sean.

So take two galaxies clusters, G1 and G2. Suppose they separate from the expansion of the universe. Sean Carroll, following the Multiverse fashion, asserts that it cost no energy to separate said galaxies.

Then he has a photon P travelling from G1 to G2, and he sees it has lost energy, so energy is not conserved. Multiversists repeat this argument ad nauseam.

In truth, what they stumbled upon is that the definition of mass-energy in the Theory of Gravitation is not clear. That’s all. The difficulty has been known for generations of mathematicians (behind closed doors). However, it does not mean that physics reduces to dust.

It just means one has to go back to Riemann’s intuition of the 1860s, and reconsider it carefully. Riemann tried to reduce force to geodesic separation. I would suggest to reduce energy to a function related to geodesics density. As geodesics separate, energy is put in the system. With this notion, the fact that it costs nothing to create a universe disappear.

Physicists can’t reduce the universe just to physics, physics has to reduce to mathematics, too, at least in part.

One may wonder what the Multiversists reduce physics to. Apparently, having done away with energy conservation, a fundamental axiom, they replace it by universe creation. They reduce all of physics to the creation of universes.

Dark Energy, the accelerated expansion of the universe, questions the entire scheme of present day cosmology, let alone physics. Starting the conversation (logos) by throwing out the most sacred principle of physics (energy conservation), and replacing it with instant karma is as glib as glib gets.

Instant karma? Thanks to the alleged non-conservation of energy, the creation of trillions of universes per second per cubic meter is eminently reasonable.

Does that makes Middle –Age theology sitting angels on pinheads a plausible outcome? This is reductio ad absurdum, if I ever saw it.

Quantum Field Theorists may smirk, and accuse me of not knowing that energy is not conserved in QFT

The time-energy uncertainty relation seems indeed to allow for large energy excursions, if they happened in a short time. But that’s related to “virtual particles”, which admittedly are neither virtual, nor particles… Just resting on that would allow a universe in a length of time so short it has no meaning (because it has no clock).

Agreed, physics is hard. Agreed, today’s “Standard Model” of High Energy Physics explains only 4% of the universe.

But that’s no excuse to go crazy, and see gazillion universes on every pinhead.

That only help the crazies.

Crazy like foxes, crazy like plutocrats.

Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Non-Conservation Of Energy & Multiverse Madness”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    More a comment on the link, which contained: “And one that has been experimentally verified! The success of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis depends on the fact that we understand how fast the universe was expanding in the first three minutes, which in turn depends on how fast the energy density is changing.” Carroll seems to have a different concept of experimental verification to me. Just making some computations support a hypothesis for which there is absolutely no observable information (inflation) is not exactly experimental verification.

    The argument that photons are losing energy is also curious. The red shift arises because we are moving away from the source. If we were moving towards the source, they would be blue shifted. Thus the energy of a photon depends on the motion of the observer!

    Let us take a source that sends out a burst of photons at a defined frequency (Say, the sodium d line doublet) at the same time and these are split into two beams, each of which eventually are intercepted by a space ship travelling a c/2. One is going away; one is coming towards the source. Do we really believe one beam is losing energy and one gaining it? Or do we think their energy is conserved and and each ship records a doppler shift?


    • gmax Says:

      Yes, Ian, it seems the multiverse guys do not understand basic physics. It is just awesome what nuts they are


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, Ian. I just don’t have the energy right now to dive deep in their error. Basically they view the expansion of space has requiring no energy. And not conserving energy. That problem goes back to Einstein, who had noticed it, and grumbled about it that this was not kosher. I don’t remember his exact words. He actually did not use Judaism. He said the left side of the Einstein equation (Curvature = mass-energy).
      R_{\mu \nu} – {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda = {8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}
      Was like marble, and the right side like junk.
      (BTW, funny copying, WordPress!)

      Anyway, more later…
      I have an idea of a counter-thought experiment, by having “universes” colliding…


  2. GMax Says:

    So the “multiverse madness” is all over, because plutocrats erect madness as a paradigm, for all to follow? Sneaky they are! Crazies of the world unite!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It’s a general mood of craziness, indeed. Actually I was talking yesterday to a famous scientific friend who was invited big time by plutocrats, for a “singularity” conference… We were laughing that he should substitute me… I see a singularity of madness…


      • gmax Says:

        The Google singularity craze? They organize costly seminars with a high priest called Kurztweil, or something… people pay loads of money to attend. It is also all at Moffet Field, and partly financed by NASA. Google takes off from there and does not pay for fuel, I heard


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: