0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If we look at our entire Universe, and with the exception of gravity force - than NO NEW ENERGY OR MASS could be created.
It sets their Kinetic/potential energy for free.
its Kinetic/potential energy is contributed for free by the gravity force.
That free gravity force adds the Kinetic energy + potential energy to the new created particles in the system without consuming it from any other source in the system.
That is correct to all kinds of mater/energies/forces... except ONE - Gravity force.
Again - Gravity force is based on the mass in that isolated system, but it doesn't consume any mass or energy from that system.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 07:22:05If we look at our entire Universe, and with the exception of gravity force - than NO NEW ENERGY OR MASS could be created.If gravity can create energy, then that would make it violate conservation of energy.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 07:22:05If we look at our entire Universe, and with the exception of gravity force - than NO NEW ENERGY OR MASS could be created.
Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?
Do you agree that if that was the case, than this free magnetic field could add new energy to our Universe?
If so, why are you so sure that free gravity force can't add new force/energy?
In the article it is stated:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass"energy can neither be created nor destroyed
Those new particles are added as new mass to the system, therefore, we might get a twist in the story.
Do you agree that technically, the new created particle around a SMBH which had been created under very high gravity field (and only for those new created particles) might be subject to different definitions?Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?No.It "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" means that you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33Do you agree that technically, the new created particle around a SMBH which had been created under very high gravity field (and only for those new created particles) might be subject to different definitions?Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?No. I think what they are talking about is the fact that a reference frame in a gravitational field is different than a non-accelerating frame in empty space. As such, the total amount of mass-energy in the system can look different to different observers (but the total amount of mass-energy in an inertial reference frame is constant). To a distant observer, the total amount of mass-energy of the black hole and any particles that it produces will be constant. It won't increase over time.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33Do you agree that technically, the new created particle around a SMBH which had been created under very high gravity field (and only for those new created particles) might be subject to different definitions?Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?
There is only one case I know of where conservation of energy is possibly/probably violated: the expansion of the Universe. As the Universe expands, photons of light travelling through it are redshifted, reducing their energy. That energy isn't transmitted to anything else, it's simply gone. Likewise, the gravitational potential energy between distant galaxies is increasing over time because the expansion is driving them further apart (against gravity). Then there is dark energy, which seems to have a constant density per unit of space, yet more space is being created over time. Therefore, the total amount of dark energy in the Universe increases over time.
There is no "twist in the story".
This is allowed by modern physics because of the assumptions of Noether's theorem. Conservation of energy, as derived by Noether's theorem, is based on the assumption that the space where the conservation laws hold is static. Since space is expanding, it is no longer static and thus energy can be created or destroyed due to that expansion. In a universe where space does not expand or contract, conservation of mass/energy holds absolutely.
the gravitational potential energy between distant galaxies is increasing over time because the expansion is driving them further apart (against gravity).
Since your model assumes that space does not expand or contract, then it is forced to obey conservation of mass/energy. Your black hole, therefore, cannot create mass/energy. It is stuck with what it already has.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33Do you agree that if that was the case, than this free magnetic field could add new energy to our Universe?No.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33Do you agree that if that was the case, than this free magnetic field could add new energy to our Universe?
So, they highlight the "different definitions" and not the "different observers" as you claim.
How could it be that you have decided to ignore that open gate for new energy in new created mass/particles?
However in those articles they don't even mention the expansion or Redshift.
Same issue with that imagination that is called: "Noether's theorem"
If Noether's theorem or the expansion idea were correct, why our scientists didn't add them in those articles as a valid way to twist the conservation of mass/energy?
Don't you agree that there must be one law to all the theories?
In those articles there is no single word about space expansion. So, why are you so sure that only the space expansion can twist the law while there is no backup for this assumption in those articles?
Do you agree the energy in mass of new created particles is coming from the magnetic field?
If it was free, than why can't we assume that the added mass was also was for free?
It's Wikipedia. You can't expect it to know everything.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/07/2020 21:06:46QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:56:33Could it be that the real meaning of: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved" is - extra energy due to the involvement of large gravitational fields?No.It "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" means that you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved.I disagree as they didn't claim for the total energy/mass.
How could you misestimate the knowledge of those scientists from Wikipedia?
If you claim that they don't know about the subject that they write then why we use their articles to prove that there is no way to add extra energy or mass?
Actually, you can claim that any scientist doesn't know everything. However, if they focus on a subject, don't you agree that they must have wide knowledge in this subject?
So on which kind of science/scientists do you wish to base our discussion?
Would you kindly advice if you agree with my understanding:
I wonder why BC claims that:"neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" means that you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:57:15How could you misestimate the knowledge of those scientists from Wikipedia?(1) Wikipedia is not a scientific website. Anyone can edit it. Most of the writers of those articles are probably not scientists.(2) Funny how you are promoting the scientific knowledge on Wikipedia here, yet you dismiss that very same scientific knowledge when it talks about the expansion of the Universe.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:57:15How could you misestimate the knowledge of those scientists from Wikipedia?
You can know something about a subject without knowing everything about it.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:57:15Actually, you can claim that any scientist doesn't know everything. However, if they focus on a subject, don't you agree that they must have wide knowledge in this subject?Having wide knowledge of a subject is not the same as knowing absolutely everything about a subject.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:57:15Actually, you can claim that any scientist doesn't know everything. However, if they focus on a subject, don't you agree that they must have wide knowledge in this subject?
There is very little about your understanding of anything that I agree with.
But it's even more stupid than that, because scientists do add Noether's theorem to posts and articles..https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65377.msg477790#msg477790
Because "you can interconvert them, so either can change, but the overall total is conserved."Is true.
Hence, why do you think that this law could help you to get the extra dark energy that you need for the expansion in space?
How do you see a change in the energy due to that Theorem?
Why suddenly when it comes to the BBT, the law of conservation of energy/mass doesn't work as it should?
I read your answer and I still do not believe that you claim that those scientists that wrote that article have no real knowledge in that subject.
However, it is clear to me why you do claim that they have so poor knowledge in this subject:
Can I assume that you do understand that the real meaning in English for: "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" is: "Not mass or energy is kept conserved"?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:11:04Can I assume that you do understand that the real meaning in English for: "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" is: "Not mass or energy is kept conserved"?No.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:11:04Can I assume that you do understand that the real meaning in English for: "neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" is: "Not mass or energy is kept conserved"?
There's been a lot of focus on the meaning of ""neither mass nor energy is strictly and simply conserved" "It's a quote from wiki, it's not holy scripture.If we don't know what they meant (and we don't) the best thing to do is ignore it.
"For systems with large gravitational fields (as BH or SMBH), general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and Not mass or energy is kept conserved as is the case in special relativity."
But the real problem in understanding appears to be about how General Relativity fits into the picture. Mass by itself is not conserved in GR and neither is energy by itself. Claims are made that even mass-energy or even just plain energy is not conserved but I do not think that is the case.
The key to understanding the Wiki article statement Is that the article is about Conservation of Mass. Mass-Energy conservation is not being discussed. Within the mathematical models of each of the several non-relativistic theoretical systems discussed, mass is strictly conserved. In actuality, all energy production in chemistry and the like results in the loss of some mass but this loss is essentially unmeasurable. c^2 is a really really big number so tiny amounts of m can yield a whole lot of E. There is conservation of mass-energy but in just about all real-world settings, the loss of mass can be ignored, being far too small to matter in calculations.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:42:31Why suddenly when it comes to the BBT, the law of conservation of energy/mass doesn't work as it should?One of very few things we do know about the BB is that it changed the laws of physics.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:42:31Why suddenly when it comes to the BBT, the law of conservation of energy/mass doesn't work as it should?
It is quite easy to understand the simple meaning that message:
I clearly claim that Theory D doesn't violate any law of physics, while you clearly claim that the BBT violets the law of physics.
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 12/07/2020 16:53:52But the real problem in understanding appears to be about how General Relativity fits into the picture. Mass by itself is not conserved in GR and neither is energy by itself. Claims are made that even mass-energy or even just plain energy is not conserved but I do not think that is the case.Thanks for joining the discussion.So, based on your answer: "Claims are made that even mass-energy or even just plain energy is not conserved" means that you fully agree that my English understanding is correct.However, you think that this statement is incorrect: "but I do not think that is the case"As long as we all agree with the meaning in English, then this is at least good start.
Quote from: Malamute Lover on 12/07/2020 16:53:52The key to understanding the Wiki article statement Is that the article is about Conservation of Mass. Mass-Energy conservation is not being discussed. Within the mathematical models of each of the several non-relativistic theoretical systems discussed, mass is strictly conserved. In actuality, all energy production in chemistry and the like results in the loss of some mass but this loss is essentially unmeasurable. c^2 is a really really big number so tiny amounts of m can yield a whole lot of E. There is conservation of mass-energy but in just about all real-world settings, the loss of mass can be ignored, being far too small to matter in calculations.Yes, I fully agree with your explanation.However, in this case you focus on mass loss: " In actuality, all energy production in chemistry and the like results in the loss of some mass but this loss is essentially unmeasurable."So, I can fully agree that there is full conservation of energy/mass in any given isolated system.However, it gets more complicated under new created particles.Those new created particles could be created ONLY under very high gravity force/field near the photon zone around a massive object as BH or SMBH.The idea is that those new created particles (ordinary particles) are created from a virtual particles.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle"Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles."So, it is also stated that there is always a" conserve energy and momentum" between the virtual particle to ordinary particle. Therefore, if the virtual particle is orbiting at the speed of light due to the ultra high gravity force of the SMBH, then also the new created ordinary particle should carry the same momentum and orbit at the same speed of light (due to the gravity force) So, while the ordinary particle gets its mass energy (E=Mc^2) from the isolated system, it also gets its momentum/velocity from the virtual particle. That velocity represents its kinetic energy and it is based on the idea of "conserve energy and momentum" between virtual to ordinary particles.Therefore, in the process of creating new particle we get extra kinetic energy.We also need to add the extra potential energy. The virtual particle already orbits near the photon zone. So, as it converts to ordinary particle it gets also a potential energy for free. All of that due to gravity force.Without gravity force, there will be no virtual particles and of course no ordinary particles.So, the momentum that the gravity force gives for free to the virtual particle is transformed to the ordinary particle.Therefore, do you agree that new (Kinetic + Potential) energy is added to the system by the new created ordinary particles?