Big Bang Theory Violates First Law of Thermodynamics

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Harmonic_Subset, Aug 27, 2020.

  1. Harmonic_Subset Registered Senior Member

    1. The universe appears to be expanding. The BB theory suggests that it has been expanding for nearly 14 billion years, due to a mysterious "Dark Energy". Where does this energy come from?

    2. The expansion of the universe is causing light from distant galaxies to redshift to longer wavelengths. The energy of a photon of light is proportional to its wavelength. Therefore, cosmic redshift appears to reduce the energy of electromagnetic radiation. Where does this energy go?

    Surely there isn't enough energy from redshifting of radiation to cause the universe to expand. I must conclude that the BB theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics - Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or transformed.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    exchemist likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    I don't claim to be any sort of expert on relativity but it seems to me one needs to be careful when comparing energies in cases in which the spacetime metric is changing. When you consider that energy is the ability to do Fd work, and that d is affected by a change in the metric, I think I would expect that calculated values in two different metrics might look inconsistent.

    In the simpler case of a Doppler red shift, as I understand it, the recessional velocity of the detector relative to the source reduces the measured energy, just as the kinetic energy of a massive object would also be reduced, i.e. measured values of kinetic energy and frequency are frame-dependent. I think something similar would go on with the red shift due to expansion of the metric.

    But maybe Janus or someone who knows about this sort of thing will show up and provide a proper explanation.
    James R and QuarkHead like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    There doesn't have to be enough to cause the Universe to expand but that energy does go into the expanding Universe.

    No one knows what Dark Energy is or it wouldn't be called Dark Energy.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    A property of spacetime itself. Also the DE component applies to the observed acceleration in that expansion.
    That's nothing but pure ID and religiously inspired crap!
    First, the BB says nothing about how or why the universe tells us how it evolved. The other is that at the initial event, in fact up to t=10-43 seconds, our laws do not apply.

    One thing is certain...whatever the reason for the universe/space/time, as we know them coming into existence, it is scientifically explained, and a future validated QGT may just enable us to have evidence of that....
  9. Harmonic_Subset Registered Senior Member

    The First Law of Thermodynamics is supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence - that's why it's called a "Law".

    The BB theory is not. I am, therefore, more willing to conclude that the BB theory is not correct.

    I would even say that photons are more likely to be losing energy to the interstellar medium, perhaps dark matter, that there is likely no expansion of the universe at all, no "Big Bang", and no convincing evidence for a beginning to the visible universe. A static universe is more convincing because it doesn't require me to believe in a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

    I think more effort should be put into finding a candidate for an interstellar medium, e.g. dark matter, and/or the likely mechanism by which electromagnetic energy would be absorbed over long distances. This is simple transfer/transformation of energy, which is allowed by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

    Back to the drawing board.
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    You are not even bothering to address the points I raised, I notice.

    I strongly suspect energy can perfectly well be conserved: it is just that you do not understand how work out what it is, correctly, in the presence of a spacetime metric that is changing.

    So probably yes, back to the drawing board, but most likely for you (rather than the Big Bang theory), to learn how to assess energy correctly in this case.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I strongly suspect an ulterior motive, and agenda on your part. Probably religiously inspired?
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Creation of the Universe from nothing

    Even though all the matter in the Universe including
    rocks, planets, stars, galaxies, quasars, black holes and
    clusters is huge and positive, the energy stored within
    gravity may be negative which means the sum could add
    nearly to zero. This means that creation of such Universe
    from nothing doesn‟t violate the Conservation of Energy.
    The very idea of creating Universe from nothing was
    introduced by Edward Tryon who believed that the
    Universe “happens from time to time” as a result of
    quantum fluctuations in vacuum (MichioKaku, 2004).
    The Universe-from-nothing theory is significant to
    answer practical questions about why the Universe
    doesn‟t spin and why the total spin of all the galaxies in
    the Universe cancels out.
  13. Harmonic_Subset Registered Senior Member

    Consider all the fantastical notions that have been invented to get around the violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics by the BB theory....

    - inflation
    - accelerating expansion
    - negative energy
    - creation of space between galaxies
    - dark energy
    - creation of something from nothing

    The list goes on.

    Einstein himself believed the universe is static until around 1932. Something apparently changed his mind at that point. Or maybe he just didn't feel like being the sole voice opposing a widespread scientific consensus via group-think. Remember that just a couple centuries ago, the consensus among the most educated in society was that the world was created in 6 days. Today, the preponderance of evidence shows a rather much older planet. Consensus is no guarantee against being dead wrong.

    On the balance of evidence, there simply isn't enough evidence to support the BB theory at the expense of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law of Thermodynamics has been tested and verified to a far greater extent.

    IMO, there is reason to suggest that the units of the Hubble Constant should not describe the acceleration of distant galaxies in km/sec per mega-parsec, but rather describe the loss of energy by light over distance, in Joules per mega-parsec.
  14. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    What you haven't considered, I believe, is that the Laws of Thermodynamics are true locally, for so-called closed systems. The observable universe is not one of these, it's the part of a larger universe we can see. It's my understanding that energy at cosmological scales can violate the principle of conservation.

    Consider the following from an article by Tamara Davis:
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2020
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Question first...So why do you chose to be so dishonest by posting this in the mainstream sciences, instead of alternative section? If you are not dishonest and simply ignorant of the meanings and sections, say so.
    I'm sure you'll ignore that question too.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Reasons and links have already been given for you to answer, which cover most of your points...why are you ignoring them? Dishonesty? Ignorance?
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2020
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yes, irrefutable convincing evidence changed his mind and that of most scientists also.
    Not sure if your "hear say" actually fits who Einstein was...afterall, he did smash the generally held belief about the so called constant nature of space and time, and showed they were exchangeable and two sides of the same coin.
    The consensus you speak of was a religiously inspired myth, and science revealed that fraudulent
    You have already been informed about any connection or lack thereof between the first law and the BB. You either dishonestly refuse to address those reputable information and links, or you are simply too ignorant to comprehend?
    Thank Christ that your obviously skewed opinion does not matter at all, in the grand scheme of things.
    Of course if you were fair dinkum, and not dishonest, or ignorant, you would write up a paper for scientific review, listing all the evidence you supposedly have to support what essentially is nothing more then your own mythical thoughts.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Ahhh, I see...Looking back into your history, it appears you have made other alternative cosmology scenarios, which I take it, has not got very far?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Just to refresh your memory.....

    So again, why chose to post in the mainstream section, when it is obvious you have alternative hypothetic. Isn't that dishonest?
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    stuff up
  20. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    A basic error no-one else has picked you up on in your first post this thread:
    That in red is wrong. The inverse is true: E = hf = hc/λ.
    paddoboy likes this.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    That's an open question at the moment. Hence the label "dark" to indicate the unknown.

    According to some of the links in this thread, it goes into the energy of space itself.

    Expansion, in and of itself, isn't the problem. The fact that the expansion is accelerating is the problem. The energy driving the acceleration is the dark energy, not energy from redshifted photons.

    As you can see from the various links that have been posted, things probably aren't as simple as you think they are. How good is your understanding of general relativity?

    That's incorrect. There's a vast amount of scientific evidence for the big bang, too.

    Do you have an alternative theory in mind that accounts for all the things the BB theory accounts for?

    There's a vast amount of scientific evidence for the expansion of the universe. That's why the big bang theory exists at all.

    None of those things were invented to get around any violation of the first law of thermodynamics. The creation of something from nothing isn't part of big bang theory anyway. Negative energy is a concept that existed long before the big bang theory.

    It was evidence - for example the work of Hubble. Einstein did what scientists do and accepted the evidence once it was established enough.

    Maybe you'll be the first to show why all the evidence that supports the expanding universe conclusion is misleading. Best of luck for winning that Nobel Prize!

    The units of the Hubble constant (which isn't actually a constant) are determined by the form of the Hubble law. If you want to talk about some different quantity, you'll need to come up with your own law. Supported by sufficient evidence, naturally.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Yes, the observed expansion of the universe over large scales, is/was the first pillar of cosmology, that led to the BB theory by Father George Lamaitre. And now overwhelmingly supported mainstream science, based the four main pillars.
    Yet the title of this thread says in no uncertain terms, "
    "Big Bang Theory Violates First Law of Thermodynamics"
    Which if true, would mean that the BB would not have been accepted and have risen to the status it is today.
    Obviously the BB does not contravene any thermodynamic law, which means the headline is misleading at best, and/or an ignorant lie at worst.
    So why isn't this in the alternative section based on the heading claiming a non mainstream scenario.
    Isn't this what the alternative section is for?
  23. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    That amounts to an unambiguous repudiation of the position of many cosmologists/relativists such as well respected Sean Carroll I linked to in #2. A more detailed but still mostly lay-level defense of that position that BB evolution violates the 1st law can be read here:
    Warning: It pays to actually read such material before passing judgement on it. Failure to do so can be quite embarrassing.
    Well anyway you have made an absolute judgement already here. Care to personally justify it? Not by quoting say Lawrence Krauss as opposite opinion authority, but by you pointing out specific weaknesses of a technical nature. Good luck.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page