From: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>

Date: Sat Oct 04 2008 - 12:21:51 EDT

Date: Sat Oct 04 2008 - 12:21:51 EDT

---- Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

*> I heard recently from someone knowledgeable that the first law of
*

*> thermodynamics does not actually apply to relativistic cosmology.
*

*> Apparently something of a "secret," in terms of the general public, though I
*

*> understand that physicists do talk about this and are concerned about fixing
*

*> the problem. They are also not at all confident that it can be fixed.
*

*>
*

*> That's what I am hearing. Can anyone who actually knows about this fill in
*

*> the details for me? Is this in any way related to Hoyle's claim in the
*

*> steady state theory that hydrogen atoms can just sort of pop into
*

*> existence?
*

*>
*

*> Ted
*

Ted -

I'm not sure just what "secret" you're referring to but it's true that there are

problems with energy conservation (aka 1st law of thermo) in general relativity

- & not just with cosmology.

The root of the problem is that the conservation laws for energy, momentum &

angular momentum are consequences of certain symmetries of space-time & a

space-time that is a solution of Einstein's equations will, in general, have no

symmetries. Energy conservation in particular is a consequence of invariance

under time translation (i.e., space-time will be the same tomorrow as today) &

if that invariance doesn't hold - as in a general expanding universe - then

energy conservation won't.

Then a distinction has to be made between local & global conservation laws.

Unlike the case with, e.g., E & M, we can't define a unique energy density -

energy per unit volume - for the gravitational field. That's a consequence of

the equivalence principle which says, among other things, you can get rid of

gravitational acceleration locally by an appropriate choice of coordinate

system.

(Technically, the 1st derivatives of the metric can be made to vanish along a

worldline.)

For isolated physical systems (like a single particle or cloud of particles)

space-time is "asymptotically flat" (i.e., Euclidean at large distance from

matter) & a conserved _global_ energy can be defined as an integral over a large

sphere surrounding the matter & this has the appropriate properties. (For a

mass m, the energy is mc^2.) But a cosmological model is _not_ asymptotically

flat. (3-D space is, it now seems, close to being flat but space-time isn't.)

The there's another phenomenon in expanding universes. In general a particle

will have a "peculiar motion" - i.e., be moving relative to the expanding space

(to speak crudely). But this peculiar motion dies out & eventually the particle

is in effect "swept along" with the general expansion. That means that if you

use just that peculiar velocity to calculate its kinetic energy, that energy

decreases with time. (Schroedinger discussed this at some length in his book

_Expanding Universes_.) Humphreys tried to use this phenomenon to get rid of

the excess energy produced by accelerated radioactive decay at the time of the

flood (I say, trying to keep a straight face) but it doesn't work. See the NCSE

paper that Glenn Morton & I did, & especially the appendix - it's included with

Randy Isaacs' critique of the RATE claims at the ASA website.

None of this has anything directly to do with Hoyle's "creation field." It's

worth noting, however, that the steady state folks argued correctly that while

energy is created locally in their model, the total energy in the _observable_

universe is conserved, which isn't the case in big bang models.

I don't know if this answers your question but hope it's of some use.

Shalom,

George

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Received on Sat Oct 4 12:22:55 2008

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Sat Oct 04 2008 - 12:22:56 EDT
*