-4

The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but changed into different forms, which I've never found entirely compelling. It's impossible to measure the energy that exists, since we are unsure of whether our universe is finite, or whether 'universe' is even a valid concept given multiverse theory.

Specifically, my understanding in regard to current validation of the law of conservation of energy within the known universe is as follows. The expansion of the universe shows that there is continually increasing kinetic energy of masses that are increasing in velocity despite a supposed initial fixed mass and energy in 'big bang' theory. Dark matter theory seeks to explain the gap between big bang theory and expansion of the universe

An alternative explanation to the increasing velocity of non-dark matter in the universe is that overall energy of a system can continually increase and is not finite. Is there any compelling evidence against this idea? The idea is that energy (and potentially mass) can actually somehow be spontaneously created from 'nothing'.

Is there anything compelling against this idea? Is there anything that I need to add to my understanding of energy measurement and overall energy theory in the universe that could weigh against the notion of spontaneous creation of additional energy?

Chris Halcrow
  • 95
  • 3
  • 4
    There doesn't seem to be a notable claim here... – Ben Voigt Feb 28 '18 at 02:32
  • [Welcome to Skeptics!](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users) According to the [FAQ](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/faq#questions), Skeptics.SE is for researching the evidence behind the claims you hear or read. This question doesn't appear to have any doubtful claims to investigate. Please edit it to reference a notable claim and flag for moderator attention to re-open (or get 5 re-open votes). – Oddthinking Feb 28 '18 at 02:51
  • 5
    The people at https://physics.stackexchange.com would be much better equipped than the people on this site to answer your question/explain the relevant concepts to you. – paradisi Feb 28 '18 at 05:54
  • 2
    Regarding the notion of "Something from Nothing", [Lawrence Krauss has a good lecture on that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo). In any case... for every time we have **tested** the Law of Energy Conservation, it has held true. Does that mean it is impossible that in the future we will find a situation where it does not hold true? No, not at all. If you can find that situation... and **demonstrate it**.... good for you. A Nobel Prize in Physics would not nearly suffice to grant you enough recognition for that stupendously monumental discovery. But I will not hold my breath over it. –  Feb 28 '18 at 09:15

1 Answers1

5

The main flaw in your idea is the assumption that the expansion of the universe is a result of the velocity, and thus the kinetic energy, of objects in the universe increasing as the universe expands. This isn't the case.

The idea behind cosmic inflation is that space itself is what is increasing, not the velocity/energy of objects. Objects aren't actually moving away from eachother as space expands, there is simply more space between those objects as time goes on. If you were to measure the distance between two (very) distance systems and the energy of each system, then waited a (very) long time and measured the distance and energy again, the systems will be farther away than the first measurement, though the energies will be the same.

I don't have enough physics doctorates to explain the math supporting these theories, however it's solid enough to be widely accepted and has even been observed. A neat side effect is that the universe can be considered a closed system as needed by the laws of thermodynamics: it isn't expanding 'into' a larger system, it's simply expanding.

Giter
  • 11,405
  • 8
  • 46
  • 46