Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

RE: Universal Nonconservation.



Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 23:31:45 -0500
Reply-to: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu
From: "JACK L. URETSKY (C)1998; HEP DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB ARGONNE, IL 60439" <JLU@hep.anl.gov>
To: phys-l@atlantis.uwf.edu
Cc: JLU@hep.anl.gov
Subject: RE: Universal Nonconservation.

Dear Merlin-
Each of us has(1)a way of looking at the universe and
(2)a way of
describing what we see. David Bowman and I must look at
the universe the same way, because we would make the same
predictions for the result of any experiment. Our
descriptions, however, might be quite different. All this
is preface to a response to your posting.
It is easy to write grammatically correct sentences that
have no content.
I invite you to revisit your posting and explain to
yourself the content of each sentence. I suspect that you
will find this hard to do.
Start, for example, with the statement "three levels at
which we and the
universe exist." What does it mean "to exist" at a
"level". This is a trivial criticism because you
obviously mean that there are three levels of description
of the universe.
It is certainly true that current thinkink deals with the
universe at
two levels. These levels are often called "global" and
"local". There is no need to have quantities that can be
identified in a local description also present in a global
description. This is quite the case with "energy".
Energy is a quantity that can be defined in a local
description of a part of the universe. It is simply
undefined in most global descriptions.
Here is a feeble analogy. Locally, on the surface of the
earth, I can
ask the question, "Which way is North ?" Globally,
looking at the earth from all external directions, the
question has no meaning. The phrasing of the question is
nevertheless grammatically correct in any context.
Regards,
Jack

**********************************************************
******************* David Bowman thank you for your
excellant response. I appreciate your promptness, please
forgive lack thereof. I found your explanation to be very
educational. I am not a professional and am indeed lacking
in some necessary formal training. I am beginning to
appreciate that there are then three (at least) manners,
or maybe better levels, at which we and the universe
exist. That is on one level, locally (supply your own
definition), is for all intents and purpose Newtonian,
with conservation, inertia, almost mechanical. Then
possibly next is relativistic in which the Newtonian laws
begin to breakdown in favor of variances found in
extremis, though conservation is primarily retained
intact.Third then is Hubble space in which finally the
laws of conservation begin to fail, the universe is
largely homogenous and recognized as a unit. These
multiple levels overlapped to form one space-time as if
existance was only the interaction of these various
forces.

Though energy may in fact not be lost! Would it be more
like the ratio of energy-mass (same thing anyway) is
decreasing. Less energy (well not exactly energy, CBR
radiation) more room. Like cooling the temperature of a
volume by adding more volume, or like heat lost as
friction to the environment and then lost into space as
radiated heat. Which draws an interesting comparison to
the loss of radiation in CBR on the Hubble space level,
and loss of heat in a natural local setting. It would seem
now that truly Newtonian mechanics and the laws of
conservation are now entirely theoretical and have no
pragmatic application as the creation of an isolated
system for experiment is physically and quantum
mechanically impossible. Does this change the manner in
which rich new research caters to the laws of
conservation? Is it time to reformulate conservation to
include a Universal Loss constant? I'm fascinated by this
discussion and look forward to continuation.
**********************************************************
***


"I scored the next great triumph for science myself, to
wit, how the milk gets into the cow. Both of us had
marveled over that mystery a long time. We had followed
the cows around for years - that is, in the daytime - but
had never caught them drinking fluid of that color."
Mark Twain, Extract from Eve's
Autobiography

I hate it when y'll get testy! The guy, "Merlin" is just
trying to figure out what is going on beginning where
he is. Let's try to be "civil" 'bout this! WBN

Barlow Newbolt
Department of Physics and Engineering
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
Telephone and Phone Mail: 540-463-8881
Fax: 540-463-8884
e-mail: NewboltW@madison.acad.wlu.edu

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."

Neils Bohr