# Thread: Wait a second, does current Big Bang Theory break the laws of physics?

1. If all galaxies are expanding away from each other doesn't that mean they are gaining gravitational potential energy? It is similar to an apple being pulled from earths gravity by your hand; it gains gravitation potential as the distance increases. I have an explanation that doesn't break the laws of physics. I read that we know the universe is accelerating bexause galaxies farther away have more red shift. Imagine a sphere similar to the balloon analogy currently thought to be true by most scientists, and now imagine a different analogy. I dense ball of gunpowder instantly explodes releasing energy in all directions unevenly which forms to to matter and gathers together over time forming planets, suns, moons, and galaxies just like the Big Bang (clearly gunpowder isn't enough energy to even come close to comparing it's just simple analogy), but instead of everything simply expanding away from each other. What if it is that some energy/matter was sent out at higher initial velocities and acceleration (ALOT of acceleration). This would allow for the universe to be spread out imperfectly even as well as some clumps of energy/matter moving at higher velocities and accelerating faster than others who started at lower initially. This would be a better explanation of the red shift, as red shift isn't acceleration from you it's velocity from you. These two are related but acceleration of these can decrease while still increasing velocity. So to say that red shift is increasing means everything is expanding away from each other, just because that's how the universe works makes far less sense then my example. They would be spread out, they would be having increasing/decreasing red shift depending on the matter. For all we know universe is VERY young, and possibly 1 trillion years from now we may be considered EXTREMELY early by some self operated matter if any exists at that time. So it could explain for still having acceleration that may continue for billions of years, I suppose if you calculated the delta of the increase in red shift by each year you could have a more accurate reading, but I have yet to see any post linking those two. They always just say increasing red shift.

Also that was just a theory that makes more sense to me based on the scientific evidence that I could find.

Now here is the hard hitter on the current theory believed by most scientists.

If all matter is simply expanding away from each other, by the laws of physics this would mean all pieces of matter are gaining gravitational potential energy constantly regardless of the debate on how much energy that is; wouldn't that mean there would be a creation of energy which breaks the laws of physics?

Let me know what you think

2.

3. doesn't that mean they are gaining gravitational potential energy?
It was already pointed out to you that the concept of "gravitational potential energy" is not defined in an FLRW space-time.

It is similar to an apple being pulled from earths gravity by your hand
No it's not. It's nothing even remotely like that.

Now here is the hard hitter on the current theory believed by most scientists.
Science does not operate on the basis of beliefs; I'm surprised that this is what you think.

wouldn't that mean there would be a creation of energy which breaks the laws of physics?
No, not at all. There is no creation or destruction of energy at any point. You need to remember also that the concept of "energy" is a purely local one, and that conservation of energy is also not globally defined in a general ( i.e. curved/expanding ) space-time. You need to be very careful to not make the mistake of applying Newtonian principles to General Relativistic physics - it's a recipe for disaster.

4. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
doesn't that mean they are gaining gravitational potential energy?
It was already pointed out to you that the concept of "gravitational potential energy" is not defined in an FLRW space-time.

It is similar to an apple being pulled from earths gravity by your hand
No it's not. It's nothing even remotely like that.

Now here is the hard hitter on the current theory believed by most scientists.
Science does not operate on the basis of beliefs; I'm surprised that this is what you think.

wouldn't that mean there would be a creation of energy which breaks the laws of physics?
No, not at all. There is no creation or destruction of energy at any point. You need to remember also that the concept of "energy" is a purely local one, and that conservation of energy is also not globally defined in a general ( i.e. curved/expanding ) space-time. You need to be very careful to not make the mistake of applying Newtonian principles to General Relativistic physics - it's a recipe for disaster.
I thought the term "what is most commonly believed by scientists" was a proper term to use, if it is not what is the proper one I am sorry.

I will have to research FLRW Space-Time to understand more.

I also did not know that Newtonian laws now have conditions

Thank you for the help and I am sorry if I made an offensive statements I truly did not mean to

5. Originally Posted by ScienceNoob
Thank you for the help and I am sorry if I made an offensive statements I truly did not mean to

I also did not know that Newtonian laws now have conditions
Newton's laws as formulated in classical mechanics do not necessarily apply to relativistic scenarios in their original form; it is however possible to generalise them appropriately. One major concept that cannot easily be generalised though is the notion of "energy" from classical mechanics; the easiest way to see why is to look at the Lagrangian of a test particle. In classical mechanics, this is just a linear combination of potential and kinetic energy :

Hence it is always possible to uniquely define the kinetic and the potential energy of a test particle. Now consider the Lagrangian of a test particle in General Relativity instead :

As you can see this Lagrangian is nonlinear, so there is no unique way to split this into a "kinetic" and "potential" part, unlike in classical mechanics. You can only define the overall energy of a test particle, but you cannot break this down into unique constituents like T and V parts, unless you do so in a completely arbitrary ( and hence physically meaningless ) manner.

I will have to research FLRW Space-Time to understand more.
See above. On a global scale you can consider individual galaxies to be "test particles" of sorts, so given the aforementioned non-linearity of their Lagrangian, there is no physically meaningful definition of "potential energy". If you really wanted to you could try and define the notion of "kinetic energy" of a receding object with respect to a specific observer, but even that is meaningless, since the recessionary motion is only apparent; the objects themselves do not locally move, it is only space between them that expands, and hence creates the "illusion" of motion if observed from far away. Such concepts as expanding space simply do not exist in Newtonian physics, so attempting to apply classic mechanical formulas to such cases doesn't yield anything meaningful.

6. You forget to include two points that show us that no rules are really being broken. The first reason is that the Big Bang states that at the very start of the universe the universe was an *infinity* dense singularity of matter so the *universe will forever expand*(i know this sounds terrible but you know i am just trying to make a point) and also the second reason to support the first is the theorized existence of dark matter which along with the force from the initial big bang dark matter forces the universe to expand. This is just a quick thought

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement