__General Relativistic Violation of the Conservation of Energy Law__^{1}
T. E. Bearden
10 Feb 2007
Copyright 2007
__Abstract__
Although not commonly known, under certain general relativistic conditions the conservation of energy law (first law of thermodynamics) can be and is violated.
According to Gödel’s proof {^{1}}, all mathematical models are imperfect, and none ever will be absolute. Any “law of nature” is actually a model having very wide validity, but still subject to Gödel’s demonstration. It can still be violated, in certain circumstances and for appropriate classes of phenomena, per Gödel’s proof. Yet that violation cannot be proved by the model containing that “law of nature” itself as an integral part!
Quoting Devlin {^{2}}: *"Gödel's Theorem says that in any axiomatic mathematical system that is sufficiently rich to do elementary arithmetic, there will be some statements that are true but cannot be proved (from the axioms). In technical terminology, the axiom system must be incomplete."*
As an example, we explain the little-known violation of the conservation of energy law (the first law of thermodynamics) under certain general relativity conditions. So long as the Killing vector symmetry holds, the energy conservation law is applicable and is not violated, even under general relativity. However, when the Killing vector symmetry is violated by sufficiently strong general relativity situations in a system, then the conservation of energy law fails for that system under those conditions.
1.0. __The Problem__
There is a real problem in understanding very violent physical phenomena, such as violent weather phenomena to include tornadoes, their vortices, accompanying physical phenomena, etc. that suggest violation of energy conservation. Though little known, conservation of energy can indeed be violated, but only in a general relativistic situation where the Killing vector symmetry is violated.
1.1. __Factors Bearing on the Problem__
Scientists become very dogmatic with respect to a model that has very general application, once it is raised to the “law of nature” regime. As Tolstoy {^{3}} stated:
*"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."*
Quoting Nobelist Josephson {^{4}}:
“*I call it ‘pathological disbelief’. The statement ‘even if it were true I wouldn’t believe it’ seems to sum up this attitude.” … “It is like a religious creed where you have to conform to the ‘correct’ position.” *
With respect to the conservation of energy law in electromagnetism, the main problem is that we are usually tied to the very archaic and flawed old 1880s and 1890s CEM/EE model. See my article “Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model”, listing some of the major falsities in that model, most of which have been pointed out by eminent scientists but have not been corrected. The article is available at __http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc__ .
A National Science Foundations Letter from their review of that paper is given at __http://www.cheniere.org/references/NSF%20letter%20Bearden.jpg__ .
1.2. __How the Dogma is Hidden__
Here are some interesting quotes and references on the violation of the conservation of energy law (first law of thermodynamics) itself that may be of interest to the reader. One understands that, __once the conservation of energy law is violated by a sufficiently wildly changing general relativistic situation, this means that all observable things such as inertia, momentum, force developed by change of momentum, etc. can change dramatically and vary wildly also__. In short, the conservation of most observable physical attributes such as energy, mass, and momentum simply can fail.
Since a usual "law of nature" is just a very useful and widely applicable __model__, then Gödel's 1931 proof applies. So there will always be some situations (perhaps very esoteric!) that do violate that law of nature. Good physicists are aware of the fact that all we really know is our models, __never__ the "thing in itself".
Most electrical engineers do not normally realize that they always assume and are taught a special relativity situation (with a fixed frame, even if rotated). In extreme cases nature can hit a system with substantial general relativistic effects, at least momentarily. In that case, even the ordinary conservation of energy law (first law of thermodynamics) can be and is sometimes violated, contrary to popular engineering beliefs. This is obscurely known in physics, but is seldom taught or mentioned.
E.g., quoting Hawking {^{5}}:
*"All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us who are embedded inside it. We imagine and intuit, then point the finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs. Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself.”*
Again quoting Hawking {^{6}}:
“*Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I am now glad our search for understanding will never come to an end, and we will always have the challenge of new discovery.”*
2.0. __Discussion__.
__ __ 2.1. __How Violation of the Conservation of Energy Law Arises__
Quoting Hilbert {^{7}}, shortly after Einstein's General Relativity model was published:
*"I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity."*
Quoting Logunov and Loskutov {^{8}}:
*"In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. … Unfortunately … Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible." *
Quoting the eminent physicist Roger Penrose {^{9}}:
“*We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum!” *[Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry arbitrarily, to get conservation again, when the Killing vector applies and gravity is separated.].* “These conservation laws hold only in a spacetime for which there is the appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ĸ…. [These considerations] do not really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by numerous physicists over the years. … in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy-momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way – at least in those circumstances where such a conservation law is most needed. …Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation…”*
From Penrose’s statement, the “solution” accepted by many general relativists is to arbitrarily toss out the gravity and gravitational energy density of spacetime in a given troublesome case, and the problem of nonconservation of energy and momentum then vanishes. In short, separate the spacetime itself from the fields, and there is no problem! The CEM/EE model does this by assuming a flat spacetime and an inert vacuum. It always assumes a __special relativistic__ situation.
However, avoiding the problem itself is not solving the problem! Einstein himself pointed out that there is no spacetime separate from fields. Quoting Einstein {^{10}}:
“*There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e., a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.”*
2.2. __An Experimental Example of Apparent Violation of Energy Conservation__
We note that there are such apparent violations already contained in physics, including experimental violations. An “explanation” of these apparent violations can indeed be given, if one finds a sufficiently well-behaved general relativity mechanism. The tremendous extra spacetime curvature and oscillation effects due to dynamics of the normally nondiverged giant Heaviside curled energy flow component is one such mechanism; in certain cases it can be sufficiently well-behaved to provide extra energy “directly from the dynamics of the oscillating curvature of spacetime itself”.
As our example, a general relativistic effect already proven since 1967, including in experiments done every year in optical physics in all major universities, is the "negative resonance absorption of the medium" (NRAM) effect {^{11}}. The effect experimentally yields 18 times as much __output__ Poynting flow from a specific self-resonating charged medium as is in the Poynting energy flow being __input__ to the medium. Considering the neglected and unaccounted giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow always accompanying every Poynting EM energy flow but arbitrarily neglected since Lorentz arbitrarily discarded it in 1900, the gravity effect is always at least of importance, particularly when (a) significant, (b) well-behaved, and (c) synchronized coherently with input energy variations. Appropriate reference citations are given in the Provisional Patent Application (PPA) listed shortly, and available on __www.cheniere.org__.
For a proposed means of using and adapting the proven NRAM effect to rather completely and quickly solve the world energy crisis, see Thomas E. Bearden and Kenneth D. Moore, “Increasing the Coefficient of Performance of Electromagnetic Power Systems by Extracting and Using Excess EM Energy from the Heaviside Energy Flow Component”. This is a Provisional Patent Application (PPA), Oct. 2005, and is now released into public domain and freely given away to the peoples of the world. See __http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/PPA%20Increasing%20COP%20by%20addnl%20extractn%20from%20flow1a.DOC__ .
2.3. __Another Observed Example of Failure of Energy Conservation__.
Another failure of Newton’s law of gravitation is met in galaxies in their outer reaches. Quoting __NewScientist__ on dark matter {^{12}}:
“*A ‘law of nature’ is one of those concepts that slips through your fingers the more you try to grasp it. The most that can be said about a physical law is that it is a hypothesis that has been confirmed by experiment so many times that it becomes universally accepted. There is nothing natural about it, however: it is a wholly human construct. Yet still we baulk when somebody tries to revoke one.”*
“*That is what is happening to the inverse-square law at the heart of Newton’s law of gravitation. … this relationship fails for stars at the outer reaches of galaxies, whose orbits suggest some extra pull towards the galactic center. It was to explain this discrepancy that dark matter was conjured up, but with dark matter still elusive, another potential solution is looking increasingly attractive: change the law.”*
Feynman pointed out in 1964 that we really do not have a definition of energy.
Quoting Feynman {^{13}}:
*"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."*
We must always remember that spacetime itself is highly energetic, and – in a modern view – we may take spacetime itself as __identically energy__, in which case any change in spacetime (either curvature or torsion) is a change in energy, thus capable of interacting with matter.
Quoting Wheeler {^{14}}:
*"…curved empty space is a dynamic entity, as competent to store and carry energy as are ordinary elastic materials and electromagnetic waves."*
Finally, quoting Vlasov and Denisov {^{15}}:
*"...in general relativity there are no energy-momentum conservation laws for a system consisting of matter and the gravitational field."*
3.0. __Conclusion__
Our final comment is that, when spacetime curvature, twisting, or other dynamics goes into wild general relativistic changes, the energy density in a given tiny piece of space can also be wildly changing by huge orders of magnitude. In short, in just the right set of such changes, momentary correlation provides that a straw in such a region of warped space can momentarily have so much energy and momentum that it easily penetrates a telephone pole or a brick. To the straw, because of its momentary giant energy density and momentum, the brick’s energy density is like soft butter. __Multiply-connected__ spacetime effects such as teleportation are also available and sometimes occur. Certainly, over the years straws driven into telephone poles and bricks have indeed been observed in the aftermath of violent tornadoes.
The above brief and informal explanations of permissible violation of the conservation of energy law (and also of conservation laws of momentum etc.) may be of help in eventually understanding such odd phenomenology from tornadic and other violent events and conditions. In such cases, the phenomenology does not have to obey normal CEM/EE concepts and conservation laws, at least for sporadic moments in external observer time.
__References__:
1. Kurt Gödel, "Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der *Principa Mathematica* und verwandter Systeme" ("On Formally Indeterminable Propositions of the *Principia Mathematica* and Related Systems)." __Monatshefte fur Mathematik und Physik__, Vol. 38, 1931.
2. Keith Devlin, "Kurt Gödel — Separating Truth from Proof in Mathematics," __Science__, Vol. 298, 6 Dec. 2002, p. 1899.
3. Count Lev Nikolayevich, commonly referred as Leo Tolstoy. Famed Russian novelist, philosopher, and moralist.
4. Brian Josephson, quoted in Alison George, “Take nobody’s word for it,” __NewScientist__, 9 Dec. 2006, p. 56.
5. As given by George Zebrowski, "The holdouts," __Nature__, Vol. 408, 14 Dec 2000, p. 775.
6. Stephen Hawking, posted on his website in early 2004.
7. David Hilbert, __Gottingen Nachrichten__, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21.
8. A. A. Logunov and Yu. M. Loskutov, "Nonuniqueness of the predictions of the general theory of relativity," __Sov. J. Part. Nucl__. 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179.
9. Roger Penrose, __The Road to Reality__, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458.
10. Albert Einstein, __Relativity, The Special and General Theory__, translated by Robert W. Lawson, Henry Holt, New York, 1920.
11. By positive “absorption of energy” occurring in a mass system, we mean that energy enters the system from outside and is absorbed (turned into a different form of energy) in the system. By “negative absorption of energy” occurring in a mass system, one refers to energy being emitted by the system and radiated outside it and away from it. In short, “negative absorption” is a mind-numbing phrase deliberately employed by the optical physicists to prevent saying “excess emission”. Thus the phrase implies that the medium is emitting more (in NRAM, some 18 times as much) Poynting energy as the Poynting energy flow the operator is inputting to the system to be absorbed by it. In short, the NRAM phrase is a clever way of hiding what is an apparent violation of the conservation of energy law itself.
12. Editorial, “Breaking the laws,” __NewScientist__, 29 April 2006, p. 5.
13. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, __The Feynman Lectures on Physics__, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2.
14. John A. Wheeler and Seymour Tilson, "The Dynamics of Space-Time," __International Science and Technology__, Dec. 1963, p. 62.
15. A. A. Vlasov and V. I. Denisov. “"Einstein's Formula for Gravitational Radiation is not a Consequence of the General Theory of Relativity." __Theoretical and Mathematical Physics__, 53(3), June 1983, p. 1208-1216. Translated from__ Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika__, 53(3), Dec. 1982, p. 406-418 (in Russian). The quotation is from p. 1208.
**Share with your friends:** |