Gravitational Energy: Is it Really Zero?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of gravitational energy and its implications for the total energy of the universe. Participants explore whether gravitational energy can be considered zero, the definitions of total energy in different frameworks, and the relevance of these definitions in the context of General Relativity and Newtonian physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the total energy of the universe is zero, suggesting that gravitational attraction is canceled by electromagnetic forces.
  • Others argue that rest mass energy is equal to the negative of gravitational energy, indicating a relationship between these forms of energy.
  • It is noted that the total energy of the universe is an undefined quantity from a General Relativity perspective, and that this definition can vary depending on the inertial frame from which it is measured.
  • A participant questions the realism of asymptotically euclidean spacetimes, suggesting that they may not accurately reflect our expanding universe.
  • There is a discussion about the lack of a global energy conservation theorem in General Relativity, with some participants expressing skepticism about claims of energy conservation in this framework.
  • One participant asserts that gravitational potential energy exists and increases when two masses are separated, countering the idea that energy "went away" as space expanded.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the terminology of "asymptotically euclidean" versus "asymptotically Minkowski" or "asymptotically flat" spacetimes, with some confusion noted among participants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of gravitational energy and the total energy of the universe. There is no consensus on whether gravitational energy can be considered zero, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these concepts in different physical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the undefined nature of total energy in General Relativity, the dependence on specific spacetime conditions, and the varying interpretations of energy conservation across different theoretical frameworks.

maximus
Messages
495
Reaction score
4
is it not true that the total energy of the universe is zero? i heard somewhere that the gravitational attraction between objects is exactly canceled by the electromagnic force required to keep them apart at close ranges. this might only mean gravitational energy is zero. but gravity still is observed and has a very apparent effect so this is a sort of worthless thread.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rest mass energy mc2 of universe is equal to its negative gravitational energy.
 
The total energy of the universe is an undefined quantity, from a General Relativity point of view. Even from a Newtonian point of view, it all depends on which inertial frame you are measuring from.
 
Originally posted by pellman
The total energy of the universe is an undefined quantity, from a General Relativity point of view.

It is defined for asymptotically euclidean spacetimes.
 
any idea how relevant, if at all?

Originally posted by steinitz
It is defined for asymptotically euclidean spacetimes.

I've often heard statements like this but never heard it claimed that these special cases are at all realistic. I have heard, although haven't gone thru the proof, that one can define
a total energy in "assymptotically hyperbolic" or "assymptotically Minkowski" cases. But these seem to have no connection with reality. The expanding space time we have as given does not fit these cases, or so it seems to me.

BTW assymptotically "euclidean" does not immediately make sense to me---I would have expected you to say "assymptotically Minkowski" or "assymptotically flat spacetimes". Clarify if you wish.
 
Originally posted by pellman
The total energy of the universe is an undefined quantity, from a General Relativity point of view. Even from a Newtonian point of view, it all depends on which inertial frame you are measuring from.

Pellman! Where did you drop in from! I've been wanting some corroboration for my assertion that no global energy conservation theorem has been proved in General Relativity.

Can you confirm this? I know there are special souped up versions with "pseudo-tensors" that have some kind of energy conservation law but they are not the common GR we know and love. I just have never heard a responsible person claim that ordinary GR has global energy conservation. But people here seem determined to believe it does! Can you help? sort of summarize the situation?

At issue is, for example, where did the CMB energy go? I say it did not have to go anywhere---space expanded, the wavelengths got longer, the CMB photons lost 999/1000 of their energy, and it just went away. But it seems to outrage people to be told that :wink: .
Any words of wisdom?
 
it still is there. Called potential energy of futher separated parts of system. Move two rocks away from each other - their gravitational potential energy increases.

Enegy "wents away" only for some who does not know that gravitational field has energy and momentum too (called GR, by the way :wink:) or who just parrot somebody's wrong statements or cite shaky web sites without analysing . :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Originally posted by marcus


BTW assymptotically "euclidean" does not immediately make sense to me---I would have expected you to say "assymptotically Minkowski" or "assymptotically flat spacetimes". Clarify if you wish.


Confusingly, the term "euclidean" is sometimes used to indicate a positive definite metric while at others to indicate flatness. Here it's being used in the latter sense.

Interestingly, total energy can be defined for spacetimes satisfying the even weaker condition of being asymptotically static.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K