What is the total mass-energy of the universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The total mass-energy of the universe cannot be definitively defined due to the lack of a conserved scalar mass-energy in general relativity. Various definitions exist, such as Komar mass, ADM mass, and Bondi mass, but they apply only to specific spacetimes, which cosmological spacetimes do not possess. Estimates of the rest mass of hydrogen atoms in the observable universe approximate 10^54 kg, but this figure does not represent the total mass-energy, which remains undefined and is not conserved during cosmological expansion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity principles
  • Familiarity with concepts of mass-energy and conservation laws
  • Knowledge of tensor calculus and pseudo-tensors
  • Awareness of cosmological models and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the definitions and implications of Komar mass and ADM mass in general relativity
  • Explore the concept of pseudo-tensors and their properties in cosmological contexts
  • Study the implications of cosmological expansion on energy conservation
  • Investigate the observable universe's mass estimates and their significance
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and students of general relativity seeking to understand the complexities of mass-energy definitions in cosmological frameworks.

Messages
19,865
Reaction score
10,851
How does conservation of energy work in general relativity, and how does this apply to cosmology? What is the total mass-energy of the universe?

Conservation of energy doesn't apply to cosmology. General relativity doesn't have a conserved scalar mass-energy that can be defined in all spacetimes.[MTW] There is no standard way to define the total energy of the universe (regardless of whether the universe is spatially finite or infinite). There is not even any standard way to define the total mass-energy of the *observable* universe. There is no standard way to say whether or not mass-energy is conserved during cosmological expansion.

Note the repeated use of the word "standard" above. To amplify further on this point, there is a variety of possible ways to define mass-energy in general relativity. Some of these (Komar mass, ADM mass [Wald, p. 293], Bondi mass [Wald, p. 291]) are valid tensors, while others are things known as "pseudo-tensors" [Berman 1981]. Pseudo-tensors have various undesirable properties, such as coordinate-dependence.[Weiss] The tensorial definitions only apply to spacetimes that have certain special properties, such as asymptotic flatness or stationarity, and cosmological spacetimes don't have those properties. For certain pseudo-tensor definitions of mass-energy, the total energy of a closed universe can be calculated, and is zero.[Berman 2009] This does not mean that "the" energy of the universe is zero, especially since our universe may not be closed.

One can also estimate certain quantities such as the sum of the rest masses of all the hydrogen atoms in the observable universe, which is something like 10^54 kg. Such an estimate is not the same thing as the total mass-energy of the observable universe (which can't even be defined). It is not the mass-energy measured by any observer in any particular state of motion, and it is not conserved.

MTW: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation, 1973. See p. 457.

Berman 1981: M. Berman, unpublished M.Sc. thesis, 1981.

Berman 2009: M. Berman, Int J Theor Phys, http://www.springerlink.com/content/357757q4g88144p0/

Weiss and Baez, "Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?," http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

Wald, General Relativity, 1984The following forum members have contributed to this FAQ:
bcrowell
George Jones
jim mcnamara
marcus
PAllen
tiny-tim
vela
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Gannet, PWiz and (deleted member)
Space news on Phys.org
Thanks for sharing.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
11K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K