Accelerating universe = conservation of energy?

Denton
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
I'm sorry if this sounds as a very simplistic view but my main underlying belief that the universe is not accelerating and will not expand to infinity but indeed collapse on itself eventually arises from the fact that the kinetic energy of the expansion will be met by the gravitational attraction.

The universe is the universe, there is nothing else outside it therefore its a closed system with a limited amount of energy, no new energy is coming in. So if a universe such as this continues to expand indefinitely, KE + U != 0.

Does general relativity have anything to explain about this, or do astronomers blatantly ignore one of the most fundamental laws?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are wrong in your reasoning.
Irrespective of it size the total energy of the universe is always 0, this is because negative gravitational potential energy balances the energy of matter.
 
well classick physics say the energy of the universe is balanced...
cause when energy turns of a form to another it will stay
energy (potential or kinetic or...)
so...we cansay KE+U= constant
btw the universe is limited but with no boundaries (by GR)
 
Am I wrong in saying dark matter holds the answer to that one? I remember Stephen Hawking saying that should the universe be made up of simply the matter we see around us, it will likely expand forever. But, should the universe be made up of mostly dark matter, on top of all the matter we can see, the gravitational force will become too much and it will initiate the big crunch.
 
DemTings said:
Am I wrong in saying dark matter holds the answer to that one? I remember Stephen Hawking saying that should the universe be made up of simply the matter we see around us, it will likely expand forever. But, should the universe be made up of mostly dark matter, on top of all the matter we can see, the gravitational force will become too much and it will initiate the big crunch.

The \LambdaCDM model is something to look into. In it you will find that dark matter and luminous matter only make up about 1/4 of the required total energy needed to explain the apparent spatial flatness of the universe -- google for "angular size of microwave anisotropies". It's real science, I promise.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
986
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Back
Top