Accelerating universe = conservation of energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the accelerating expansion of the universe and the conservation of energy, exploring concepts from general relativity, dark matter, and the overall energy balance in the universe. Participants express differing views on whether the universe will expand indefinitely or eventually collapse.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that the universe is a closed system with a limited amount of energy, suggesting that if it expands indefinitely, kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy would not balance.
  • Another participant counters that the total energy of the universe is always zero, as negative gravitational potential energy balances the energy of matter.
  • A third participant references classical physics, stating that energy remains constant when it transforms between forms, implying that the universe's energy is balanced.
  • One participant raises the question of dark matter's role, recalling a statement by Stephen Hawking about the implications of dark matter on the universe's expansion and potential collapse.
  • A later reply reiterates the importance of dark matter, mentioning the \LambdaCDM model and its implications for understanding the universe's energy requirements and spatial flatness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of the universe's energy balance and the role of dark matter, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various models and theories, including general relativity and the \LambdaCDM model, but do not reach a consensus on the implications of these theories for energy conservation in the universe.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K