Could dark energy be gravitational potential energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of dark energy and its potential relationship to gravitational potential energy. Participants explore theoretical implications, mathematical formulations, and the applicability of general relativity in cosmological contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that dark energy might be interpreted as gravitational potential energy, suggesting a relationship between mass, gravitational potential, and universal expansion.
  • Another participant counters that general relativity does not allow for a conserved scalar mass-energy definition across all spacetimes, challenging the validity of the proposed gravitational potential energy in cosmology.
  • Concerns are raised about the negative sign in gravitational potential energy, which traditionally indicates attraction rather than repulsion, questioning the logic of using it to explain dark energy's effects.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that the universe's non-homogeneity at larger scales complicates the application of the standard model of cosmology, indicating that gravitational effects may not be straightforward.
  • One participant acknowledges their argument relies on Newtonian principles and the equivalence of mass and energy, while also noting the lack of a defined center in the universe.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the concept of gravitational potential energy must be carefully considered within the framework of general relativity, particularly regarding its implications for cosmological models.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on the interpretation of dark energy and gravitational potential energy, with no consensus reached on the validity of the initial proposition or the implications of gravitational potential in cosmological contexts.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on Newtonian concepts in a relativistic framework, unresolved mathematical definitions, and the challenges of applying the FRW metric at various scales.

johne1618
Messages
368
Reaction score
0
I was wondering if dark energy might actually be gravitational potential energy.

If one assumes that space is flat and that the Universe is approximately a sphere with mass M and the Hubble radius R then we find that we have the approximate relation:

\frac{G M }{R} = c^2

A mass m at the center of the sphere would have approximate gravitational potential energy

PE = - \frac{G M m}{R} = - m c^2

This potential energy would have a gravitational repulsion that might counteract the gravitational attraction due to mass m causing the Universal expansion to accelerate.

I would be interested to hear what you think of this line of thought.
 
Space news on Phys.org
No. As explained in our FAQ, general relativity doesn't have a conserved scalar mass-energy that can be defined in all spacetimes: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506985 Therefore the PE you're discussing can't be meaningfully defined in cosmology.

Also, the negative sign of the PE in Newtonian gravity represents its attractive nature. (If you flip the sign, you get a universe in which gravity is repulsive, like the electrical repulsion between like charges.) So you can't use it to explain a repulsion.

The nonrelativistic limit of GR with \Lambda=0 is Newtonian gravity, so you can't use Newtonian gravity to derive \Lambda\ne0.

johne1618 said:
A mass m at the center of the sphere
There's no center. We also have a FAQ about this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506991
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, it's not entirely far fetched. The standard model of cosmology describes the matter of the universe as a homogeneous and isotropic ideal fluid of dust particles. Now, we know that on the scales of galaxies and galaxy clusters, the universe is far from homogeneous today.

As one coarse grains the description of "dust" to larger and larger scales, effects of the gravity become more and more unclear. For the FRW metric to apply at all scales, one needs to be able to carry out this coarse graining up to scales of galaxy clusters and beyond, at which point the "particles" of ideal fluid can be themselves expanding or contracting.
 
johne1618 said:
I was wondering if dark energy might actually be gravitational potential energy.

Nope.

A mass m at the center of the sphere would have approximate gravitational potential energy

PE = - \frac{G M m}{R} = - m c^2

This potential energy would have a gravitational repulsion that might counteract the gravitational attraction due to mass m causing the Universal expansion to accelerate.

Aside from the problems with calculating total energy with GR, you run into the problem that you flipped a sign. Things with negative potential energy are *attractive*. As you move two objects closer together, the potential energy goes lower, which means that the negative sign in the potential energy causes objects to *attract*.
 
bcrowell said:
Also, the negative sign of the PE in Newtonian gravity represents its attractive nature. (If you flip the sign, you get a universe in which gravity is repulsive, like the electrical repulsion between like charges.) So you can't use it to explain a repulsion.

I am assuming that the negative PE is itself a source of gravitational repulsion on normal matter. It is as though it is a gravitational source with negative mass.

bcrowell said:
No. As explained in our FAQ, general relativity doesn't have a conserved scalar mass-energy that can be defined in all spacetimes

I admit my argument is only Newtonian with the addition of the equivalence of mass and energy.

There's no center. We also have a FAQ about this

I'm not assuming a particular center of the Universe. I'm just considering the gravitational potential at any particle due to the rest of the Universe around it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K