Does Hubble's Expansion voilate conservation of energy by redshifting EM waves?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Hubble's expansion on the conservation of energy, particularly in relation to the redshift of electromagnetic waves as the universe expands. Participants explore theoretical aspects of energy in the context of General Relativity and the behavior of photons over vast distances.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that as the universe expands, the wavelength of radiation increases, leading to a decrease in frequency and thus a loss of energy, based on the equation E=hf.
  • Another participant argues that the redshift and the velocities of galaxies are due to the expansion of space itself, not the galaxies moving through space, questioning the applicability of the speed limit of light to space expansion.
  • A different participant emphasizes that their concern is specifically about the energy of waves, noting that a photon created at a frequency of 100 Hz would lose energy if its frequency drops to 10 Hz due to expansion.
  • One participant states that conservation of energy does not apply in General Relativity, indicating that energy is not a well-defined quantity in this framework.
  • Another participant reiterates the point about energy conservation in General Relativity, suggesting that it depends on the definitions of "energy" and "conserved."
  • A participant shares a link to a resource discussing energy conservation in General Relativity, noting that in special cases energy may be conserved, but generally it is more complex.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the explanation involving pseudo-tensors and gravitational energy, indicating a desire for a more coherent answer regarding energy conservation in the context of General Relativity.
  • A participant references a related archived topic and a paper proposing a static universe, expressing skepticism about its credibility due to its unorthodox stance in modern cosmology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of Hubble's expansion for energy conservation. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the nature of energy in General Relativity and the interpretation of redshift.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in understanding energy conservation in General Relativity, with some expressing uncertainty about definitions and the applicability of concepts like pseudo-tensors.

SubTachyon
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I am assuming the answer to my question is no, but what am I missing?
My reasoning is very basic: E=hf, therefore as the universe expands the wavelength of all the far traveling radiation is increased and due to constant velocity c their frequency must decrease which translates into them losing energy.
I would appreciate if somebody could shed some light on this for me, please.
(bad puns are bad... :P)
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Similary, some galaxies are now receding apart @ velocities > c (in stark contadiction to Einstein's posit).

To answer your question;- both red-shift and corresponding velocitiy are due to spatial expansion ... it's not that the galaxies are shifting, merely the space inbetween is.

There's no law regarding the speed limit of space itself, is there?
 
I don't believe you read my question properly. It has nothing to do with velocity; I'm concerned with the energy of the waves.

If a photon is created with the frequency of 100 Hz and after traveling between two distant galaxies due to the expansion of the universe it's frequency drops to 10 Hz it should have lost 90% of it's energy.
 
The easy answer is that conservation of energy does NOT apply in General Relativity. Energy is not a well defined quantity in GR either. (Or so I've been told)
 
salvestrom said:

Ah, a nice read. I love the opening lines.
Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

In special cases, yes. In general — it depends on what you mean by "energy", and what you mean by "conserved".

Pretty much what I've been told.
 
Thank you, that was a useful link.

''Those who harbor no qualms about pseudo-tensors will say that radiant energy becomes gravitational energy.''
That's what I thought about as well, though I am not entirely satisfied with it as an answer and I guess that until I cover GR in more depth I probably won't be satisfied anyway.
Although it would seem that even the people who concern themselves with GR still struggle to come up with a coherent and verifiable answer to this problem.

Edit: I found similar topic in the archive - https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-156255.htmlEDIT2: I found this paper online on this same exact topic: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2331.pdf
Could anyone comment on it's credibility? The author is implying a static universe which I know to be a very unorthodox idea in today's cosmology so I holding to my skepticism for now but if someone with more experience in scientific process and literature could comment on this I would greatly appreciate it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K