I Energy conservation in an expanding universe

AI Thread Summary
Energy conservation in an expanding universe remains a debated topic, with some arguing that total energy is conserved even during rapid inflation. However, this perspective relies on the concept of a pseudotensor, which is coordinate-dependent and lacks physical invariance. Most physicists in General Relativity emphasize that meaningful physics should be based on invariant quantities rather than coordinate-dependent ones. An alternative viewpoint suggests that the total energy of the universe could be zero, as indicated by the Hamiltonian constraint in General Relativity, which does not differentiate between positive and negative energy. Overall, the discussion highlights the complexities and differing interpretations of energy conservation in cosmological contexts.
elcaro
Messages
129
Reaction score
30
TL;DR Summary
In an universe with positive and constant energy density the total amount of energy seems not to be conserved. However, if one also considers the negative energy contained in the gravitaional potential, which can become arbitrarily negative, then total energy in the universe IS conserved.
The total amount of energy is still a conserved quantity, even in an expanding universe based on a positive and constant energy density, and even under the rapid exponential expansion during inflation, total amount of energy is conserved. For how this works, see this lecture by Alan Guth, the father of inflationary cosmology.
 
Space news on Phys.org
elcaro said:
The total amount of energy is still a conserved quantity
Only if you define "the total amount of energy" to be a pseudotensor. But a pseudotensor is not an invariant; it depends on a particular choice of coordinates. The viewpoint of most physicists working in General Relativity is that all of the physics is contained in invariants, and coordinate-dependent quantities have no physical meaning.

For a different viewpoint than Guth's, see, for example, this article by Sean Carroll (which you will find referenced fairly frequently here on PF when this subject comes up):

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
 
elcaro said:
The total amount of energy is still a conserved quantity
Note, btw, that there is another possible interpretation of this statement besides the pseudotensor one, which might be being implicitly used (at least in part) in Slide 6 of the lecture slides corresponding to the video you gave:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics...all-2013/lecture-slides/MIT8_286F13_lec01.pdf

At the bottom of this slide, it says: "The TOTAL ENERGY of the universe may very well be zero." There is a quantity called the "Hamiltonian constraint" (IIRC) in GR, which is in fact identically zero for any spacetime that is a solution of the Einstein Field Equation. If we interpret this Hamiltonian as "the total energy" of the solution, then this means the total energy is zero.

However, in this formulation, there is no split in this "total energy" between "positive energy of material" and "negative potential energy in the gravitational field"; the total energy is just zero. To get the split described in the lecture between the "positive" and "negative" parts of the total energy, you need to pick a pseudotensor, which has the problem I described in my last post.
 
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?
Back
Top