Energy from quantum systems in an expanding universe?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a paper that claims quantum systems emit energy due to spacetime expansion, which has not been peer-reviewed. Key criticisms include the paper's reliance on "metric expansion" as described in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models, which do not accurately represent the universe's homogeneity and isotropy. The paper's assumptions are deemed incorrect, particularly regarding the physical interpretation of "contraction" in bound systems. Overall, the arguments presented in the paper lack sufficient grounding in established physical evidence, leading to the conclusion that the paper is unlikely to be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models in cosmology
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics and energy quantization
  • Knowledge of spacetime expansion and its implications in astrophysics
  • Ability to critically evaluate scientific papers and assumptions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models on cosmological observations
  • Study quantum mechanics principles related to energy emission and radiation
  • Examine peer-reviewed literature on spacetime expansion and its effects on quantum systems
  • Learn about the process of scientific peer review and criteria for publication
USEFUL FOR

Astrophysicists, cosmologists, and researchers interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and cosmological theories, particularly those evaluating the validity of theoretical papers in the field.

Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
Does the expansion of spacetime affect the conservation of energy at a quantum level?
I found a paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411299.pdf) which talks about quantum systems emitting energy due to spacetime expansion. Is this true or only a hypothesis?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suekdccia said:
I found a paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411299.pdf) which talks about quantum systems emitting energy due to spacetime expansion. Is this true or only a hypothesis?
This paper doesn't look like it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (If you can find a reference that it has, please post it.)

Assumption A at the bottom of p. 2 is obviously false for our actual universe, since what the paper calls "metric expansion" is a feature of the FRW models which are homogeneous and isotropic, and our universe is very, very far from being homogeneous and isotropic on any length scales smaller than tens to hundreds of millions of light years. The paper's claim on p. 3 that assumption A is "not contradicted by available physical evidence" is simply wrong.

The above by itself, I suspect, would be sufficient for a peer-reviewed journal to reject this paper, since it does not claim to be simply an investigation of a mathematical hypothesis but rather an investigation of something which could be true of our actual universe.

Assumptions B and C on p. 3 of the paper could be taken as correct with an appropriate interpretation of the words they use; but unfortunately that is not the interpretation that the paper gives them. The "contraction" of bound systems in comoving coordinates is not a physical effect, it's a coordinate effect. And bound systems, such as galaxy clusters, galaxies, stars, and planets, while they technically can only radiate energy in finite sized quanta (since that is the case for any system), radiate amounts of energy in the course of formation that are so many orders of magnitude larger than the size of the energy quanta they radiate that the continuous approximation, i.e., the classical approximation, is more than good enough and there is no need to consider any quantum specific properties of radiation in order to analyze their behavior.

So the whole basis of the paper's argument appears to me to be wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, topsquark and phinds

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K