I Is energy conserved during the formation of local systems?

AI Thread Summary
Energy conservation at local scales, such as in planetary motion, is upheld, but deviations occur at cosmological scales during the formation of structures like galaxy clusters due to spacetime expansion. The discussion highlights the lack of an accepted definition of energy in general relativity at large scales, complicating the conservation question. Some authors incorrectly assert energy conservation violations by using flawed definitions applicable only in specific cases of general relativity. The critique emphasizes that assumptions of uniform density and peculiar velocities in certain papers lead to invalid conclusions about energy conservation. Correct modeling of isolated systems surrounded by vacuum supports the traditional conservation of energy when certain conditions are met.
Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR Summary
Is energy conserved during the formation of local systems?
I found an old article (https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.137.B1379) which talks about conservation of energy in an expanding space. Apparently, the author found that energy is conserved at local scales (like the motion of planets in our solar system) as one would expect, but he also concluded that at cosmological scales, during the formation of local systems (like galaxy clusters), there are deviations from the law of conservation of energy.

The paper also cites this one from David Layzer (https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1963ApJ...138..174L) which apparently reached a similar conclusion (see section IV).

My questions are: Is energy not conserved during the formation of such structures due to spacetime expansion? And if there are indeed deviations from the laws of conservation of energy, can energy be "created" in such situations? And if it can, in what form (thermal, electromagnetic, kinetic...)?
 
Space news on Phys.org
I think the issue is more fundamental. To discuss conservation of energy at some scale of system, you first need an accepted definition of energy. There simply is none at large scales in general GR solutions, and, in particular there is no accepted definition of energy at large scales in realistic cosmologies. This means you cannot even pose the question of conservation.

Some authors claiming explicit violation of conservation of energy (rather than the ill posed nature of the question) choose to use a definition of energy that is known to be wrong for the special cases in GR where conservation of energy is well posed. This makes no sense to me.
 
Suekdccia said:
The paper also cites this one from David Layzer (https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1963ApJ...138..174L) which apparently reached a similar conclusion (see section IV).
Section IV of this paper is using "velocity" to mean what cosmologists call "peculiar velocity", i.e., velocity relative to comoving observers. But in an expanding universe, comoving observers are not at rest relative to each other, so this "velocity" is not the same as "velocity relative to the center of mass frame of a particular isolated system"; yet the paper's conclusion that you describe rests on the (invalid) assumption that it is.

Also, the equations in Section IV of the paper assume a universe that is filled with matter of a uniform density everywhere (which is the standard assumption used to derive the Friedmann equations). But of course that is not actually the case; and when trying to model the development of an isolated system separated by vacuum from other isolated systems, obviously that assumption cannot be taken to be valid and you cannot use equations derived from it. Yet that is what this paper does.

Using correct equations for an isolated system surrounded by vacuum avoids these issues and gives the result that the usual conservation of energy applies just fine. The only underlying assumption that needs to be made in this case is that, to a good enough approximation, the matter in the rest of the universe, outside the isolated system, is distributed around the isolated system in a spherically symmetric fashion. If that is the case, then the shell theorem says that the spacetime geometry around the isolated system is unaffected by the matter in the rest of the universe, which again leads to the conclusion that the usual conservation of energy applies to the isolated system.
 
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##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Back
Top