Is energy really not conserved in a constantly expanding Universe?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conservation of energy in the context of a constantly expanding universe. Participants explore the definitions of "energy" and "conserved," and reference existing literature on the topic.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the conservation of energy is dependent on the definitions of "energy" and "conserved."
  • References to Sean Carroll's blog post and a Usenet Physics FAQ article are made as resources for understanding the complexities of energy conservation in an expanding universe.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the conclusions drawn by Sean Carroll, indicating a willingness to question established views.
  • There is a suggestion that prior knowledge of the referenced materials should have been mentioned in the original post for clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the conservation of energy in an expanding universe, with multiple views and uncertainties remaining regarding the definitions and implications of energy conservation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity in the definitions of "energy" and "conserved," as well as the unresolved nature of the discussion regarding the implications of an expanding universe on energy conservation.

Question69
Messages
43
Reaction score
7
TL;DR
Is energy conserved in GR?
Is energy really not conserved in a constantly expanding universe?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PeterDonis said:
The short answer is, it depends on what you mean by "energy" and what you mean by "conserved". :wink: Sean Carroll's blog post on the topic is a good place to start:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
Oh I've read that already, it was when I first found about it really, I just thought I'd ask you guys because maybe Sean is wrong :)
 
Question69 said:
I just thought I'd ask you guys because maybe Sean is wrong :)
Um, no.
 
Question69 said:
I've read that already, it was when I first found about it really
That would have been a good thing to mention in the OP of this thread.

Do you have any further questions on the topic?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Question69
PeterDonis said:
That would have been a good thing to mention in the OP of this thread.

Do you have any further questions on the topic?
I should have, yes, and no.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
Question69 said:
I should have, yes, and no.
I'll take that as "no further questions". Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
863
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K