B Is the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe Wasting Energy?

mister i
Messages
19
Reaction score
7
This is my first (non-professional) post: It seems accepted that space is "created" (otherwise the expansion of the universe would exceed the speed of light). We are talking about "creation" (!!). The question would be: does current physics tell us if this represents a waste of energy for the universe? (which would be different from the energy of the vacuum, which is the energy that exists within space, but not its creation, for me they are different things)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mister i said:
It seems accepted that space is "created"
I don't think that's accurate.
mister i said:
otherwise the expansion of the universe would exceed the speed of light
The expansion of space, to the extent that's really a thing, does not have a single speed. It is quantified by the Hubble constant, and comparing this to the speed of light is like asking if a kilogram is more than a meter. It doesn't make sense.
mister i said:
does current physics tell us if this represents a waste of energy for the universe?
I don't think there's a meaningful question to answer here - you can't define the total energy of the universe in a way anyone can agree on, so whether or not it is changing isn't answerable.
 
mister i said:
We are talking about "creation" (!!).
No, we're not.

mister i said:
The question would be: does current physics tell us if this represents a waste of energy for the universe?
No energy is expended for the universe to expand. The matter in the expanding universe is in free fall.
 
Ibix said:
The expansion of space, to the extent that's really a thing, does not have a single speed. It is quantified by the Hubble constant, and comparing this to the speed of light is like asking if a kilogram is more than a meter. It doesn't make sense.
here talks about acceleration and velocity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe
 
mister i said:
here talks about acceleration and velocity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe
And, as it says, the key quantities are the scale parameter ##a## and its derivatives and the Hubble constant. Individual galaxies have a velocity (although there are caveats), but this is not limited to be below ##c## and does not characterise the expansion.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top