Is the inernal energy of the universe decreasing?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of energy in the expanding universe, questioning whether the internal energy (U) is decreasing as work (W) increases while total energy (Q) remains constant. It highlights that the total energy of the universe is not well-defined, as it depends on coordinate choices and is not necessarily conserved. An integral called PQ, defined as energy density multiplied by volume, is introduced but noted to not represent the universe's true energy. In standard isotropic cosmologies, PQ is conserved in "dust" universes but not in those with pressure, which applies to our current matter-dominated universe. The conversation references MTW for further insights, emphasizing that PQ should not be mistaken for the universe's energy.
alias25
Messages
197
Reaction score
0
cause the universe is expanding so it s doing work is increasing and the total Q energy in the universe is constant so Q(constant) = U + W(increasing)
so U is decreasing?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The total energy of the universe isn't really well defined.

One can define an intergal of energy density * volume

PQ= (energy density) * (volume-in-cosmological-coordinates).

However, this intergal, which I call PQ for no particularly good reason except to give it a name, is not really the "energy" of the universe. It is not the energy because it depends on one's choice of coordinates, and because it's not necessarily conserved. But it's an interesting quantity, nonetheless.

For standard isotropic cosmologies (FRW cosmologies), PQ is conserved exactly in "dust" universes, and is not exactly conserved in any universe where there is pressure. Our universe is matter dominated at the current time, so the pressure is very low, but it is non-zero, thus PQ is not exactly conserved in our universe, but is approximately conserved. (This assumes that one belives our universe is modeled by a FRW cosmology).

Note that in the past, the universe was radiation dominated rather than matter dominated, making the pressure high, and that in this era of the universe PQ was not even approximately conserved.

This is discussed a bit in MTW, where the above quantity is calculated in more detail, and it is stressed that this quantity should *NOT* be considered to be the "energy of the universe" (even thought it is tempting to do so).
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top