Matter Gaining Energy from Expanding Spacetime?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of energy exchange between matter and spacetime in the context of general relativity, particularly focusing on whether matter can gain energy from the expansion of spacetime. Participants explore theoretical implications, examples, and the complexities of defining energy in gravitational fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference Sean Carroll's assertion that spacetime can give or absorb energy from matter, questioning if there are examples of matter gaining energy as spacetime expands.
  • One participant suggests that Carroll does not specifically mention expansion, noting that in a closed universe, a collapsing phase leads to a blueshift, which contrasts with the redshift observed in an expanding universe.
  • Another participant mentions the gravitational field's energy exchange with matter, although they find this less sensational than the idea of spacetime expansion.
  • There is a discussion about the difficulty of defining the energy of the gravitational field in general relativity, with references to Hamiltonians and the argument that the total energy of the universe may be zero.
  • One participant asserts that, according to the heuristic viewpoint presented by Carroll, matter and radiation would lose energy to gravity in an expanding universe, while gaining energy in a collapsing universe.
  • A participant cites the cosmic microwave background radiation as an example, explaining its redshift due to the expansion of the universe and its thermal history, while maintaining that it represents a Planck radiation spectrum despite the expansion.
  • Another participant reiterates the lack of a generally covariant energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field in GR, discussing the concept of pseudo-tensors and their interpretation in special coordinates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether matter can gain energy from spacetime expansion, with some asserting that it cannot, while others explore the complexities of energy definitions in gravitational contexts. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining energy in general relativity, particularly regarding the gravitational field and the use of pseudo-tensors, which complicate the interpretation of energy exchange.

Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
Matter gaining energy from expanding spacetime?
Sean Carroll has an article (https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/) where he explains that matter can gain energy from spacetime expansion.

At the end of the article, he says: In general relativity spacetime can give energy to matter, or absorb it from matter, so that the total energy simply isn’t conserved.

So, there are natural processes where there is a loss of energy like photons being redshifted from spacetime expansion…

But what about gaining energy? Is there any example of matter or radiation gaining more and more energy as spacetime expands as Carroll seems to suggest?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think he actually specifies expansion. The obvious case is in a closed universe that collapses again, where the redshift becomes a blueshift in the collapse phase.
 
Of course you can also say that the gravitational field exchanges energy with matter although this sounds less sensational ;-)).
 
Well, I think Carroll's point is that it isn't easy to say what "the energy of the gravitational field" is in order to be able to say whether it's exchanging energy with anything or not. I gather you can come up with Hamiltonians that look like an energy of the gravitational field, which is where the "total energy of the universe is zero" argument comes from, but Carroll does not seem convinced. I don't understand enough to have an opinion of my own on the topic.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
That's of course true. There is no generally covariant energy-momentum tensor that obeys a local conservation law for the gravitational field in GR.

The best you can come up with, afaik, are socalled "pseudo-tensors" a la Landau and Lifhitz, which however is also difficult to properly interpret.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale and Ibix
Suekdccia said:
Is there any example of matter or radiation gaining more and more energy as spacetime expands as Carroll seems to suggest?
No. As @Ibix has pointed out, using the heuristic viewpoint that Carroll gives, one would expect matter and radiation to lose energy to "gravity" in an expanding universe, and matter and radiation to gain energy from "gravity" in a collapsing universe.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
The most simple example is the cosmic microwave background radiation. Today we observe it as a almost perfect Planck radiation at the temperature of about 2.725 K. Its origin is the radiation which was in thermal equilibrium with the charged medium in the early universe until around 380000 years after the big bang, when neutral atoms formed and the radiation decoupled, when the matter was at the Mott transition temperature of about 3000K. Since then the em. waves were free in the expanding universe and due to the expansion the wave-lengths stretched by the red-shift factor ##(1+z) \simeq 1000##. The same scaling holds for the corresponding temperature, because the em. field is a massless field and thus the original Planck radiation spectrum always stays a Planck radiation spectrum with the correspondingly down-scaled temperature.
 
vanhees71 said:
That's of course true. There is no generally covariant energy-momentum tensor that obeys a local conservation law for the gravitational field in GR.

The best you can come up with, afaik, are socalled "pseudo-tensors" a la Landau and Lifhitz, which however is also difficult to properly interpret.
It has been proposed by Nakanishi that these pseudo-tensors have reasonable interpretation in special coordinates: harmonic coordinates (which they call de Donder).

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1006.9839&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[note: I disagree with a number of opinions in this article, but find the results on energy/momentum pseudo-tensor having plausible interpretation in special coordinates quite interesting and reasonable].
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K