Negative energy is repulsive, but PE is negative, so?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of negative energy in the universe, particularly contrasting Newtonian gravity with Einstein's General Relativity. It clarifies that while gravitational potential energy is negative in Newtonian theory, General Relativity introduces a repulsive gravitational force from empty space, which can dominate in regions with low mass-energy density. The confusion arises from applying Newtonian concepts to Einsteinian frameworks without acknowledging the differences in gravitational behavior. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding these theoretical distinctions for a comprehensive grasp of cosmic dynamics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newtonian gravity and gravitational potential energy
  • Familiarity with General Relativity and its implications
  • Knowledge of mass-energy equivalence and its role in cosmic dynamics
  • Basic concepts of kinetic energy and its relationship with gravitational forces
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of negative energy in General Relativity
  • Study the differences between attractive and repulsive gravitational forces
  • Explore the concept of mass-energy density in cosmology
  • Learn about the dynamics of cosmic expansion and contraction
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and students of theoretical physics interested in the interplay between gravity, energy, and the universe's expansion dynamics.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,765
Reaction score
250
I am missing something basic here. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy, it is stated that "a universe in which negative energy dominates will either expand indefinitely or..." But gravitational potential energy is negative, so if I make the substitution, I would get "a universe in which gravitational energy dominates will either expand indefinitely or...", but a universe in which gravity dominates would collapse, no? The only way I see out of this is if the original excerpt means "a universe in which a negative change of energy dominates will either expand indefinitely or...", since changing negative energy would be balanced out by increasing kinetic energy (although, given that the conservation of energy does not necessarily apply for the universe as a whole, so one should better say that each local section of the universe would increase in kinetic energy). But increasing kinetic energy is not enough...after all, if (a section of) the universe is contracting, it could also be doing so at an accelerated pace (until the singularity). Please correct me. Thanks.
 
Space news on Phys.org
The use of negative values for gravitational energy is most common in the Newtonian theory of gravity. The gravitational PE of an object approaches zero from below as it is moved increasingly far away from a massive body.

The notion of negative energy for the universe as a whole comes up in the context of General Relativity - Einstein's theory of gravity rather than Newton's. Under that theory, gravity has two components: an attractive force between massive objects that pulls things closer and a repulsive force that arises from empty space that pushes things apart. Both are gravity, as they come from the same equation, and they compete with each other. When there's a lot of mass-energy close together, the attractive force wins - which is why you and I stay firmly on Earth and the Earth continues to orbit the sun. But where there's a lot of empty space, like between galactic clusters - the repulsive force wins.

The reason your word substitution seems to create a paradox is that you are taking a concept out of Newtonian theory - in which gravity is always attractive - and inserting it without modification into Einsteinian theory, in which gravity can also be repulsive.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nomadreid
Super interesting! Thanks a million, andrewkirk!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K