# Problem with an infinite universe

• phil ess
In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of infinite energy in an infinite universe and the implications for conservation of energy. While some argue that an infinite universe would allow for the creation and destruction of energy, others argue that energy conservation would still apply within a localized system. There is also a discussion about the possible finiteness of the universe and the implications for energy conservation. Ultimately, one participant suggests that in General Relativity, energy is not conserved due to the changing metric of an expanding universe.

#### phil ess

if the universe is infinite in size, then wouldn't it have infinite energy contained within it?

if so, wouldn't it be possible to create/destroy matter or energy without violating conservation? if + 10 = then we can create energy without having more of it?

phil ess said:
if the universe is infinite in size, then wouldn't it have infinite energy contained within it?
Yes, if it's homogeneous (as all measurements indicate). However, note that the "observable universe", which is all we really can speak of, is finite.

phil ess said:
if the universe is infinite in size, then wouldn't it have infinite energy contained within it?

if so, wouldn't it be possible to create/destroy matter or energy without violating conservation? if + 10 = then we can create energy without having more of it?

even if the universe were spatial infinite, I think an energy conservation law would be stated in terms of some localized region

you would put an imaginary box or "plastic baggie" around some system and suppose no energy passes in or out thru the baggie
and then just talking about that system you would say that energy in that system is conserved.

that statement of energy conservation would apply regardless of whether space is finite or infinite.
=================

"the total energy in the universe" is quite possibly not even a well-defined quantity, and if it is not operationally defined then the conservation law wouldn't apply.

i don't think your problem gives the conservation law any trouble. Also it does not give the possibility of infiniteness of the universe any trouble.

=================
however there are reasons to suspect that the universe is spatially finite----for example the official series of papers from WMAP that came out last year (March 2006, I think) had one called "WMAP three year data: implications for cosmology" by Spergel et al. and Ned Wright was one of the co-authors. there was stuff in Spergel et al, and also a later paper of Ned Wright, that suggested one should take seriously the possibility of a spatial closed universe. It might be infinite flat, but it also might be "nearly flat" but with some average positive curvature, and of large but finite extent.

Last edited:
didnt see that line :)

Last edited:
phil ess said:
didnt see that line :)

excuse me if this is a dumb question, what line?
this thread has gone so rapidly I may have missed something

Oh, I bet you mean that funny line by Bush

i was referring to the two paragraphs you added shortly after your initial response (the ones below the =====)

i had a question that you answered in those sections, and i edited out the query with "didnt see that line"

i meant "those lines"

sorry for the confusion

phil ess said:
i was referring to the two paragraphs you added shortly after your initial response (the ones below the =====)

i had a question that you answered in those sections, and i edited out the query with "didnt see that line"

i meant "those lines"

sorry for the confusion

cosmology topics are exciting and sometimes I get excited and think of more to say.

but also you could still ask it! even if I respond one way other people with different viewpoints might like a shot.
in a forum like this, the more question the more energy.
you seem to be new. welcome to PF cosmology sector!

well i was going to ask, would you take conservation of energy to mean that "matter cannot be created or destroyed", or that the "total energy of the system will stay the same".

if you take the latter, then i guess in an infinite energy universe you can create/destroy energy. not so in the former. I am just thinking out loud here

yeah I am new, thanks :)

phil ess said:
well i was going to ask, would you take conservation of energy to mean that "matter cannot be created or destroyed", or that the "total energy of the system will stay the same".

personally I take it as the latter (total energy of the system conserved)
if you take the latter, then i guess in an infinite energy universe you can create/destroy energy...

You know, personally I don't know about that. I wish some other people of this forum would respond so it isn't just me.
I would ask WHERE do you imagine the energy being created/destroyed?

If it is all happening inside some baggie, then the familiar local law of energy conservation would forbid it.

It wouldn't matter whether the U was finite or infinite.

I'm going to hold off pursuing this with you for a while in the hopes that we could get somebody else to put in a word.

=============

EDIT retroactive reply to next post: that is a really interesting perspective. In fact the CMB photons have lost about 999/1000 of their energy and nobody seems to know where it went to

Mother nature is not running a tight ship, it seems. something funny in the bookkeeping.

or more exactly the CMB lost 1100/1101 of its energy but why quibble.

Last edited:
Here's an interesting thought, there is no energy conservation in GR, since energy as the rest of physics uses it is a 3D quantity. Imagine an expanding universe that contains only photons. As it expands the photons redshift due to the rule

$$\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_0} = \frac{a}{a_0}$$

So the universe contains the same number of photons but each now has less energy since

$$E = h\nu$$

for photons.

So, energy has not been conserved! However, what has happened is that the metric has changed. Since the analog of Newtonian gravitational acceleration in GR depends on derivatives of the metric it is somewhat reasonable to think of the metric is a kind of potential in some sense. Therefore can think that the lost energy has 'gone into the metric' is some sense. This is by no means a rigorous argument, just waving my hands really, but the point is that energy is not conserved in GR.

A comment on the OP though, your idea that

$$\infty + 10 = \infty$$

is not quite accurate since you can't do that with infinity. Even if the universe is infinite in extent it has a finite energy density, and the evolution of that density is bound by physical laws, so just because the total energy may be infinite dosn't mean that all bets are off and anything goes!

btw there is an interesting idea that the total energy of the universe is zero since if you add up all the positive energy that exists to the negative gravitational potentials is is sometimes argued that you get zero. I don't have a reference handy for any rigorous work on this idea but I think it was studied a fair bit a few decades ago.

Last edited:
Wallace said:
A comment on the OP though, your idea that

$$\infty + 10 = \infty$$

is not quite accurate since you can't do that with infinity. Even if the universe is infinite in extent it has a finite energy density, and the evolution of that density is bound by physical laws, so just because the total energy may be infinite dosn't mean that all bets are off and anything goes!

Thanks for that energy density tidbit i overlooked, i guess i got too excited at my crafty formula.

When you say that the "evolution of that density is bound", do you mean it is a constant? or that the "evolution" is constrained in that it only manifests under specific conditions?

Neither really, the energy density most certainly evolves and depends on the equation of state $$w = \frac{P}{\rho}$$ of the energy component.

Specifically the energy density goes as

$$\rho(a) = \rho_0 a^{-3(1+w)}$$

where a is the scale factor of the Universe.

so for matter (w=0) we have $$\rho(a) = \rho_0 a^{-3}$$

for radiation (w=1/3) we have $$\rho(a) = \rho_0 a^{-4}$$

and for a cosmological constant w=-1 so you just get $$\rho = \rho$$

From these is should become clear why the very early universe we radiation dominated, then there was a matter domination phase followed by the current phase dominated by something with $$w \sim -1$$.

## 1. What is the concept of an infinite universe?

An infinite universe is the idea that the universe has no boundaries or limits, and is therefore limitless in size and scope. This concept challenges our understanding of space and time, as it suggests that the universe has always existed and will continue to exist forever.

## 2. What are the implications of an infinite universe?

The concept of an infinite universe has significant implications for our understanding of the universe and its origins. It raises questions about the beginning and end of the universe, the possibility of multiple universes, and the nature of reality.

## 3. How do scientists study the idea of an infinite universe?

Scientists use various methods and theories, such as cosmology and theoretical physics, to study the concept of an infinite universe. They also use observations of the universe, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, to gather evidence and support for this idea.

## 4. Can we prove or disprove the existence of an infinite universe?

At this time, it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of an infinite universe. The concept is still a matter of speculation and theory, and there is currently no scientific evidence that definitively supports or refutes it.

## 5. What are some of the potential problems with an infinite universe?

One of the main problems with an infinite universe is the concept of the "heat death" or "big freeze." This theory suggests that, due to the infinite expansion of the universe, all matter and energy will eventually become evenly distributed, resulting in a state of maximum entropy and a complete lack of any potential for change or life. Another potential problem is the difficulty in comprehending and understanding the vastness and complexity of an infinite universe.

Replies
42
Views
9K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
8K
Replies
55
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
8K