The Energy of mass and Gravitational Potantial Energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the total energy of the universe, specifically examining the relationship between mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²) and gravitational potential energy. Participants explore theoretical implications and calculations related to these ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the total energy of the universe is zero due to the balance of matter energy and gravitational potential energy, proposing a specific calculation involving two particles.
  • Another participant challenges the assertion that the total energy of the universe is zero, noting that this is not a universally accepted view among physicists and highlighting ambiguities in the definition of energy in general relativity.
  • A third participant claims that the idea of a zero total energy universe is widely referenced, suggesting that it is a common belief.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the claim of zero total energy is not an accepted fact and urges adherence to mainstream scientific views, cautioning against presenting hypotheses as established facts.
  • One participant provides a formal analysis, suggesting that if the universe's total energy were zero, it would imply a dynamically unstable state, and notes the relativistic invariance of one side of the proposed equation.
  • A later reply points out two mistaken assumptions in the initial post: the acceptance of zero total energy as a fact and the validity of an equation that mixes relativistic invariant and non-invariant terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express significant disagreement regarding the assertion that the total energy of the universe is zero, with some challenging this notion and others defending it. The discussion remains unresolved with competing views presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the assumptions made, particularly regarding the definitions of energy and the implications of mixing relativistic and non-relativistic concepts in equations.

Quarlep
Messages
257
Reaction score
4
I know the total energy of universe is zero cause of matter energy (E=mc2) and gravitational potantial energy.
But If I try to calculate it gets crazy things:
Lets think universe made up only two particles and their mass call m and equal than

2mc2=m2G/r
2c2=mG/r
r=mG/2c2
so there must be a certain distance between these objects to make zero energy universe. Am I wrong
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
Quarlep said:
I know the total energy of universe is zero cause of matter energy (E=mc2) and gravitational potantial energy.

Where did you hear this? It is certainly not something that is seen as universally true among physicists. In particular as the definition of energy (and potential energy in particular) is not all that clear in general relativity.
 
Everywhere If you search total energy of universe is zero you can look at it.
 
This is definitely not an accepted fact in physics, please stick to mainstream science and do not quote hypotheses as facts.
 
This is a formal approach to the problem. By its order of magnitude this radius is close to the gravitational radius of the mass (m). If the total energy of the Universe is zero, this Universe is in dynamically unstable state. The accelerated Universe, as we know today, can't have zero total energy. Also pay attention that the right side of your equation is relativistically invariant while the right side is not.
 
This thread started with two mistaken assumptions: First, that it might be an accepted fact that the total energy of the universe is zero; and second, that an equation in which one side is a relativistic invariant and the other is not could possibly make sense.

As both of these misconceptions have been pointed out, we can close the thread now.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Understanding the concept of energy
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
High School Would isolating the Solar System prevent its heat death?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Simple thought experiment with Stefan-Boltzmann law: energy
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Undergrad The answer for the total mass of the Universe?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Undergrad Conservation of Energy in GR: A-B System Analysis
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Potential energy of a system of particles
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
733
High School Is Comparing Binding Energy and Mass to Kinetic and Potential Energy Valid?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Strange feature of BE, FD and Boltzmann distributions
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Zero-Point Energy and Gravitational Influence
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Undergrad More extended equilibrium configurations due to dark energy?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K