Where Does the Lost Energy Go in Cosmological Redshift?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the phenomenon of cosmological redshift and the associated loss of energy in emitted radiation, particularly photons. Participants reference key texts, including Einstein's "The Principle of Relativity" and Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's "Gravitation," to explore the implications of energy conservation in general relativity. It is established that energy conservation is not universally applicable in curved spacetime, as noted by Peebles in "Principles of Physical Cosmology." The conversation also touches on the specifics of gamma-ray emissions and their redshift measurements, emphasizing the frame-dependent nature of energy and momentum.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and its implications on energy conservation.
  • Familiarity with the concepts of emission, propagation, and absorption of radiation.
  • Knowledge of cosmological redshift and its measurement techniques.
  • Basic principles of special relativity and frame of reference dependency.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of general relativity on energy conservation laws.
  • Explore the concept of redshift in the context of gamma-ray bursts and their significance in cosmology.
  • Investigate the role of geodesic motion in curved spacetime as described in Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's work.
  • Review the relationship between frequency shifts of light and gravitational fields as discussed by Odenwald and Fienberg.
USEFUL FOR

Astrophysicists, cosmologists, and physics students interested in the complexities of energy conservation in the universe, particularly in relation to redshift phenomena and general relativity.

Bobbywhy
Gold Member
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
52
This is my first time on physics forums, and I am glad to have the chance to participate. My questions have been asked many times by others, but after lots of research, including among these threads on physics forums, especially “hurk4” on Feb 14-07 and Will Kastens, I can find no definitive answers.

Einstein wrote (The Principle of Relativity”, Dover, 1952, p.71): “…radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and the absorbing bodies.” Each photon subject to the cosmological redshift apparently conveys less energy to the absorber than it had when it was emitted.
Question. # 1. Since energy is always conserved, where has this difference in energy gone?

The following references are relevant:
Misner, Thorne, Wheeler (Gravitation, section 29.2): “A detailed analysis focuses attention on three processes: emission, propagation, and absorption. Emission and absorption occur in the proper reference frames (orthonormnal tetrads) of the emitter and receiver; they are special-relativistic phenomena. Propagation, by contrast, is a general-relativistic process: it is governed by the law of geodesic motion in curved spacetime.”

Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg (“Sky and Telescope”, February 1993, “Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered): “Steven Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler, “The frequency of light is also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light...in terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.” In fact, general relativity allows the Conservation of Energy to be suspended so that matter and energy may be created quite literally from the nothingness of curved spacetime.”

Peebles (Principles of Physical Cosmology, 1995, p. 139): “Where does the lost energy go? ... The resolution of this apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good local concept ... and can be defined more generally in the special case of an isolated system in asymptotically flat space; there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory.”

Whereas Einstein wrote (The Principle of Relativity”, Dover, 1952, p. 150): “Thus it results from our field equations of gravitation that the laws of conservation of momentum and energy are satisfied.”

Questions # 2. The object which emitted Gamma Ray Burst 080913 was measured to be at a redshift of 6.7, or at a distance of 12.8 Billion light-years. Since all e-m radiation is subject to the cosmological redshift, and the Swift satellite detector received gamma rays, how much energy did that radiation have when it was emitted? Do we need a new name for it?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
1. The key word you are missing in that Einstein quote is "apparently". Kinetic energy and momentum are frame of reference dependent (in both Einstein's and Galileo's relativity), so they can be different in one frame than another. There is no violation of COE.

2(b). Gamma rays are anything above 10^19 hz, so no, there wouldn't ever be a need for another name for a band above them.
 
Those are great quotes!
Bobbywhy said:
The following references are relevant:
Misner, Thorne, Wheeler (Gravitation, section 29.2): “A detailed analysis focuses attention on three processes: emission, propagation, and absorption. Emission and absorption occur in the proper reference frames (orthonormnal tetrads) of the emitter and receiver; they are special-relativistic phenomena. Propagation, by contrast, is a general-relativistic process: it is governed by the law of geodesic motion in curved spacetime.”

Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg (“Sky and Telescope”, February 1993, “Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered): “...Steven Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler, 'The frequency of light is also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light...in terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.' In fact, general relativity allows the Conservation of Energy to be suspended so that matter and energy may be created quite literally from the nothingness of curved spacetime.”

Peebles (Principles of Physical Cosmology, 1995, p. 139): “Where does the lost energy go? ... The resolution of this apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good local concept ... and can be defined more generally in the special case of an isolated system in asymptotically flat space; there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory.”

I put the nested quotation from Weinberg et al in italics to help distinguish the two levels. Hope I got it right. The main message, that GR allows COE to be suspended, is I think in Odenwald Fienberg's words.

BTW welcome to Physicsforums!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
8K