Accelerating universe = conservation of energy?

Denton
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
I'm sorry if this sounds as a very simplistic view but my main underlying belief that the universe is not accelerating and will not expand to infinity but indeed collapse on itself eventually arises from the fact that the kinetic energy of the expansion will be met by the gravitational attraction.

The universe is the universe, there is nothing else outside it therefore its a closed system with a limited amount of energy, no new energy is coming in. So if a universe such as this continues to expand indefinitely, KE + U != 0.

Does general relativity have anything to explain about this, or do astronomers blatantly ignore one of the most fundamental laws?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are wrong in your reasoning.
Irrespective of it size the total energy of the universe is always 0, this is because negative gravitational potential energy balances the energy of matter.
 
well classick physics say the energy of the universe is balanced...
cause when energy turns of a form to another it will stay
energy (potential or kinetic or...)
so...we cansay KE+U= constant
btw the universe is limited but with no boundaries (by GR)
 
Am I wrong in saying dark matter holds the answer to that one? I remember Stephen Hawking saying that should the universe be made up of simply the matter we see around us, it will likely expand forever. But, should the universe be made up of mostly dark matter, on top of all the matter we can see, the gravitational force will become too much and it will initiate the big crunch.
 
DemTings said:
Am I wrong in saying dark matter holds the answer to that one? I remember Stephen Hawking saying that should the universe be made up of simply the matter we see around us, it will likely expand forever. But, should the universe be made up of mostly dark matter, on top of all the matter we can see, the gravitational force will become too much and it will initiate the big crunch.

The \LambdaCDM model is something to look into. In it you will find that dark matter and luminous matter only make up about 1/4 of the required total energy needed to explain the apparent spatial flatness of the universe -- google for "angular size of microwave anisotropies". It's real science, I promise.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...

Similar threads

Back
Top