- #1
physicsquantum
- 1
- 0
I was reading through some main stream scientific literature, and I came across Sean Caroll's "Energy Is Not Conserved" post. Essentially, he contends that through general relativity energy is not conserved, at least not in conventional manner of thinking about energy.
Anyways, some portions of the post confused me. He says that "energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on."
However later on in the post he also states that "energy isn’t conserved; it changes because spacetime does."
I'm hoping that someone could possibly read through this if they're interested and clear it up for me: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/comment-page-2/#comments
Furthermore, if second claim is correct, would this not only disprove the conservation of energy but also the conservation of mass due to mass-energy equivalence?
Appreciate all responses and look forward to receiving clarification on the post
Anyways, some portions of the post confused me. He says that "energy is conserved in general relativity, it’s just that you have to include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation and so on."
However later on in the post he also states that "energy isn’t conserved; it changes because spacetime does."
I'm hoping that someone could possibly read through this if they're interested and clear it up for me: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/comment-page-2/#comments
Furthermore, if second claim is correct, would this not only disprove the conservation of energy but also the conservation of mass due to mass-energy equivalence?
Appreciate all responses and look forward to receiving clarification on the post
Last edited: