I Deviations of conservation laws in cosmological evolution?

AI Thread Summary
In General Relativity, energy conservation is maintained locally, meaning energy cannot be created or destroyed in local processes, despite the challenges of defining global energy in an expanding universe. Observations of large-scale structures, such as galaxy clusters, show no deviations from strict conservation laws, as local energy conservation holds true. The concept of energy "not being conserved" in GR refers to the absence of a well-defined global energy in curved spacetimes, not to the possibility of perpetual motion or free energy. The effects of tidal forces from spacetime expansion are acknowledged but do not indicate violations of energy conservation. Overall, the principles of energy conservation remain intact within the framework of General Relativity.
Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR Summary
Deviations of conservation laws in the context of cosmological evolution?
If energy is "not conserved" in General Relativity (or at least, it is difficult to define it) in the context of an expanding accelerating spacetime (like it happens in our Universe), are there any observations of deviations from the strict conservation laws in the evolution and formation of large scale structures (like clusters or superclusters of galaxies for instance)?

For example, in some articles about the study of galaxies and clusters evolutions and formations, sometimes the effects of the "tidal force" from spacetime expansion is considered... Has the expansion changed the energy or momentum of these systems somehow?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Suekdccia said:
If energy is "not conserved" in General Relativity
This doesn't mean what it seems to mean.

When you think of "energy conservation", you're probably thinking of local energy conservation: roughly speaking, that energy can't be created or destroyed in any local process. That is still true in GR; its mathematical expression is that the covariant divergence of the stress-energy tensor is zero.

What "energy is not conserved" in GR actually means is that, except for certain special cases (of which our expanding universe is not one), there is no well-defined global energy that is conserved. But that doesn't mean you can make a perpetual motion machine or get free energy from nothing. All it means is that general curved spacetimes don't have a certain mathematical property that many physicists think it would be "nice" to have.

Suekdccia said:
are there any observations of deviations from the strict conservation laws in the evolution and formation of large scale structures (like clusters or superclusters of galaxies for instance)?
No. These are all local processes and, as above, local energy conservation holds in GR. For example, the energy radiated away as a bound system (say a star) forms is exactly equal to the decrease in the externally measured mass of the system.

Suekdccia said:
in some articles about the study of galaxies and clusters evolutions and formations, sometimes the effects of the "tidal force" from spacetime expansion is considered
Can you give a reference?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeroK and topsquark
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?
Back
Top