1
$\begingroup$

Dark Energy is basically doing work against gravity to accelerate the expansion of universe. So, for time-translational symmetry to be hold, dark energy must be converted to gravitational potential energy. I don't think, it can violate critical mass condition required for Cosmic Inflation because gravitational potential energy also have effective mass (stress-energy tensor).

But, here's a fact about Dark Energy: Its Cosmological Constant model refers to a constant energy density filling space homogenously. While its Quintessence model exists, Cosmological Model remains unchallenged.

Where's the catch? Is dark energy converted to gravitational potential energy? Or, my reasoning has a loophole?

$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure if your quote "time-translational symmetry" holds in the framework of general relativity. $\endgroup$
    – elcojon
    Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ It may be a little early to identify dark energy with a Einsteinian cosmological constant: while that identification is often used as the least hypothesis it is also what the next generation deep field telescopes are being designed to investigate. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ 1) It does not hold in general, in general relativity. Most realisitic cosmological models, in fact, have a "Preferred cosmological time" 2) A cosmological constant does not violate time translation symmetry. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ @SachinShekhar: That was also my first intention. But I could not find the comment button. So I rather preferred to write in the 'wrong' box, then leave this comment only to myself. $\endgroup$
    – elcojon
    Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Jerry For it to be hold, you need to check it in small volume of space and time only. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 19:11

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

There are a bunch of misconceptions in your question:

  1. General relativity is a field theory, first and foremost. While we can certainly talk about energies and such in this contect, it is not the most natural language for the theory, which is phrased in terms of the fields themselves--where is the potential energy in an electromagnetic field distribution? Where is the kinetic energy? They're tied together a lot. The natural thing in these theories is the fields and their field equations. In this context, dark energy, expressed as a cosmological constant, is one of the simplest possible formulations

  2. In general relativity in particular, the notion of global conservation of energy is a very tricky one. This is because there is no natural time coordinate to use to find the congugate energy. There is a special subclass of solutions, those of asymptotically flat spacetime, where there IS a notion of global conservation of energy. Simple examples of these solutions would be those describing isolated black holes. Unfortunately, most cosmological models are NOT asymptotically flat. So talking about the conservation of the TOTAL energy of the spacetime is meaningless.

  3. Dark energy, in a simple energy analogy, would probably be better thought of as adding more negative potential energy--it certainly is the case that, as the universe expands, we're getting more dark energy, not less. So, thinking of this in terms of dark energy getting converted to KE is an incorrect way of viewing the model.

  4. People believe the model because it is the simplest model that fits the data. There are simple extensions that add complexity that would satisify some of your concerns. It is also still possible, though increasingly less probable, that we live in the universe described by one of the void models.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If we are getting more dark energy as universe expands, there'd be no point of return. But, cosmic inflation says that there's 50% probability that universe would contract (mirror reverse of current expansion). Without increased gravitational potential, this isn't possible too (big space to collapse). $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 19:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SachinShekhar: that's not at all what cosmic inflation says. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 19:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're just advocating Big Rip theory. My "Big Crunch" theory has more reputation.. :) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 19:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SachinShekhar: I'm doing neither. I'm explaining ordinary $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 19:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @SachinShekhar: no, the dark energy DENSITY is kept constant, not the total amount of dark energy. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2013 at 19:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.