2

Let's assume that we prove that dark matter exists (after all, only about 4 percent of the entire universal mass is atoms, and 22% dark matter, 74% dark energy (I think I got the numbers right)).

However, if that is the case, than everything would technically pull on everything, right? But if the universe is continuously expanding, but mass cannot be created or destroyed, unless it is from or to energy, than everything pulls on each other, but as time passes it would be weaker and weaker.

  1. So my question is, can it ever reach a time when gravitation reaches zero?

  2. Or if mass can be created from the expansion of the universe, than does that mean since it is expanding that there is no change in gravitation?

  3. Also, how is the Hubble Constant calculated?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
phi2k
  • 267
  • 1
  • the ratios you presented are for the universe's total energy content, not mass. 2) Objects within the same galactic cluster are gravitationally bound such that they do not expand away from each other. 3) The law of conservation of energy is only valid locally. Energy is not conserved on the scale of the universe. 4) Gravitation never changes, only the force experienced on one body from another can change.
  • – Jim Jul 08 '15 at 16:24
  • 1
    @JimsBond: Whether energy is or is not conserved on the scale of the universe is unknown and if you look at different theories for vacuum self-energy then you can find a source for the energy that seems to drive the expansion. What the long distance/long time strength of gravity is, is also not known (and can not be known within the limitations of human historical time scales). Be careful not to sell unsettled theory for knowledge. – CuriousOne Jul 08 '15 at 19:13
  • 1
    @CuriousOne We've been over this. An FRW expanding spacetime in general relativity does not have a time shift symmetry, which means that there is no global conservation of energy law. If the total amount of energy happens to stay the same, there is nothing wrong with that, however that does not make energy a conserved quantity. The stress-energy-momentum tensor is always conserved, but the most general statement is that energy does not need to be conserved globally.... – Jim Jul 09 '15 at 12:22
  • 1
    We may discover a mechanism that requires global energy to be conserved, but currently no such mechanism is known and so we have no reason to believe energy is conserved. And as for gravity, our best evidence leads us to believe it is constant. If that changes, I will change what I say. Just as I need to be careful not to sell unsettled theories as fact, you must be careful not to undersell widely accepted theories or overinflate the importance of fringe theories. Pop-sci is full of misunderstandings because people too often over-hype the importance of non-mainstream theories or ideas. – Jim Jul 09 '15 at 12:28
  • 1
    @JimsBond: Yes, we have been over this and you are still assuming that general relativity is the 100% correct theory (even though you seem to be aware that that's a logical mistake), for which there is very little confirmation as of this moment, since, as you admit, nobody has managed to marry it to quantum mechanics. I, on the other hand, am agnostic about this question and I am happy to admit that I don't know things that have not been measured, yet. Experimental physics seems to have an easier time to admit what it doesn't know than theory. – CuriousOne Jul 09 '15 at 15:43
  • @CuriousOne The incompleteness of GR is not relevant here. I know it needs to be married to QFT. But we are not discussing QG scales. And even if we were, there is not yet any reason to believe that energy is a globally conserved quantity. QG may end up saying it is, but we don't know that yet. So it is more general to assume it isn't conserved. That means I am justified in correcting the statement that energy must be conserved in the universe because no, nothing says it has to be. As for gravity, GR would be a special case of QG. It is verified on scales relevant to this question. – Jim Jul 09 '15 at 15:50
  • The title as written was pretty vague and did not indicate to the reader what the question is actually about. There's a meta post about this which I recommend reading. Anyway, I edited it. Also note that what you're asking doesn't really have anything in particular to do with dark matter. – DanielSank Jul 09 '15 at 15:53
  • @JimsBond: What we are discussing are system boundaries and the scale doesn't matter. Indeed, the most important system boundary for a thermodynamic system is the smallest scale. Let's have a working and tested quantum field theory for spacetime and we talk. – CuriousOne Jul 09 '15 at 17:46