Inflation and expansion of spacetime

stglyde
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
How come a "positive-energy false vacuum would, according to general relativity, generate an exponential expansion of space"?
 
Space news on Phys.org
stglyde said:
How come a "positive-energy false vacuum would, according to general relativity, generate an exponential expansion of space"?
If we have a smoothly-distributed energy density, then the expansion of space (neglecting spatial curvature) can be written as:

H(t)^2 = \rho(t)

(neglecting constants for clarity)

This can be derived directly from the Einstein field equations in General Relativity. Here H(t) is the expansion rate, defined as:

H(t) = {1 \over a(t)}{d \over dt}a(t)

...and \rho(t) is the energy density of the universe. Now, if the energy comes just from a false vacuum, then that energy is a constant. So if we define H_0 = H(t=0), then we can simply write:

{1 \over a}{da \over dt} = H_0

So now we have a simple differential equation. I can then multiply both sides by the scale factor a to put the differential equation in a more familiar form:

{da \over dt} = H_0 a

If you know your most basic differential equations, this should look very familiar to you: the rate of change in the scale factor is proportional to the scale factor. This is the equation for exponential growth!

a(t) = a(t=0) e^{H_0 t}

(If you're having difficulty, think compound interest: the amount added to your bank account each month is proportional to your balance, which means that your bank account balance grows exponentially).
 
And in case that excellent mathematical answer still leaves you some questions about the basic physics at a more descriptive level, I would point out that in general relativity, gravity does not just come from rest mass (and hence rest energy), it also comes from pressure. Usually the pressure contribution is negligible-- like the way the pressure of the Sun contributes to its gravity is totally swamped by the way its rest mass contributes to its gravity. But that's because the Sun is mostly nonrelativistic gas-- vacuum energy would be working in a highly relativistic way, whatever is causing it. Now, in unusual situations (like with vacuum energy), pressure can not only be important to gravity, it can be related to energy in weird ways-- in particular, it can be negative when the energy is positive!

The reason for this is that pressure is basically how much energy you can remove from a system when you expand it a given tiny amount, but to expand vacuum, it requires more vacuum-- which if vacuum holds energy, requires that you add energy! So you don't extract energy when vacuum expands, you need to add it instead. That means the pressure of vacuum is negative if there is vacuum energy, and that means its gravity is negative too (or "antigravity"). So two masses placed far enough apart actually experience a kind of repulsion-- due to the vacuum between them (using the cosmological constant model-- so simple vacuum energy).

Now, normally this requires a whole lot of vacuum to be in there, so perhaps this is why we are just now starting to see this effect in our expanding universe (the accelerated expansion phase that is just getting going). But if there was a very early phase of the universe where there was a huge energy associated with a "false vacuum", then even with dense positive pressure there could be a huge negative pressure component, just for a short while, that could have created the inflation. After the false vacuum "decayed", it no longer had that huge antigravity, and the normal gravity of all the positive pressure and rest mass would have taken over, until the recent era of acceleration.
 
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##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top