Big Bang Predictions - Exploring Energy Density & Expansion Rate

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter electerr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of the Friedmann equation to predict the energy density of the early universe, particularly in the context of varying expansion rates throughout cosmic history. Participants explore the implications of these variables and their interdependencies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how predictions about energy density can be made given the non-constant expansion rate of the universe, highlighting the role of the Friedmann equation and its variables.
  • Another participant notes that the Friedmann equation derives from the field equations and mentions the existence of an acceleration equation, suggesting that these provide a set of equations to work with.
  • A different participant proposes that conservation of stress-energy and the scale factor can be used instead of the Friedmann equation for certain calculations, particularly when considering redshift or scale factor over time.
  • A later reply acknowledges the introduction of the Friedmann acceleration equation and expresses gratitude for the clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of the Friedmann equation for predictions about energy density, with differing views on whether alternative approaches can be employed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects uncertainty regarding the relationships between the variables in the Friedmann equation and the implications of using different equations for predictions. There is also a lack of clarity on how changes in the expansion rate affect energy density calculations.

electerr
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am trying to understand how it is possible to make predictions about the energy density of early universe using the freidman equation if the expansion rate of the universe has not been constant throughout history. As I understand it there are three main variables in the freidman equation, the energy density, the Hubble constant squared (the expansion rate of the universe) and the shape of space (K). We know today that space is flat (or very close to flat) but in order to calculate anything with the other two variables one of them must also be known. I thought that the expansion rate was first thought to accelerate, decrease, and is now accelerating again and that as the universe has expanded that radiation particles has become redshifted and lost energy changing the energy density. With these two unfixed variables how can you say anything certain about either one? As you can probably guess this is all very new to me so maybe I am missing something very obvious but maybe I would be thankful if someone can try and clue me in...?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The Friedmann equation comes from the 00 component of the field equations, but we also have the acceleration equation which comes from the trace. This gives a set of two equations in two variables.
 
electerr said:
Hi,

I am trying to understand how it is possible to make predictions about the energy density of early universe using the freidman equation if the expansion rate of the universe has not been constant throughout history.
No need to use the Friedmann equation. Just use conservation of stress-energy and the scale factor.

Of course, if you want this as a function of time, you have to use the Friedmann equation, but if doing it as a function of either redshift or scale factor is your concern, there's no need.
 
Ok, I didn't know about the separate Friedmann acceleration equation. Thanks for the help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K