Can a New Theory Accurately Predict the Composition of the Universe at Any Age?

[Dynamotime]

If Marcus calculations are right, well maybe I have a problem with the Cosmology standard model and I am not the only one.
http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/the-dark-matter-crisis/2010-09-19/the-standard-model-of-cosmology

75% (Dark matter + Atoms) it is the same percentage base on the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe findings for a 380 000 years old universe.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/080998/index.html

If you are right for the first 6 billion years of the universe, the % stayed the same from the 380 000 years old universe, 25% energy or/and photons and 75% atoms/dark matter so it means that a constant ratio existed between matter/dark matter and energy until dark energy started to accelerate the expansion of the universe 7 billion year ago..?
I have a hard time with dark matter/matter and energy having a constant ration existing between them, and the apparition of dark energy 7 billion years ago from nowhere. Anyway the image below illustrates the Cosmology standard model in a 13.7 billion years’ time line.

WMAP-image
http://tomsastroblog.com/images/2011/01/WMAP-image.jpg

In the standard model the time line of the expansion of the universe looks like a cylinder until the apparition of dark energy 7 billion years ago when it starts to take the shape of a cone, in my hypothetic model the time line of the expansion of the universe looks like a cone.

In my hypothesis it is no need of a theory of inflation, only dark energy and "mass" explain the size of the today universe, because in my hypothesis dark energy did not appear from nowhere but had a constant influence on the expansion of the universe from the beginning of it.

Wow, I feel very lonely right now; I am not saying that I am right, I am not that arrogant, I am just asking questions…
Again my %s of Dark Matter, Atoms and Dark Energy are based on time having a hypothetic geometry or shape.
Maybe the time line of standard model is wrong, again I am not saying I am asking?

 

[Tanelorn]

cephid, sure, I was just trying to better explain my views. This discussion has cropped up before with others and I needed to get it off my chest.

 

[marcus]

Dynamo: It is not true that matter fraction stays at 75% as you go back in time from year 6 billion! In what I've been showing you, matter fraction is all forms save only the dark energy or cosmo constant part.

At z=1 (around year 6 billion of the expansion) the matter fraction (atoms, photons, neutrinos, dark matter...) is 75% of critical. At that point photons are a negligle part of the inventory but I consider them with atomic matter because they trade energy back and forth.

At z = 1085 (around year 380,000) the matter fraction (same stuff) is 100% of critical.

But when we checked as you asked us, we falsified your theory. It now seems time to scrap it.

Your prediction was that around age 6 billion years, matter is 57% of critical.

This is wrong, as far as I know. According to the standard model which fits data quite well the matter fraction at that time was around 75% of critical.
... This is the kind of test you were asking for in your first post, at the beginning of this thread.

I just did the calculation a second time to be sure. See post #24.
Others here (Dave, Cepheid, Twofish, ...) could certainly repeat the calculation, it is simple arithmetic. But I see no need for that.

Just in case anyone wants to duplicate the work, it's trivial except for the remark that according to standard cosmology the Hubble parameter at z=1 is 120.7 km/s per Mpc.
(that was courtesy of Morgan's calculator).

Critical density goes as the square of the Hubble, and 1.7 squared is 2.89. So at the time of z=1, critical density is 2.89 times present. The percentages always refer to critical. They sum to near one because they are percents of crit.

This 75% is ordinary matter and energy plus dark matter: atoms, ions, photons, neutrinos, dark matter. Everything, that is, except the part assigned to cosmological constant ("dark energy").

I calculated the matter fraction the same way at year 380,000 and it came out to be 100%.
For a rough calculation
0.27*1086^3/(1320337/71)^2

That monster 1.3 billion number is what Morgan gives for the Hubble parameter at redshift z=1085. The calculation is rough because it does not take account of the fact that radiation, which is a negligible part of the mix at year 6 billion, plays an increasingly important part. as you go back in time. It has to be included with ordinary matter because when it is absorbed by matter it gives matter mass and when it is emitted by matter it takes mass away. Twofish pointed this out earlier---indicating that it is invalid to split the photon part of the inventory off from matter and lump in in with "dark energy". This may be part of what is confusing you.

 

[Dynamotime]

Dynamo: It is not true that matter fraction stays at 75% as you go back in time from year 6 billion! In what I've been showing you, matter fraction is all forms save only the dark energy or cosmo constant part.

This 75% is ordinary matter and energy plus dark matter: atoms, ions, photons, neutrinos, dark matter. Everything, that is, except the part assigned to cosmological constant ("dark energy").

That monster 1.3 billion number is what Morgan gives for the Hubble parameter at redshift z=1085. The calculation is rough because it does not take account of the fact that radiation, which is a negligible part of the mix at year 6 billion, plays an increasingly important part. as you go back in time. It has to be included with ordinary matter because when it is absorbed by matter it gives matter mass and when it is emitted by matter it takes mass away. Twofish pointed this out earlier---indicating that it is invalid to split the photon part of the inventory off from matter and lump in in with "dark energy". This may be part of what is confusing you.

I see what you are saying, my confusion was in your numbers, they are the % of whole Matter (atoms, ion, neutrinos, photons…) and my calculations do not include Matter with no mass aka photons and neutrinos (we can argue about neutrinos not having a mass (and why sometimes they have a very small mass), anyway I have a hypothesis for that too..lol)

I do not believed the photon is part of dark energy, I “lump “them together because photon aka light conceal the presence of dark energy, in another word we cannot see dark energy because the light.
If You can see the light from 13.7 billion years ago, it means that the light was not absorb by matter so it still conceal the presence of dark energy from 13.7 billion years ago, and if matter emitted light and lost mass it does not make a difference in what we see today from 13.7 years ago??, all we see is light?, and in my hypothesis light conceal the presence of dark energy.

Anyway I came up with my final numbers for a 6 billion old universe:
50.165% Dark Matter, 40.28% Dark Energy and 9.552% Atoms

Marcus numbers are 75% (whole) Matter for a 6 billion years old universe, my numbers are 59.72% for Atoms + Dark matter.
I am wondering if the difference between 75%-59.72%≈15% are the photons that I “lump” with dark energy?
Again In my hypothesis Light and/or matter with no mass conceal the presence of dark energy.

Thanks Marcus for replying to my posts I appreciate your help.

 

[Dynamotime]

NASA did come up with % photons/neutrinos separated from the % of atoms; check image below the chart for the 380 000 years old universe….

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe image

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/080998/index.html

 

[marcus]

Estimates for z=1, around year 6 billion.
DM + ordinary matter .27*8/2.89 = 0.7474... ≈ 75%

Dark matter: .23*8/2.89 = 0.6367... ≈ 64%
Ordinary: .04*8/2.89 = 0.1107 ≈ 11%
Photons < 1%
Neutrinos < 1%

The point is that (as percents of the then critical density) the values for Photons and Neutrinos are only about 5 times what they are today and today both are so close to 0% of critical that, as you can see, NASA website does not even show them in the pie chart (you would need a magnifying glass to see the pie slice.)

 

[marcus]

Anyway I came up with my final numbers for a 6 billion old universe:
50.165% Dark Matter, 40.28% Dark Energy and 9.552% Atoms
...

For comparison
64% Dark Matter, 25% "Dark Energy" (i.e. cosmological constant), 11% "Atoms" (i.e. ordinary matter)

In either case the photon and neutrino fraction are small and don't affect either the rough percentages or the conclusion.

 

[twofish-quant]

I have a hard time with dark matter/matter and energy having a constant ration existing between them, and the apparition of dark energy 7 billion years ago from nowhere.

So does everyone else. But it's the "least weird" explanation for what we see.

Anyway the image below illustrates the Cosmology standard model in a 13.7 billion years’ time line.

You have to be careful with popular explanations, these are "cartoon diagrams" that leave out of a lot of things.

In my hypothesis it is no need of a theory of inflation, only dark energy and "mass" explain the size of the today universe, because in my hypothesis dark energy did not appear from nowhere but had a constant influence on the expansion of the universe from the beginning of it.

The problem is that if you assume that there is some early expansion, then you have problems with things like big bang nucleosynthesis, CMB measurements, and galaxy counts. For example, if you have lots of early expansion, then the universe cools after which affects the composition of the universe. Things fly away from each other more quickly which means that the universe is less lumpy.

 

[twofish-quant]

I do not believed the photon is part of dark energy, I “lump “them together because photon aka light conceal the presence of dark energy, in another word we cannot see dark energy because the light.

It might help here to replace "dark energy" with "mystery pressure". You have two forces in the universe, gravity that tries to hold things together. "pressure" that causes things to fly apart. And then the initial condition.

"Gravity" is easy to model since gravity is gravity is gravity.

The hard thing to model is "pressure". Since you have you to make assumptions about what causes the pressure.

Now the thing about matter is that the more density you have, the higher the pressure. The same goes true with radiation. One of the candidates for the "mystery pressure" is a constant that exerts constant pressure regardless of density.

So what happens is that in the early universe, things were hotter and denser, so most of the pressure comes from matter and radiation. As the universe cools, the pressure from radiation and matter decreases, leaving behind the "constant pressure" which they becomes observable.

If You can see the light from 13.7 billion years ago, it means that the light was not absorb by matter so it still conceal the presence of dark energy from 13.7 billion years ago

But we can tell from other things that the "mystery pressure" wasn't important in the early universe.

Again In my hypothesis Light and/or matter with no mass conceal the presence of dark energy.

Light has mass. Also if you think of dark energy as "mystery pressure" that's sort of what already happens, and people have already worked out the necessary equations.