Cosmology inequality that I'm struggling to make sense of

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter barnflakes
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosmology Inequality
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an inequality related to cosmology, specifically examining the relationship between energy density, scale factor, and pressure in the context of universal expansion or contraction. Participants explore the implications of the inequality and the meaning of the scale factor as a function of time.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an inequality involving energy density and scale factor, expressing confusion about the implications of changes in the scale factor (da) and its relation to universal expansion.
  • Another participant clarifies that a decrease in the scale factor (da < 0) indicates contraction rather than slowing expansion, and discusses how energy in a comoving volume changes with pressure.
  • A third participant questions the units involved in the inequality, suggesting that a "fudge factor" may be necessary for dimensional consistency and proposes a method to analyze the inequality further.
  • A later reply reiterates the approach of multiplying the inequality by da/dt and discusses the implications of this operation in the context of a contracting universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the implications of the scale factor's behavior and the associated inequalities. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation of the relationship between energy density and scale factor changes.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings regarding the physical meaning of the scale factor, the role of pressure, and the dimensional analysis of the expressions involved. The discussion does not resolve these issues.

barnflakes
Messages
156
Reaction score
4
My lecturer has written the following:Given \frac{4 \pi \rho a^3 c^2 }{3} and V = \frac{4 \pi a^3}{3}, then substituting \frac{dE}{dt} = -p\frac{dV}{dt} we have:

\frac{d(\rho a^3)}{da} = -\frac{3pa^2}{c^2} \leq 0 (1)

Ok that part is fine - substitute and use the chain rule:

So, if we assume p \geq 0 we then see that:

d(\rho a^3)} \geq 0 if da &lt; 0 or d(\rho a^3)} \leq 0 if da &gt; 0

I understand how he has got this inequality, simply working from the above inequality, however I'm a little unsure of what da actually represents here, it then goes on to say:

From the first of the inequality, we see that as a decreases, \rho a^3 increases. In particular, \rho a^2 increases at least as fast as 1/a.

That is the bit I'm really struggling to get.

By the way, the he says that a is the scale factor and is a function of t only. He says it gives the "universal expansion rate" - I don't know if he means that it is the universal expansion rate, or just that you kind find the universal expansion rate from it. Either way I fail to see how it's a universal expansion rate since it is just a time dependent function and not a derivative itself.

So the way I interpret it as follows:

d(a(t)) = da/dt x dt - the total differential, qualitatively - to me this means the amount a changes when you make an infinitesimal change in t. So for da < 0, this means that as time goes on, the scale factor a is decreasing - the universal expansion is slowing?

So when he says "when a is decreasing" - he is using the first inequality - because da < 0 is the same as saying a is decreasing. So why does that mean \rho a^3 increases?

Any help is much appreciated guys, thanks.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
Well, first, decreasing "a" wouldn't mean a slowing expansion: it'd mean contraction.

So what this little exercise is doing is analyzing whether the energy in a comoving volume (\rho a^3) is increasing or decreasing with expansion. And whether or not that occurs depends upon the sign of the pressure of the matter that makes up the universe. If there's positive pressure, then the amount of energy decreases with expansion. If there's negative pressure, then it increases.

If you want to understand why this is, you can think of gravity (which is driving the expansion) as doing work on the matter in space, dependent upon the pressure.

For example, if we think of a box that holds stuff with positive pressure, and cause said box to shrink, then we have to press in on the sides of the box. This does positive work on the stuff inside, increasing its energy.
 
barnflakes said:
In particular, \rho a^2 increases at least as fast as 1/a. That is the bit I'm really struggling to get.

It seems that standard units are being used (c hasn't been set to unity), so the units don't appear to work out, i.e., the units of\rho a^2 and are different than the units of 1/a. I think that it should read "In particular, the rate of increase of \rho a^2 is at least as fast as a (natural) fudge factor times the rate of increase of 1/a."

This revised statement is such that: 1) the units of the fudge factor can make the overall units work out; 2) the statement can be demonstrated easily.

Start with

0 \geq \frac{d}{da} \left( \rho a^3 \right)

and multiply both sides by da/dt, with da/dt &lt; 0, which, as Chalnoth notes, means a contracting universe.

What happens?
 
Last edited:
George Jones said:
Start with

0 \geq \frac{d}{da} \left( \rho a^3 \right)

and multiply both sides by da/dt, with da/dt &lt; 0, which, as Chalnoth notes, means a contracting universe.

What happens?

Then, because da/dt &lt; 0, the inequality changes direction and

0 \leq \frac{da}{dt} \frac{d}{da} \left( \rho a^3 \right) = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \rho a^3 \right).

Now, since you're interested in the rate of change of \rho a^2, write \rho a^3 =\rho a^2 a, and apply the product rule to \rho a^2 and a.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K