B Dark Energy Fluids: Read the Latest Research

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a paper investigating the thermodynamic limits of dark energy (DE) fluids, concluding that thermodynamics rules out DE fluids and supports vacuum energy as the leading explanation for the universe's accelerated expansion. Skepticism arises regarding the applicability of classical thermodynamics to dark energy models, which are fundamentally quantum-mechanical. Critics argue that the paper's approach may not adequately address the complexities of gravity's thermodynamics. The potential implications for inflation are also questioned, suggesting that the findings may not hold significant relevance. Overall, the paper raises interesting mathematical considerations but lacks a solid foundation in the context of dark energy's true nature.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
Although I am unable to judge this paper it should make an interesting read to toughs that can.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.00269
 
Space news on Phys.org
It is an interesting article.

One of their claims:
Here we investigate the limits imposed by thermodynamics to a DE fluid. We proof that thermodynamics rule out DE fluids.

Their conclusion:
Therefore, we believe that we have demonstrated precisely that the vacuum energy remains the strongest candidate to explain the current accelerated expansion of the Universe and the cosmological constant problem remains as one of the biggest problems of the theoretical cosmology.
 
Haven't read it yet, but at first blush this would seem to also rule out inflation, which makes me immediately skeptical.
 
Okay, I've skimmed the paper, and I really doubt that this is saying anything of note. Their thought process is to apply classical (non-quantum) thermodynamics to perfect fluids, and derive the consequences for these fluids in an expanding universe. It's an interesting bit of math, but I really don't think it applies to the problem at hand.

Dark energy models are fundamentally quantum-mechanical, and I don't think that conclusions can be drawn about their thermodynamic properties without using that fact.

There's also the potential issue that we don't yet know how to do the thermodynamics of gravity except in certain special cases. It might be possible that this complication doesn't apply here (a homogeneous, isotropic universe with dark energy might be fine), but it's a major caveat that needs to be examined.
 
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