How Does Dark Energy Exhibit Negative Pressure in Cosmology?

Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
2
The Wikipedia article on dark energy says "dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure". In what sense can energy "have" pressure?

Is it that the value of the metric tensor field at an event, when multiplied by the cosmological constant, is a tensor in some way analogous to the stress-energy tensor, with components corresponding to energy-density, momentum density and stress? Is this effectively the stress-energy tensor of some, as yet, unidentified matter? If so, why does it play a different role in the equation to the stress-energy tensor of dark matter, which I'm guessing (rightly or wrongly) is subsumed into the regular stress-energy tensor. When Wikipedia: Dark energy says, "In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe", what is the relationship of pressure to this figure of 73%?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The dark energy looks like this in terms of SETs. Isotropic negative pressure.

G_{\mu\nu}=\kappa \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> \mu c^2&amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp;0 &amp;0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp;0 &amp;0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0\end{array} \right]-<br /> \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> \Lambda g_{00} &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp;\Lambda g_{11} &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp;\Lambda g_{22} &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; \Lambda g_{33}\end{array} \right]<br />
 
What does \mu stand for in the time-time component of \text{diag}(\mu c^2,0,0,0) = T_{\mu\nu}? Is the name pressure only given to the spatial diagonal components of the second term? If this is a tensor equation, could we chose coordinates in which the second term on the right, by analogy with the stress-energy tensor, would have off-diagonal space-space components (dark stress)? Does the name dark energy refer to \Lambda g_{00}, or to the whole of the second term on the right, or to or \mu c^2, or to the whole expression? Does the name dark energy refer to a quantity defined only in a particular conventional coordinate system, or does it refer to a particular component of a tensor, regardless of what value that component takes in a given coordinate system?
 
The first term is the SET of the gravitating matter in its rest-frame. The second term is energy/pressure caused by \Lambda. The SET of a perfect fluid is

<br /> T_{\mu\nu}=(\mu+p)U_\mu U_\nu + pg_{\mu\nu}<br />

with Um=0, m= 1,2,3 and U0 <> 0, it reduces to something like my first expression. So the cosmological constant is claimed to be energy/pressure ( I've dropped a factor of c2 somewhere...)

This is informative,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution
 
Last edited:
Do "gravitating matter" and "perfect fluid" here both refer to the source of the acceleration in the expansion of the universe, commonly called dark energy?

And do I understand you correctly that \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} is just the p g_{\mu\nu} term of the SET for this exotic perfect fluid?
 
Are you referring to this theory: Dark fluid?
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top