I Footnote on page 151 of Weinberg's Cosmology book

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter jouvelot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Cosmology
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the derivation of pressure p(T) from conservation of energy and energy density as mentioned in Weinberg's Cosmology book. The participant expresses confusion about how the derivative dp(T)/dT introduces the Boltzmann constant, which does not appear similarly on the right-hand side of the equation. They seek clarification on the relationship between the equations, particularly how Eq. 3.1.7 can be derived from Eq. 3.1.4 and Eq. 3.1.6. Another participant suggests looking at equations from Baumann's lecture notes, but the original poster finds this unhelpful for their specific query. The conversation highlights the complexities in understanding thermodynamic relationships in cosmology.
jouvelot
Messages
51
Reaction score
2
Hi all,

In this footnote, it is mentioned that Eq. 3.1.7, giving the pressure p(T) of a particle, can be derived from the law of conservation of energy (Eq. 3.1.4)

Tdp(T)/dT = ρ(T)+p(T)

and a previous definition (Eq. 3.1.6) of the energy density ρ(T) based on Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein distributions (Eq. 3.1.5).

Just as a sanity check, I mentally plugged the provided definition of p(T) in the conservation equation and cannot see from the top of my head how this is going to work. Indeed, the derivative dp(T)/dT will introduce, among other things, the Boltzmann constant in the lhs of the equation, and I see no way to eliminate it, since it doesn't seem to occur in a similar manner in the equation rhs. Any hint?

Thanks in advance, and Happy New Year to all.

Bye,

Pierre
 
Space news on Phys.org
jouvelot said:
Just as a sanity check, I mentally plugged the provided definition of p(T) in the conservation equation and cannot see from the top of my head how this is going to work. Indeed, the derivative dp(T)/dT will introduce, among other things, the Boltzmann constant in the lhs of the equation, and I see no way to eliminate it, since it doesn't seem to occur in a similar manner in the equation rhs. Any hint?

Look at equations (3.61) and (3.62) on the page that I have attached from Baumann's cosmology lecture notes. On the next page, Baumann writes "Integrating by parts, we find
$$\frac{dP}{dT}=\frac{\rho + P}{T}"$$

Do you see what happens?
 

Attachments

Hello George,

I have no problem deriving Eq. 3.1.4. My issue has to do with the comment in the footnote on Page 151 that states that Eq. 3.1.7 can be derived _from_ Eq. 3.1.4 and also Eq. 3.1.6 (the derivation of which is simple too). The sheet you provided doesn't seem to help in that regard.

Thanks a lot for your help anyway :)

Bye,

Pierre
 
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...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top