How can dark energy comprise 74% of the Universe?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of dark energy and its contribution to the total mass-energy content of the universe, specifically addressing the claim that dark energy comprises 74% of the universe. Participants explore the implications of energy contributing to mass, the definitions of mass in cosmology, and the assumptions made regarding the observable and non-observable universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how energy can comprise mass, noting the interchangeability of mass and energy as per the equation E=mc².
  • It is stated that when cosmologists refer to the "total mass of the universe," they mean average energy density rather than mass in the conventional sense.
  • Participants discuss the percentage breakdown of the universe's mass-energy content, with one asserting that 94% refers to the average energy density of the universe, not just the observable universe.
  • Questions arise regarding the calculation of average energy density, particularly in the context of whether the universe is finite or infinite.
  • Some participants challenge the assumption that the non-observable universe is similar to the observable universe, suggesting that this is a significant assumption without direct evidence.
  • The Principle of Mediocrity is mentioned as a basis for assuming uniformity in the universe, though its application is debated among participants.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of applying physical laws observed in the observable universe to regions beyond it, with some expressing skepticism about the invariance of these laws.
  • One participant acknowledges a deviation from the original topic, indicating a shift towards methodological and philosophical considerations regarding cosmological assumptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express differing views on the assumptions made about the universe's structure and the implications of dark energy. There is no consensus on the validity of applying the Principle of Mediocrity or the implications of assuming uniformity in an infinite universe.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of mass and energy in cosmology, the unresolved nature of the universe's finiteness, and the assumptions regarding the uniformity of the universe beyond observable limits.

  • #31
Ok I give up. @PeterDonis why say this

PeterDonis said:
The Hubble sphere is not the boundary of "how far we can see" and is not the same as our observable universe.

You now say this

PeterDonis said:
Nobody said you did. You are misunderstanding what we said is the problem.
I explicitly did not equate them at the same time. For the last time I said the expanding Hubble sphere will mean we can see further (than the currently observable Universe) in the future.

Regards. Andrew
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
andrew s 1905 said:
...we can see further (than the currently observable Universe) in the future.
Are you trying to say simply that, in the future, the OU will be larger, allowing us to see farther?
 
  • #33
andrew s 1905 said:
I said the expanding Hubble sphere will mean we can see further (than the currently observable Universe) in the future.

And that is wrong. I explained why in post #30. That is the only statement of yours that I or anyone else is saying is wrong.

If you had just said "we can see further than the currently observable Universe in the future", that would have been fine. But you said more than that.
 
  • #34
DaveC426913 said:
Are you trying to say simply that, in the future, the OU will be larger, allowing us to see farther?
Yes.
But how far we can see is related to...
I agree you can argue they have the same underlying cause.

I have learned my lesson.

Regards Andrew
 
  • #35
PeterDonis said:
And that is wrong. I explained why in post #30. That is the only statement of yours that I or anyone else is saying is wrong.

If you had just said "we can see further than the currently observable Universe in the future", that would have been fine. But you said more than that.
But they are related contrary to your statement. Light has to cross the Hubble sphere to reach us. See section 3.3 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIBRAF&usg=AOvVaw0gAqrLMM4grSnGgMqhElQs

Regards Andrew
 
  • #36
andrew s 1905 said:
Light has to cross the Hubble sphere to reach us.

That doesn't mean "they are related", or that the reason the observable universe will be larger in the future is that the Hubble sphere will.

In any case, this subthread is off topic, so please do not post further in it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K