- #36
Chalnoth
Science Advisor
- 6,197
- 449
No. In this case, the energy density is reasonably well-defined, but the volume is not. There is no one answer for, "What is the volume of our universe?"
marcus said:If you say "radius of the observable universe" then I think most professional cosmologists would understand and would not quibble.
That's right, I was just getting to thatPeterDonis said:It's worth clarifying, though, that this is because "radius" also has a conventional meaning here, namely, the distance evaluated in a surface of constant comoving time. That does not mean this is the only physically relevant distance involved; as Chalnoth pointed out, there are others.
I know. I think you have been being careful, actually.Quarlep said:I ll be carefull using terms in cosmology
Sort of. Cosmologists usually mean a very specific way of writing down the distance when they say, "radius of the observable universe," but you shouldn't mistake that for an unambiguous, observed quantity.Quarlep said:You are saying there's a few ways to calculate universe observable radius and these ways takes us different solutions.
Cause General relativity don't allow us to measure it
Chalnoth said:Sort of. Cosmologists usually mean a very specific way of writing down the distance when they say, "radius of the observable universe," but you shouldn't mistake that for an unambiguous, observed quantity.
Basically, when we start talking about things that are much, much bigger than the Earth, the definitions get weird and it becomes hard to be explicit. You can be explicit using math, but translating that to human language is difficult.
The dark energy density stays roughly the same over time (if it's a cosmological constant, it stays exactly the same). So if the volume increases, that volume contains more energy from the dark energy.Quarlep said:Volume of observable universe is increasing every time then you are telling me dark energy will be decrease.But thay cannot be true I guess (lamda doesn't change with volume)