Mass density of radiation in Friedmann equation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of mass density and energy density in the context of the Friedmann equation, particularly focusing on the contributions of radiation. Participants explore how these densities relate to pressure and how they should be represented in the equation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that in the Friedmann equation, ρ represents mass density, while others argue it is actually energy density expressed in mass density units.
  • There is a discussion about the correct form of the radiation term in the expression (ρ + 3P/c²), with conflicting interpretations on whether it should yield 2ρ_rad or ρ_rad.
  • One participant claims that if mass density is considered equivalent to energy density in different units, it leads to the conclusion that radiation exerts twice the gravitational force compared to matter when both have the same energy density.
  • Another participant suggests that the concept of "relativistic mass" is confusing and emphasizes that inertia is related to energy, not a separate quantity of mass density.
  • There is mention of the trace of the energy-momentum-stress tensor of electromagnetic fields and its implications for thermal radiation, specifically that ε = 3P.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation of mass density versus energy density in the Friedmann equation. Multiple competing views remain on how to properly account for radiation in the equation.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the historical context of the term "relativistic mass" and its implications for understanding gravitational effects in general relativity, noting that Einstein himself had reservations about this concept.

darkdark10
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
<br /> \frac{1}{R}\frac{{{d^2}R}}{{d{t^2}}} = - \frac{{4\pi G}}{3}\left[ {{\rho _m} + {\rho _{rad}} + {\rho _\Lambda } + \frac{{3({P_m} + {P_{rad}} + {P_\Lambda })}}{{{c^2}}}} \right]<br />
In the Friedmann equation, ρ is the mass density.
===
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
They were first derived by Alexander Friedmann in 1922 from Einstein's field equations of gravitation for the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and a perfect fluid with a given mass density ρ and pressure p.
~~~
ρ and p are the volumetric mass density (and not the volumetric energy density) and the pressure,
===

In the case of matter, pressure P=0,
In the case of radiation, pressure P=(1/3)ρc^2,
In the case of cosmological constant, pressure P=-ρc^2.

When we call the energy densities of matter, radiation, and dark energy (ρ_m)c^2, (ρ_rad)c^2, (ρ_lambda)c^2, what form does this take when entering the equation?
{\rho _m} + \frac{{3{P_m}}}{{{c^2}}} = {\rho _m} + 0 = {\rho _m}
{\rho _\Lambda } + \frac{{3{P_\Lambda }}}{{{c^2}}} = {\rho _\Lambda } + \frac{{3( - {\rho _\Lambda }{c^2})}}{{{c^2}}} = - 2{\rho _\Lambda }

In the case of radiation, which one is correct? 2ρ_rad or 1ρ_rad?
{\rho _{rad}} + \frac{{3{P_{rad}}}}{{{c^2}}} = {\rho _{rad}} + \frac{{3(\frac{1}{3}{\rho _{rad}}{c^2})}}{{{c^2}}} = 2{\rho _{rad}}
or
{\rho _{rad}} + \frac{{3{P_{rad}}}}{{{c^2}}} = 0 + \frac{{3(\frac{1}{3}{\rho _{rad}}{c^2})}}{{{c^2}}} = {\rho _{rad}}
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
darkdark10 said:
In the Friedmann equation, ρ is the mass density.
No. It's the energy density in mass density units. "Mass density" doesn't even make sense as a separate concept for radiation.

darkdark10 said:
When we call the energy densities of matter, radiation, and dark energy (ρ_m)c^2, (ρ_rad)c^2, (ρ_lambda)c^2, what form does this take when entering the equation?
What you just wrote. All you're doing is changing from mass density units to energy density units. The conversion factor between those is ##c^2##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
PeterDonis said:
No. It's the energy density in mass density units. "Mass density" doesn't even make sense as a separate concept for radiation.

What you just wrote. All you're doing is changing from mass density units to energy density units. The conversion factor between those is ##c^2##.

We know that mass density = energy density/c^2. The question is, when entering the expression (ρ+3P/c^2), which form is correct? When looking at the radiation term,
\rho + \frac{{3P}}{{{c^2}}} = {\rho _{rad}} + \frac{{3(\frac{1}{3}{\rho _{rad}}{c^2})}}{{{c^2}}} = 2{\rho _{rad}}
or
\rho + \frac{{3P}}{{{c^2}}} = 0 + \frac{{3(\frac{1}{3}{\rho _{rad}}{c^2})}}{{{c^2}}} = {\rho _{rad}}
 
darkdark10 said:
We know that mass density = energy density/c^2.
That depends on what you mean by "mass density". The only meaning that works with the Friedmann equation is to consider "mass density" as the same as energy density, just in different units.

darkdark10 said:
The question is, when entering the expression (ρ+3P/c^2), which form is correct?
I already gave you the answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
PeterDonis said:
That depends on what you mean by "mass density". The only meaning that works with the Friedmann equation is to consider "mass density" as the same as energy density, just in different units.I already gave you the answer.
Your argument(
The only meaning that works with the Friedmann equation is to consider "mass density" as the same as energy density, just in different units.
) leads to:
\rho + \frac{{3P}}{{{c^2}}} = {\rho _{rad}} + \frac{{3(\frac{1}{3}{\rho _{rad}}{c^2})}}{{{c^2}}} = 2{\rho _{rad}}
Your argument leads to the claim that when matter and radiation have the same energy density ρ0, the radiation exerts twice the gravitational force than the matter.

Is this a valid argument?
 
darkdark10 said:
Your argument leads to the claim that when matter and radiation have the same energy density ρ0, the radiation exerts twice the gravitational force than the matter.

Is this a valid argument?
Yes. More precisely, radiation of a given energy density causes the expansion of the universe to decelerate twice as fast as matter (more precisely cold matter, assumed to have negligible pressure) of the same energy density.
 
darkdark10 said:
We know that mass density = energy density/c^2. The question is, when entering the expression (ρ+3P/c^2), which form is correct? When looking at the radiation term,
\rho + \frac{{3P}}{{{c^2}}} = {\rho _{rad}} + \frac{{3(\frac{1}{3}{\rho _{rad}}{c^2})}}{{{c^2}}} = 2{\rho _{rad}}
or
\rho + \frac{{3P}}{{{c^2}}} = 0 + \frac{{3(\frac{1}{3}{\rho _{rad}}{c^2})}}{{{c^2}}} = {\rho _{rad}}
At least at this point it should be clear, how confusing the concept of "relativistic mass" is. Unfortunately Einstein introduced it in his 1905 paper, before the formulation of special-relativistic point mechanics was fully understood, which to my knowledge has been achieved first in a paper by Planck in 1906. Note that Einstein himself was not in favor of the "relativistic mass" idea for very long. He rather adviced people early on to use mass in its only well-defined meaning, which is "invariant mass". In GR there's not even a chance to make sense of a "relativistic mass". Inertia is related to energy, and the source of the gravitational field is the energy-momentum-stress tensor of "matter and radiation". Nowhere enters a separate quantity "relativistic mass (density)".

The trace of the energy-momentum-stress tensor of the electromagnetic field is 0. This is due to conformal invariance of the free Maxwell equations. For thermal radiation it implies that ##\epsilon=3P## (where ##\epsilon## is the energy density and ##P## the pressure).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K