- #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 4,446
- 558
How can we estimate the mass of the Universe if we can only see
the part that is within our horizon?
the part that is within our horizon?
wolram said:How can we estimate the mass of the Universe if we can only see
the part that is within our horizon?
mapper said:I imagine cause we are only estimating what's known to us. Its an educated guess.
Crosson said:Figures for the total mass of the universe are infered from the expansion rate of the universe.
If we want to compute the mass of the universe which is knowable to us, we should restrict to a size which is empirically proven (at least with some assumptions). For example, based on Neil Cornish work searching for intersections of circles in the CMB, we could assume the universe is at least 24 Gly in diameter (comoving distance). This is less than 46 Gly in radius (comoving distance) for the particle horizon in the standard model. Thus, we should use 12 Gly as the ‘known’ radius, but not more. However, this makes actually no sensible difference, since we do not expect to know the mass with such an accuracy. I assume that only orders of magnitude are relevant.SpaceTiger said:Or perhaps, more precisely, what's knowable to us. This is basically the correct answer, though. The mass of the "universe" usually refers to the mass of the observable universe and that has a definite size.
hellfire said:However, this makes actually no sensible difference, since we do not expect to know the mass with such an accuracy. I assume that only orders of magnitude are relevant.
You are right if we were sure that there is no matching at all between any of all possible circles which can be drawn in the CMB. In such a case, we would reach the comoving distance at which the last scattering surface is located without noticing any topological effect and we could take this as the known radius (actually 45.5 Gly for z = 1100, instead of 46.3 Gly for the particle horizon). However, this is not the case, as it seams that Cornish did only put some minimum constrainst on possible matchings of circles obtaining 12 Gly for the radius. I agree with you that it is and interesting theoretical discussion, but it is not relevant for the calculations givent the current data.SpaceTiger said:To get the answer that you're suggesting, one need only change the lower limit of the integral to the time of recombination.
hellfire said:However, this is not the case, as it seams that Cornish did only put some minimum constrainst on possible matchings of circles obtaining 12 Gly for the radius.
wolram said:Dark energy, seems such a thorn in the side, is there a model that comes
even close without it?
So true. The standard model needs both dark energy and dark matter (in monstrous quantities!)to keep it from self-destructing. The universe is complex, but it must arise from simple consistent rules. The implications of the possibility that rules of the universe can change or even smoothly evolve include non-homogeneity, non-uniformity, and prehaps inadequate time for life to evolve. Let's pretend that the rules of the universe are relatively stable, and that they are the same here for me as they are for you.Chronos said:Nobody is going to be happy with dark energy, or dark matter, until we know what it is and how it came to be. As distasteful as it is to insert huge chunks of 'unknowns' into the equation of state, there just has not been a better alternative to date. While it is possible our basic theories are either wrong or have gaping holes. People like Kolb continue exploring that possibility, and they do this knowing full well, and expecting their peers to jump all over it. Science is a cruel mistress.
I would not seriously entertain such a model. It rubs against the grain of QED - another theory that is not imminently imperiled. It is well known that the vacuum polarization effect alters the 1/r-nature strength of Coulomb's law by a factor of 0.1% at a distance scale of the electron-Compton wavelength. The VP effect is based in the response of the vacuum to field strength inhomogenities and interpreted as a dielectric particle-hole (electron-positron) photon polarizibility. Due to its limited range, VP potential can only be detected in the vicinity of the atomic nucleus. The VP effect does not violate the superposition of electromagnetic fields, hence anomalous, and unobserved interactions, such as photon-photon scattering, or photon-electromagnetic field interactions are highly improbable.turbo-1 said:... Perhaps there is a model by which light loses energy through its interaction with the EM fields through which it passes, negating the need for DE, because the universe is NOT expanding at all. Perhaps that same model can model gravitation on galactic and cluster scales better than GR, and can explain the optical effects of "gravitational' redshift without the need for DM. Would you even entertain considering the relevance of such a model? I have constructed such a model, and it is logically consistant throughout, with no weird constants, infinities, etc.
Can you supply any citations for this? Who did this experimental work?Chronos said:I would not seriously entertain such a model. It rubs against the grain of QED - another theory that is not imminently imperiled. It is well known that the vacuum polarization effect alters the 1/r-nature strength of Coulomb's law by a factor of 0.1% at a distance scale of the electron-Compton wavelength.
Do you have any citations to support your claim of effects being observable only on the nuclear scale? Who did the experimental work, or is this claim merely theoretical?Chronos said:The VP effect is based in the response of the vacuum to field strength inhomogenities and interpreted as a dielectric particle-hole (electron-positron) photon polarizibility. Due to its limited range, VP potential can only be detected in the vicinity of the atomic nucleus.
Improbable or just really uncomfortable to the status quo? There is a huge difference. Light has to propagate throught the EM fields of the vacuum energy. The denser these fields are, the higher their refractive index, and the slower light will go, and the more light will be refracted (bent, just like in a lens). Light is not a shower of little balls of energy traveling through a vacuum (photons). Light is wave phenomenae propagating through a transmissive medium, and its speed is inversely proportional to the density of the medium, just like in classical optics.Chronos said:The VP effect does not violate the superposition of electromagnetic fields, hence anomalous, and unobserved interactions, such as photon-photon scattering, or photon-electromagnetic field interactions are highly improbable.
How weak is the vacuum polarization effect? Weak enough that it has never been directly detected:turbo-1 said:Can you supply any citations for this? Who did this experimental work?
It has only been detected indirectly in colliders:turbo-1 said:Do you have any citations to support your claim of effects being observable only on the nuclear scale? Who did the experimental work, or is this claim merely theoretical?
What transmissive medium are you referring to? Asserting that light [an EM field] requires the EM field of the vacuum as a medium to propogate is not very satisfactory. It raises the question of what medium the vacuum EM field relies upon for its propogation. And how do photons, in the absence of matter, interact with each other causing refraction? That sounds like new physics to me. Have any references to that gound breaking paper? I probably wouldn't be the only one to question that experimental result, assuming there is one.turbo-1 said:Improbable or just really uncomfortable to the status quo? There is a huge difference. Light has to propagate throught the EM fields of the vacuum energy. The denser these fields are, the higher their refractive index, and the slower light will go, and the more light will be refracted (bent, just like in a lens). Light is not a shower of little balls of energy traveling through a vacuum (photons). Light is wave phenomenae propagating through a transmissive medium, and its speed is inversely proportional to the density of the medium, just like in classical optics.
Of course people are interested in vacuum energy. But few think it has important macroscopic effects other than imparting a small cosmological constant. I'm curious why you would cite that source. This excerpt from the abstract does not appear to be a ringing endorsement of your position:turbo-1 said:Here is a review paper that touches on some of the work being done in this field. As you can see, there are lots of people who take vacuum energy very seriously.
If vacuum energy is responsible for the cosmological constant, you could make the case it was not left out of GR. But Einstein added it ad hoc because he couldn't reconcile the implications of GR with his preconceived notion of a steady state, stable universe. Just how would you go about modifying GR to include vacuum energy that is not ad-hoc? What about the Maxwell equation? It does not factor in vacuum energy. Does it too need modification? On the other hand, they both work quite well - despite being approximations. I suspect once we figure out how to quantize GR things will be clearer.turbo-1 said:When something as pervasive and energetic as vacuum energy is entirely left out of General Relativity, we should expect that modifying GR to encompass vacuum energy might solve some of the mysteries facing the standard BB theory.
And they have some pretty good reasons for telling us these are the most reasonable explanations to date. Believability? Where would quantum physics be if believability was part and parcel to the scientific method? Believability is for magicians, not scientists.turbo-1 said:We are repeatedly told by BB cosmologists that normal baryonic matter makes up only about 4% of the universe. It's high time we balanced the books with something more believable than DE, DM, and fairy dust.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf
Indeed, measuring the curvature of the universe, as did WMAP, tell us something about its mass density. If you extrapolate that density to the volume of the observable universe, you can derive the total observable mass - of course most of it is not luminous [e.g., dark matter].misskitty said:This might sounds stupid, but if we can measure the curvature of the universe could we measure the mass of the universe as well? Then again that would be very difficult since the universe is more vast then we can imagine.
As you well know, it is my contention that the vacuum fields are polarized by the presence of matter due to a differential in the gravitational infall rates of matter vs antimatter. You have cited non-detections of vacuum polarization in the presence of electromagnetic fields. These non-detections are not surprising to me. If we put a Casimir device in Earth orbit and orient it with the plates perpendicular to the Earthward direction for a number of orbits then orient it with the plates parallel to the Earthward direction for a number of orbits, I believe we will see differences in the Casimir force that will demonstrate the vacuum polarization and density differences caused by the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun.Chronos said:How weak is the vacuum polarization effect? Weak enough that it has never been directly detected:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0402073
Ultrafast Resonant Polarization Interferometry: Towards the First Direct Detection of Vacuum Polarization
Or you can try looking where the background field is a billion trillion times stronger than the ground state:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502351The High-Energy Polarization-Limiting Radius of Neutron Star Magnetospheres II -- Magnetized Hydrogen Atmospheres
How does this support your assertion that vacuum polarization can only be detectable on nuclear scales? Just because someone looked at nuclear scales does not constrain the effects of vacuum polarization to nuclear scales. People are looking for dark matter candidates at nuclear scales. If one were detected at that scale, would you refuse to believe that the particles could have a combined effect on galactic scales? As for scales of detection, I believe we see the optical effects of vacuum polarization in every instance of astronomical lensing.Chronos said:It has only been detected indirectly in colliders:
http://www.ihep.ac.cn/data/ichep04/p_paper/4_ew/411-cushman-p/ichep04_g2new.pdf.
The transmissive medium through which EM waves propagate is the EM field of the vacuum (ZPE field). It's funny how many people cling to Einstein and his GR without understanding his motivations. I urge you to cite even one paper or letter in which Einstein characterized light as "photons". He always treated light as EM waves, and waves propagate though fields. Einstein believed in an aether because it is needed to transmit EM waves, however he could not reconcile it with GR, so he modeled it as it if it had no other properties beyond being a transmissive medium. For purposes of GR, he stripped the aether of any sensible properties, including sensibility of proper motion. This might not have been a good idea, as illustrated by the Unruh effect.Chronos said:What transmissive medium are you referring to? Asserting that light [an EM field] requires the EM field of the vacuum as a medium to propogate is not very satisfactory. It raises the question of what medium the vacuum EM field relies upon for its propogation. And how do photons, in the absence of matter, interact with each other causing refraction? That sounds like new physics to me. Have any references to that gound breaking paper? I probably wouldn't be the only one to question that experimental result, assuming there is one.
I cite the source for several reasons, not the least of which is to show you that a brief review reveals hundreds of papers regarding the nature of vacuum energy. The quote illustrates a common logical disconnect that often accompanies discussions of vacuum energy. The fact that locally we have only detected it via "short range effects due to boundary conditions" cannot be logically extended to support a claim that the effects of vacuum energy are therefore limited to "short range effects". This is a very illogical conclusion, as anybody who deals with experimental selection effects and detector insensitivity can tell you. For instance, physicists are looking for dark matter candidates on scales ranging from solar mass to sub-atomic, although the required cosmological effect is purely gravitational, and on galactic scales and larger. The gravitational properties of the theoretical Dark Matter are not constrained by the scales at which the detections are sought.Chronos said:Of course people are interested in vacuum energy. But few think it has important macroscopic effects other than imparting a small cosmological constant. I'm curious why you would cite that source. This excerpt from the abstract does not appear to be a ringing endorsement of your position:
"The solution suggested here to the nature of the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short range effects because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is no overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of higher order than Einstein's as vacuum induced."
We will not be able to quantize GR as long as we ascribe physical reality to the the model of gravitation=curved space-time. This curved space-time idea is only a mathematical approximation with no underlying mechanical cause and effect. If we describe gravitation as an attractive force resulting from polarization and densification of the vacuum fields, we will have a real mechanical model for gravitation in FLAT space-time. Quantum theory works really well in flat space-time, but not in the curved space-time fields of GR. As for the Maxwell equations, they describe FIELDS, and include terms for the permeability and permissivity of space. These are terms that apply to fields, not to "empty" space. Without an EM field, EM waves cannot propagate. The potential energy of the ZPE fields need not be addressed in the Maxwell equations, as this energy is the ground state of our universe, and EM waves are sensed relative to this ground state. The existence of the EM field in "empty" space is essential for transmission of EM waves. The theoretical energy of that field (according to quantum theory) is irrelevant to Maxwell's equations.Chronos said:If vacuum energy is responsible for the cosmological constant, you could make the case it was not left out of GR. But Einstein added it ad hoc because he couldn't reconcile the implications of GR with his preconceived notion of a steady state, stable universe. Just how would you go about modifying GR to include vacuum energy that is not ad-hoc? What about the Maxwell equation? It does not factor in vacuum energy. Does it too need modification? On the other hand, they both work quite well - despite being approximations. I suspect once we figure out how to quantize GR things will be clearer.
Dark matter and dark energy are not reasonable entities. They are placeholders that are inserted into the standard cosmology to keep it somewhat predictive. In the SLAC lectures I linked elswhere, lecturers frequently used the word "epicycle" to describe these concepts, and these guys are not crackpots. By convention, cosmologists use these entities because they are convenient. There is no independent evidence (apart from the failings of BB cosmology to explain anomalous gravitation and redshift, etc) to suggest that they exist. Decades of very diligent searching for dark matter has turned up no detection at all. I propose that we can keep the general concept of Dark Matter if we model it in terms of effects of something that we know exists - the ZPE fields of the vacuum. The particle/antiparticle pairs of the ZPE are everywhere, and according to quantum theory the ZPE field is highly energetic, yet these fields are barely detectable to us because they are the ground state of our universe. Hmmm, lots of energy potential, hard to detect... Doesn't that make you just a bit curious?Chronos said:And they have some pretty good reasons for telling us these are the most reasonable explanations to date. Believability? Where would quantum physics be if believability was part and parcel to the scientific method? Believability is for magicians, not scientists.
Scientists use various methods to estimate the mass of the universe within the horizon. One method is to measure the movements of galaxies and use the laws of gravity to calculate their total mass. Another method is to study the cosmic microwave background radiation, which provides information about the overall density of matter in the universe.
The horizon of the universe is the distance that light has traveled since the beginning of the universe. It is currently estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years away, which is also known as the observable universe.
The mass of the universe within the horizon is only a small fraction of the total mass of the universe. It is estimated that the mass within the horizon is about 4% of the total mass of the universe. The remaining 96% is made up of dark matter and dark energy, which are still not fully understood by scientists.
Yes, the mass of the universe within the horizon can change over time. As the universe continues to expand, the amount of matter within the horizon will also increase. However, the rate of expansion may also affect the mass within the horizon, as some theories suggest that dark energy may be causing the expansion to accelerate.
The estimated mass of the universe within the horizon is a crucial factor in understanding the overall composition and evolution of the universe. It helps scientists determine the amount of matter and energy in the universe, which in turn affects theories about the formation of galaxies and the expansion of the universe. It also provides insight into the distribution of matter and the effects of dark matter and dark energy on the universe's structure.