Problem with natural units in Cosmology

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the radiation energy density in cosmology, specifically during the radiation-dominated era. Participants are examining the expression for energy density and its dimensional correctness, particularly in the context of natural units.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to reconcile a given expression for radiation energy density with dimensional analysis, questioning the absence of certain constants in the formula. Other participants explore the implications of using different constants, such as \hbar versus h, and whether this aligns with the conventions of natural units.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering insights into the use of \hbar in natural units and discussing the implications of including or excluding certain factors in the equations. There is a recognition of the complexity of the topic, and while some clarifications are made, no consensus has been reached regarding the original expression's validity.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the need for precise definitions and expressions in the context of cosmological calculations, as well as the potential confusion arising from different conventions in the use of physical constants.

Magister
Messages
82
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Reading about the raditation dominated era I saw that the radiation energy density today was given by:

[tex] \rho_r = \frac{\pi^2}{30} g_* T^4 = 8.09 * 10^{-34} g/cm^3[/tex]

where [itex]g_*=3.36[/itex] is the degree of freedom of the radiation (equivalent) and [itex]T=2.75 K[/itex] is the CBR temperature today.

The problem is that they don't give me the exact expression and so this relation seems to be dimensionally wrong. I suppose that the full relation must be

[tex] \rho_r = \frac{\pi^2}{30} g_* \frac{(kT)^4}{(hc)^3}[/tex]

and this way the relation would be dimensionally correct. But when I put the values on it I get

[tex] \rho_r = 2.88 * 10^{-22} J/cm^3 = 3.20 * 10^{-36} g/cm^3[/tex]

and this is by far wrong. I have spend so much time around this that I am starting to get frustrated!
Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Magister said:

Homework Statement


Reading about the raditation dominated era I saw that the radiation energy density today was given by:

[tex] \rho_r = \frac{\pi^2}{30} g_* T^4 = 8.09 * 10^{-34} g/cm^3[/tex]

where [itex]g_*=3.36[/itex] is the degree of freedom of the radiation (equivalent) and [itex]T=2.75 K[/itex] is the CBR temperature today.

The problem is that they don't give me the exact expression and so this relation seems to be dimensionally wrong. I suppose that the full relation must be

[tex] \rho_r = \frac{\pi^2}{30} g_* \frac{(kT)^4}{(hc)^3}[/tex]

and this way the relation would be dimensionally correct. But when I put the values on it I get

[tex] \rho_r = 2.88 * 10^{-22} J/cm^3 = 3.20 * 10^{-36} g/cm^3[/tex]

and this is by far wrong. I have spend so much time around this that I am starting to get frustrated!
Thanks in advance
If you use [itex]\hbar[/itex] instead of "h" in your equation, it works out (the result is [itex](2 \pi)^3[/itex] times larger).

Patrick
 
Humm! You mean:
[tex] \rho_r = \frac{\pi^2}{30} g_* \frac{(kT)^4}{(\hbar c)^3} (2\pi)^3[/tex]

Yes, in fact it works out but does this make any sense? Is this because that in natural units is the [itex]\hbar[/itex] that is equal to 1 instead of [itex]h[/itex]?

Thanks a lot by the way!
 
Magister said:
Humm! You mean:
[tex] \rho_r = \frac{\pi^2}{30} g_* \frac{(kT)^4}{(\hbar c)^3} (2\pi)^3[/tex]

Yes, in fact it works out but does this make any sense? Is this because that in natural units is the [itex]\hbar[/itex] that is equal to 1 instead of [itex]h[/itex]?

Thanks a lot by the way!
EDIT : No, this is not what I mean You don't have to put in the extra factor of (2 pi)^3. I mean
[tex] \rho_r = \frac{\pi^2}{30} g_* \frac{(kT)^4}{(\hbar c)^3}[/tex]
This result will be (2 pi)^3 times larger than the equation written with only h.


That's what I mean, yes. Usually, by "natural units", people mean that they set [itex]\hbar[/itex] equal to 1, not "h". Of course, one could also decide to set h to one instead, but this is not what is usually done.

You are very welcome.

Patrick
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K