Relationship between energy density and cosmological constant

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The relationship between the energy density of the universe, measured at 1.8 × 10-123, and the cosmological constant, valued at 2.9 × 10-122, is defined as the energy density being 1/16th of the cosmological constant. This ratio is not constant; it varies over time due to the expansion of the universe, which causes the energy density to decrease while the cosmological constant remains unchanged. The discussion reveals that the perceived significance of the number 16 lacks a theoretical basis, as the ratio is time-dependent and does not imply a fixed relationship.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Planck units
  • Familiarity with cosmological constants
  • Knowledge of energy density concepts
  • Basic principles of cosmic expansion
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Planck units in cosmology
  • Explore the dynamics of the cosmological constant over time
  • Investigate the effects of cosmic expansion on energy density
  • Study theoretical frameworks explaining energy density and cosmological relationships
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists interested in the fundamental relationships between energy density and cosmological constants in the context of cosmic expansion.

novice_hack
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
According to the wiki entry on Planck units, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units, the energy density of the universe, 1.8 × 10−123, is 1/16th the cosmological constant, 2.9 × 10−122. Is there a theoretical reason for this precise relationship?
According to the wiki entry on Planck units, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units, the energy density of the universe, 1.8 × 10−123, is 1/16th the cosmological constant, 2.9 × 10−122. Is there a theoretical reason for this precise relationship?
 
Space news on Phys.org
novice_hack said:
According to the wiki entry on Planck units, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units, the energy density of the universe, 1.8 × 10−123, is 1/16th the cosmological constant, 2.9 × 10−122. Is there a theoretical reason for this precise relationship?
Greetings,

Any reason there should be a physcially significant reason?

The number you quoted for energy-density is actually specified as density in units of Planck mass per unit Planck volume.ES
 
novice_hack said:
Is there a theoretical reason for this precise relationship?
The relationship is not a constant; it changes with time, because the energy density of the universe decreases as it expands, while the energy density of the cosmological constant does not.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: EigenState137
EigenState137 said:
Greetings,

Any reason there should be a physcially significant reason?

The number you quoted for energy-density is actually specified as density in units of Planck mass per unit Planck volume.ES
PeterDonis said:
The relationship is not a constant; it changes with time, because the energy density of the universe decreases as it expands, while the energy density of the cosmological constant does not.
Ok. Call it mass density. I am asking whether there is some reason that there would be a relationship between the two. Maybe the answer is 'no'. It just seems curious to me that the one value is 16 times the other value. It seems like the kind of thing for which there might be some theoretical explanation. Perhaps it is just a peculiar coincidence.
 
Greetings,

Why do you find the value of 16 to be possibly special? Just because it happens to be an integer?ES
 
I am assuming from your questions that either you think the answer to the question is 'no' or that you don't know the answer.
 
novice_hack said:
I am asking whether there is some reason that there would be a relationship between the two.
And I have already told you that there is no such "relationship", because the ratio between the cosmological constant and the matter density (or mass density, or energy density, or whatever you want to call it) in the universe changes with time. So your question is based on a false premise, that the current value of 16 (which isn't exactly 16 anyway) is an unchanging value that needs an explanation.
 
novice_hack said:
I am assuming from your questions that either you think the answer to the question is 'no' or that you don't know the answer.
Greetings.

If that post is addressed to me, what I am asking is exactly what I posted. Why do you consider the numerical value of 16 to be possibly special and perhaps indicative of something physically significant?

That question has nothing to do with what @PeterDonis has already explained to you that the ratio is time-dependent.ES
 

Similar threads

Replies
92
Views
8K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
954
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K