Understanding Omega: Baryons, Leptons, Photons and More

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the role of photons in calculating Omega, which includes matter, dark energy, and radiation. While photons are numerous and carry energy, they contribute minimally to Omega in the current matter-dominated universe. Historically, during the radiation-dominated era, photons were significant, but their energy density decreases faster than that of matter as the universe expands. The ratios of Omega matter and Omega lambda today differ from those in the past, even though their sum remains approximately one. This evolution in energy density is crucial for understanding the changing dynamics of the universe's composition over time.
blumfeld0
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
This question concerns Omega(matter+dark+lambda).
We take into account protons(baryons), electrons(leptons), neutrinos, pions, etc etc when trying to determine Omega from the CMB. but what about photons? I mean there are A LOT more photons than baryons. All those photons carry energy, shouldn't that be taken into account somehow when measuring Omega? are they? perhaps the lambda portion atleast?
i think i have some fundamental misunderstading here.

thanks
 
Space news on Phys.org
Yes, we do need to take into account photons. However, at the current epoch of the universe, they don't contribute very much to Omega, because the universe is matter dominated.

Even as early as recombination at z=1100, the effect of photons is small enough that it is usually ignored in cosmological calculators (for instance Ned Wright's distance calculator doesn't include radiation terms).

However, if you go back far enough in time, photons (or more generally, radiation) are the dominant factor in omega. This is in the so-called "radiation dominated era".

Google for "radiation dominated era", for example http://www.cambridge.org/resources/0521546230/575_p267-268.pdf

I recall Space Tiger saying that in terms of energy density, the CMB is currently the dominant form of energy in the universe. It's not very large, but it's everywhere, while light from suns (for instance) is only found inside galaxies and is not present in intergalactic space.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=718801

I believe ST has given references for this statement in another post, but I couldn't find it
 
Yes. thank you very much.
which leads to my next question inspired by your statement that
"However, at the current epoch of the universe, they don't contribute very much to Omega, because the universe is matter dominated."

It is the sum of all Omega's(matter/darkmatter/lambda) that cosmologists are trying to determine is equal to, greater than or less than one. But Omega is the ratio of density now over the critical density where the critical density is a function of Hubble's "constant" which itself is a function of time.
density critical ~ H(t)^2.
So my question is assuming the Omega matter = .3 and omega lamba =.7 today so the sum = 1(approximately), that does not mean that Omega matter = .3 and omega lamba =.7, say, 5 billion years ago? correct?
but the sum did equal 1 (approximately)? is that right? if so, why would the sum be the same but the ratios different?
i guess maybe I would understand this if i understood the graph on page 51 of this paper better?

http://panisse.lbl.gov/public/papers/conley06/cmagic_cosmology.pdf

thank you in advance for your help.
 
pervect said:
the universe is matter dominated. [...] the CMB is currently the dominant form of energy in the universe.

Isn't that contradictory? Do you mean that on large scales CMB is the dominant form of radiation?
 
Last edited:
Isn't the dominant form of energy ( density) dark energy, the energy associated with empty space?
 
blumfeld0 said:
So my question is assuming the Omega matter = .3 and omega lamba =.7 today so the sum = 1(approximately), that does not mean that Omega matter = .3 and omega lamba =.7, say, 5 billion years ago? correct?

Yes this is correct. Different forms of energy evolve differently as the Universe expands. Matter energy density for instance goes as the inverse cube of the scale factor, or equivalently, with the inverse of volume. So you double the volume you halve the energy density, makes sense.

For photons, they get the inverse cube for the same reasons as matter, but they also lose energy as the Universe expands, going as the inverse of the scale factor this means that as the universe expands radiation density drops faster than matter. Hence in the past radiation was dominant but the energy density in radiation dropped faster than matter, leading to a matter dominated era.

The cosmological constant is different again. The energy density actually stays constant (hence the name) so as the Universe expands further and the matter density drops eventually Lambda becomes dominant.
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K