Understanding Omega: Baryons, Leptons, Photons and More

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter blumfeld0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Baryons Omega Photons
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Omega in cosmology, specifically addressing the contributions of various components such as baryons, leptons, photons, and dark energy to the overall energy density of the universe. Participants explore the implications of these components on the understanding of the universe's composition over time, particularly in relation to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the evolution of energy densities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether photons should be included in the calculation of Omega, suggesting that their abundance might significantly impact measurements.
  • Another participant asserts that while photons are important, their contribution to Omega is minimal in the current matter-dominated epoch, although they were dominant in the radiation-dominated era.
  • A participant seeks clarification on the relationship between the ratios of Omega components (matter, dark matter, lambda) and their evolution over time, questioning how the sum can remain approximately one while the individual ratios change.
  • Some participants discuss the apparent contradiction regarding the CMB being described as the dominant form of energy while the universe is considered matter-dominated.
  • There is a mention of the different behaviors of energy densities as the universe expands, with matter and radiation densities decreasing at different rates, leading to a transition from radiation dominance to matter dominance.
  • One participant explains that the cosmological constant remains constant as the universe expands, eventually becoming the dominant form of energy density.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the contributions of photons and dark energy to Omega, with some agreeing on the minimal current impact of photons while others question the definitions and implications of dominance in energy forms. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise roles and relationships of these components over cosmic time.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various cosmological models and calculations, indicating that assumptions about energy densities and their evolution are critical to the discussion. There are unresolved questions about the implications of these assumptions on the understanding of Omega.

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.
 

Similar threads

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