What is the Theoretical Energy Density of Inflation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical energy density of inflation, with participants seeking estimates and references for their own contexts, particularly in relation to a fictional narrative. The scope includes theoretical considerations and speculative applications of energy density in cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant recalls the theoretical energy density of inflation as approximately 1095 ergs per cubic centimeter.
  • Another participant provides a link suggesting a similar estimate of around 1095 ergs/cc.
  • A request for additional estimates leads to mention of a mass density of 1076 grams/cc from memory.
  • Concerns are raised about discrepancies in estimates, with one participant citing Ned Wright's source indicating a mass density of 1071 g/cc, highlighting a significant difference in values.
  • Another participant speculates that the differences might stem from a typographical error regarding mass density equivalent using E=mc2.
  • A participant shares a fictional scenario involving energy release exceeding the Planck power, suggesting implications for space and matter based on energy density calculations.
  • Clarification is made regarding the interpretation of energy density values, with one participant adjusting their calculations to align with the energy density represented in ergs/cc, arriving at a value closer to 1091-92 ergs/cc.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying estimates of energy density, with no consensus reached on a definitive value. Discrepancies in sources and interpretations contribute to ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference different sources and calculations, leading to potential misunderstandings regarding units and conversions between energy density and mass density. The discussion reflects a range of estimates without resolving the underlying uncertainties.

chasrob
Gold Member
Messages
185
Reaction score
58
I need the theoretical energy density of inflation for my story. I seem to recall it as an enormous 1095 ergs per cubic centimeter.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here's one estimate-
energy density-inflation.jpg

https://universe-review.ca/R02-13-inflation.htm

Seems to be around 1095 ergs/cc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone have a link to another estimate? A paper perhaps? I seem to remember a mass density of 1076 grams/cc that I read somewhere.
Thanks.
 
Hornbein said:
A septillion.
You're right. Maybe it's a typo for mass density equivalent, using e=mc2?
 
If anyone cares, the reason I ask has to do with the “physics” of my story. If someone/some entity releases more power than the Planck power, 3.63 x 1052 W, the result is that a volume of space centered on the “release” is rendered into inflationary space and it undergoes a Big Rip and pinches off into another, disjoint, dimension. Destroying all matter within the volume in the process.

My protagonist, a super-powered being, threatens some enormously powerful aliens who consequently construct an artificial humanoid who can release 9.77E163 ergs/s with one punch. And according to my shaky calcs that many ergs would render a cube of space 105,000 light years on a side into inflationary space. Milky Way, galaxy-size volume.

Another odd thing… if the humanoid, Debra, holds back and only hits with 1E95 ergs/s of power, only 1 cubic centimeter would be affected. Little or no collateral damage from that enormous energy release!
 
chasrob said:
Uh, oh. Ned Wright, https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html says 1071 g/cc. Quite a difference. Ten trillion or so? The figure above has somewhere 1094 to 1097?
Oops, my bad. I misinterpreted Wright. I failed to notice that he represented energy density as g/cc, not ergs/cc. Using e=mc2, I get 1091-92 ergs/cc. Closer to the value in the figure above.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
659
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K