Will space always expand when the space has vacuum energy and zero mass?

AI Thread Summary
Space will expand when it has vacuum energy, particularly during inflation when the vacuum energy is positive. The discussion clarifies that negative pressure from a false vacuum state contributes to this expansion, but it is the positive vacuum energy that drives the overall expansion of the universe. The inflaton field decays from a false vacuum to a true vacuum, leading to a hot radiation phase that produces particles. Misunderstandings about the relationship between vacuum energy and pressure are addressed, emphasizing that the true vacuum is of lower energy than the false vacuum. Overall, a vacuum energy-dominated universe will consistently expand.
james.goetz
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
I am examining various models of eternal inflation and I want to double check one of my assumptions, which is that space always expands when the space has vacuum energy and zero mass. Is this correct? Will space always expand when the space has vacuum energy and zero mass? Thank you.
 
Space news on Phys.org
james.goetz said:
I am examining various models of eternal inflation and I want to double check one of my assumptions, which is that space always expands when the space has vacuum energy and zero mass. Is this correct? Will space always expand when the space has vacuum energy and zero mass? Thank you.

James, space will expand when there is a negative vacuum pressure, such as there was during inflation.

Inflation posits that the inflaton field, while in a false vacuum, exerted a negative pressure and decayed to a true vacuum. Once it reaches the true vacuum, it decays into a hot bath of radiation which would give birth to the particles of the standard model. In eternal inflation, the decay rate of the inflaton field is lower than the rate of expansion, so that the universe continually undergoes inflation, producing numerous 'pocket universes'.
 
Last edited:
Mark M said:
James, space will expand when there is a negative vacuum energy, such as there was during inflation.
This is not correct. The vacuum energy during inflation was positive. Are you mistakenly referring to the negative pressure of the vacuum?

James, a vacuum energy-dominated universe will expand always.

EDIT:
...while in a false vacuum, exerted a negative pressure to decay to a true vacuum
Also, I think this statement is a little confusing, since you seem to be implying that it is a result of the negative pressure that the field finds its way to the true vacuum. This is also not the case -- it is simply that the true vacuum is of lower energy than the false vacuum, and the inflaton, through quantum/thermal fluctuations, tends to find its way down to the true vacuum.
 
bapowell said:
This is not correct. The vacuum energy during inflation was positive. Are you mistakenly referring to the negative pressure of the vacuum?

James, a vacuum energy-dominated universe will expand always.

EDIT:
...while in a false vacuum, exerted a negative pressure to decay to a true vacuum

Also, I think this statement is a little confusing, since you seem to be implying that it is a result of the negative pressure that the field finds its way to the true vacuum. This is also not the case -- it is simply that the true vacuum is of lower energy than the false vacuum, and the inflaton, through quantum/thermal fluctuations, tends to find its way down to the true vacuum.

Hi bapowell, thank you for clarifying that postive vacuum energy causes space to expand. By the way, I never said "...while in a false vacuum, exerted a negative pressure to decay to a true vacuum."
 
bapowell said:
This is not correct. The vacuum energy during inflation was positive. Are you mistakenly referring to the negative pressure of the vacuum?

Thanks for correcting, that is what I actually meant. I'll fix that now.

Also, I think this statement is a little confusing, since you seem to be implying that it is a result of the negative pressure that the field finds its way to the true vacuum. This is also not the case -- it is simply that the true vacuum is of lower energy than the false vacuum, and the inflaton, through quantum/thermal fluctuations, tends to find its way down to the true vacuum.

The negative pressure results because of the inflaton field being a state of false vacuum, correct? I'll change my wording to make sure I get this point across. Thanks.
james.goetz said:
By the way, I never said "...while in a false vacuum, exerted a negative pressure to decay to a true vacuum."
He was speaking to me, I used the word 'to' which implies the decay was a direct cause of the negative pressure. And as bapowell said, the negative pressure is related to the inflaton field being in the false vacuum, and decayed because of standard processes.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top