On 23 June, 21:39, "Chalky (OR)"
wrote:

Can this be confirmed, Temperature is proportional to density, now
too, not just in the early radiation dominated era? (I don't really
understand your degrees of freedom argument)

At about 3 min there were only electron positron pairs, which soon
recombined. From then until now the amount of antimatter in the
Universe was negligible and photons existed in just two degrees of
freedom (polarization).

Let us suppose there was some process that could absorb photons. The
temperature of the Universe would clearly fall. Let us visualize a
temperature of 10MeV. This is not sufficiently hot for quarks to be
produced, but is hot enough for electron positron pairs. We have now
effectively doubled the volume of our phase space. We may assume the
pairs to be travelling at something like 0.9c.

In my undergraduate Physics course the Stephan Boltzmann law was
derived using a (gedanken) box which contained the radiation. A box
containing pairs therefore emits twice the energy of the photons
alone, and has twice the energy. This means in fact that if we
extrapolate t^(2/3) to 10MeV we will get the same amount of energy.
The temperature will in fact be 10*(0.5^(1/4))MeV.

The precise form before 3min depends to some extent on what theory of
elementary particle physics you subscribe to. In a quark soup, quarks,
electrons and photons will coexist. It should I think be pointed out
that in a dense quark soup the particles will behave differently from
how they behave in isolation. Remember that each individual quark is
heavier than a proton.


- Ian Parker

On Jun 23, 9:39 pm, "Chalky (OR)"
wrote:
On Jun 22, 5:22 pm, "John Bell (Change John to Liberty for email)"

wrote:
I note from line 15 of page 87 of "The accidental universe"# that
density (of particles) is actually supposed to be inversely
proportional to time squared.

Does this apply for time after recombination as well as before?

It looks like it. I have quickly posted up the classical cosmological
relationships given in Google's disclosed portions of quoted books,
at
http://global.accelerators.co.uk/CCR/
I have inserted 'therefore' symbols for the formulae derived from the
given formulae, and additionally disambiguated the employed symbols
for temperature and time.

If anyone sees any errors, please advise.


On Jun 24, 11:28*pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 23 June, 21:39, "Chalky (OR)"
wrote:

Can this be confirmed, Temperature is proportional to density, now
too, not just in the early radiation dominated era?

I refer again to
http://global.accelerators.co.uk/CCR/
Apparently, density is proportional to the cube of temperature in
matter dominated region, but the fourth power in radiation dominated.

Again, if anyone sees any errors, please advise.

On 25 June, 17:56, "John Bell (Change John to Liberty for email)"
wrote:

I refer again tohttp://global.accelerators.co.uk/CCR/
Apparently, density is proportional to the cube of temperature in
matter dominated region, but the fourth power in radiation dominated.

Again, if anyone sees any errors, please advise.

I don't know if this could be regarded as an error or not, but if
matter is travelling at relativistic speeds, ie. close to c it follows
the radiation law Momemtum (prop 1/wavelength) = Ec where E is the
energy of the particle. Particle is travelling, near as no matter at
c.

By the nature of how pairs (of anything) are formed, if antimatter is
in equilibrium with matter it must be travelling at an appreciable
fraction of c at least.

Remember the early Universe was not matter, but matter and antimatter
with an eventual predominance of matter. How is still a mystery.


- Ian Parker

Chalky wrote:

Please note;-I still don't know which Harrison you are quoting, or
what book.
Edward Harrison
Cosmology, The Science of the Universe, 2nd Edition
Cambridge University Press, 2000
as previously recommended reading on this newsgroup by
Jonathan Thornburg.
Harrison provides some interesting ideas
particularly placing modern cosmology in an historical context
and presenting the hypothesis (among others)
that mass is continually being produced in the universe with time.

To cut to the chase, I suggested, in that response, a simple approach
to determining density as a function of time, to a first
approximation, and invited you to provide a more rigorous analysis.
AFAICT you have not yet done so. I still don't know what your approach
is supposed to predict at 1 second, or 3 minutes, or any other time,
for that matter.

As you requested Chalky

Here is the dimensional (mass-g, length-cm, time-sec) model:

The universe spherical radius(R_universe)
is constantly expanding at light speed.

R_universe = c * t_universe
Volume_universe = (4*pi/3)*R_universe^3

The majority of the universe 'dark energy'
(another term for matter )
is characterized with u_permeability * u_permittivity
and u_permittivity by itself is characteristic
of a universe radiation component
(currently the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR))
such that the following relationships hold:

v_radiation^2 = u_permittivity * c^2

v_dark_energy^2 = u_permeability * u_permittivity*c^2
and
v_dark_energy^2 = u_permeability * v_radiation^2
but also in terms of de Broglie matter waves:
v_dark_energy = h_bar*pi/(m*B)

t_dark_energy = 2*B/v_dark_energy

B/A = 2.38 (constant for all t_universe)

where A & B define a 'dark energy' space filling lattice cell
with cell volume (2*sqrt(3)*A*B^2)

angle = arctan(A/B) = 22.8 degree (constant for all t_universe)

k*T_radiation = m * v_radiation^2

(k*T_radiation)^4 = (15*c^2*(h_bar*2*pi)^3)/(2*pi^5*k^4)
| (Stefan black body relationship)

rho_radiation =
8*pi^5*(k*T_radiation)^4/(15*c^5*(h_bar*2*pi)^3)

k*T_dark_energy = m * v_dark_energy^2 /2
and this classical charge relationship is the connecting piece
k*T_dark_energy = e^2 /(u_permittivity*B)

Charge(e), length(A,B), and time(t_dark_energy)
'flip' in the vacuum 'sea' in accordance with the
Charge Conjugation, Parity Change, Time Reversal(CPT) theory
with the universe 'dark energy' having no net charge
as a consequence of (e+/-)^2 = e^2.
This (m,l,t) analysis would be impossible in SI units
with its extraneous 'coulumb'.

rho_dark_energy = m/(2*sqrt(3)*A*B^2)
and
rho_dark_energy = M_universe/R_universe^3
and
rho_dark_energy = 6.38E-30 g / cm^3 (present)
| (not constant for all t_universe)

m_dark_energy = h_bar^(2/3)*U^(1/3)*c^(-1/3)*COS(Angle)
m_dark_energy = 1.00E-25 g (constant for all t_universe)

M_dark_energy_universe= rho_dark_energy*Volume_universe
M_radiation_universe = rho_radiation*Volume_universe

Hubble parameter(H) = 2.31E-18 /sec (present)
| (not constant for all t_universe)

Newton parameter(G) = 6.67E-8 cm^3 /g /sec^2 (present)
| (not constant for all t_universe)

Universal constant(U) = G/H = 3.46E-11 g sec / cm^3

h_bar = 1.05E-27 g cm^2 /sec
| (constant for all t_universe)

more generally, parameters exponentially (b)
change according to the above relationships
with universal time (t_universe) as follows
(recognizing that the current universal time
is 4.32E+17 sec (13.7 billion years):

Zero(0) for 'b', of course,
means that particular parameter
does not change with universe time(t_universe)

parameter = a * t_universe ^ b

parameter factor exponent dimension
| (a) (b) (m,l,t)

speed of light(c) 3.00E10 0 cm sec^(-1)
Boltzmann constant(k) 1.38E-16 0 g cm^2 sec^(-2) Kelvin^(-1)
m_dark_energy 1.00E-25 0 g
charge(e) 4.80E-10 0 g^(1/2) cm^(3/2) sec^(-1)
Planck's constant(h_bar) 1.05E-27 0 g cm^2 sec^(-1)
Universal constant(U) 3.46E-11 0 g sec cm^(-3)
B/A 2.38 0 unitless
angle (arctan(A/B) 22.8 0 degree
Universal constant(U) 3.46E-11 0 g sec / cm^3
R_universe 5.19E+10 1 cm
Hubble parameter(H) 1.00E+00 -1 sec^(-1)
Newton gravity(G) 2.89E+10 -1 cm^3 sec^(-2) g^(-1)
Dark energy length(A) 1.23E-05 1/3 cm
Dark energy length(B) 2.92E-05 1/3 cm
u_permittivity 8.14E+04 1/3 unitless
u_permeability 8.27E+07 1/3 unitless
v_radiation 1.05E+08 -1/6 cm sec^(-1)
v_dark_energy 1.13E+03 -1/3 cm sec^(-1)
T_radiation 2.06E+06 -1/3 kelvin
T_dark_energy 4.64E-04 -2/3 kelvin
density(rho_radiation) 1.66E-10 -4/3 g cm^(-3)
density(rho_dark_energy) 2.76E-12 -1 g cm^(-3)
M_dark_energy_universe 1.62E+21 2 g
M_radiation_universe 9.71E+22 5/3 g
t_dark_energy 5.18E-08 2/3 sec

Comments:

1. The model extrapolates back to a time when

the universe mass is essentially zero and

T_radiation = T_dark_energy
or
2.06E+06*t_universe^(-1/3) = 4.64E-04*t_universe^(-2/3)
or
t_universe = 1.13E-29 sec

and the universe mass(M_dark_energy_universe) is at

M_dark_energy_universe = 1.62E+21*t_universe^2 = 2.08E-37 g

and the universe density(rho_dark_energy) is at

rho_dark_energy = 2.76E-12 * t_universe^(-1)
= 2.44E17 g cm^(-3)

but this mass is small compared to radiation mass(M_radiation_universe)

M_radiation_universe = 9.71E+22 *t_universe^(5/3) = 5.52E-26 g

rho_radiation = 1.66E-10* t_universe^(-4/3) = 6.54E28 g cm^(-3)

Radiation (not mass) dominates in the universe beginning.

2. The universe is essentially racemic
composed of equal chiral left hand and right hand parts
defined at the 'dark energy' 'A, B' length dimensional level
with observed energies associated with observed chirality
(ex: biological selection) is extremely small
compared to the total racemic aggregation.
(the energy required to turn a left hand bolt into a right hand thread
is many orders of magnitude greater than the energetics related to
chiral characteristic of macro left right screws
unless at the zero point energy level.)
That is the key (chirality at 1/2 h nu).
The observed universe is not the residue from a matter antimatter duel.
This duel is at the heart of the universe
and continues to exist in a resonant equilibrium manner
from nuclear to cosmic scales.

3. Combining from above:

parameter factor exponent dimension
| (a) (b) (m,l,t)
density(rho_radiation) 1.66E-10 -4/3 g cm^(-3)
T_radiation 2.06E+06 -1/3 Kelvin

yields
density(rho_radiation) proportional to T_radiation^4

and also:

parameter factor exponent dimension
| (a) (b) (m,l,t)
density(rho_dark_energy) 2.76E-12 -1 g cm^(-3)
T_radiation 2.06E+06 -1/3 Kelvin

yields
density(rho_dark_energy) proportional to T_radiation^3

These are relationships confirmed in John Bells reference:
http://global.accelerators.co.uk/CCR/
where T is the Temperature of radiation T_radiation
commonly called CMBR in the present universe.

But the universe mass temperature (T_dark_energy) reference
is different(~1E-16 K at present and not indicated in
http://global.accelerators.co.uk/CCR/ )
and with the following relationships:

parameter factor exponent dimension
| (a) (b) (m,l,t)
density(rho_radiation) 1.66E-10 -4/3 g cm^(-3)
T_dark_energy 4.64E-04 -2/3 Kelvin

yields
density(rho_radiation) proportional to T_dark_energy^2

and also:

parameter factor exponent dimension
| (a) (b) (m,l,t)
density(rho_dark_energy) 2.76E-12 -1 g cm^(-3)
T_dark_energy 4.64E-04 -2/3 Kelvin

yields
density(rho_dark_energy) proportional to T_dark_energy^(3/2)

It is especially noted that
the Bose Einstein Condensate density scales as
or is proportional to T^(3/2).
This is not to say that Dark Energy is a BEC
but it could be in thermal equilibrium with it
as the universe expands at T_dark_energy.
This BEC could potentially be composed of Hydrogen Helium
resulting from formation processes quenched
by adiabatic expansion at the Big Bang
and remaining as 'Dark Matter' that was/is
a starting material for star formation
and as an integral part of galactic mass
is observed by gravitationally influencing galactic flat rotation curves.

4. The present universe is matter dominated (rho_dark_energy)
over radiation dominated(rho_radiation).

parameter factor exponent dimension
| (a) (b) (m,l,t)
density(rho_radiation) 1.66E-10 -4/3 g cm^(-3)
density(rho_dark_energy) 2.76E-12 -1 g cm^(-3)

The universe time(t_universe) when
rho_radiation = rho_dark_energy

is 2.2E5 sec (2.5 days)

So before 2.5 days the universe is radiation dominated

rho_radiation rho_dark_energy

and matter (at the element level) is not allowed to form.

Of course there is some transition period
and without detailed reaction rate calculations
it assumed the hydrogen helium and other light elements
could be formed at ~3 minutes.
m*c^2 or 56 Mev is available to initiate any reaction
with early H or He reactions on the order of Mev.

'Dark energy' currently accounts for 70% if the universe mass
with 'Dark matter' including formed celestial bodies (stars etc.)
making up the other 30%

5. Quark or nuclear plasma formation is defined at much higher
temperatures defined by v_radiation ~ c.
Tc = 8.95E13K and Tb = 9.07E14 K

Richard D. Saam

On Jun 28, 2:05Â*pm, "Richard D. Saam" wrote:

Harrison provides some interesting ideas
particularly placing modern cosmology in an historical context
and presenting the hypothesis (among others)
that mass is continually being produced in the universe with time.

In what form?

The majority of the universe 'dark energy'
(another term for matter )

I find this terminology very confusing.

Traditionally, dark energy refers to the (unknown) cause of the force
opposing gravitational attraction between matter in the universe at
large, and modelled as a re-introduction of Einstein's cosmpogical
constant.

What do you mean?

is characterized with u_permeability * u_permittivity
and u_permittivity by itself is characteristic
of a universe radiation component
(currently the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR))
such that the following relationships hold:

v_radiation^2 Â* Â* Â* Â* = u_permittivity * c^2

v_dark_energy^2 Â* Â* Â* = u_permeability * u_permittivity*c^2


And what is v?
Its dimensions appear to be variable.

[Incidentally, I have reverted to my unroutable email address here
because, with the new account:
1) Google gives me a tricky pattern recognition test with every
posting (which I fail 50% of time)
2) Despite this, the address (used nowhere else) is already targeted
by fraudsters.]

On Jun 11, 8:07 am, Chalky wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:15 pm, "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"

wrote:
Chalky wrote:
I have just been boning up on primordial nucleosynthesis, and the
following statement in Wiki (admittedly not always the most reliable
source), struck me as incredible:-

[[...]]

For a slightly more detailed account, see
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

Phew! That's all right then. So the ratio of protons to neutrons (or,
more precisely, up quarks to down quarks) _is_ ~50/50 initially, as I
was originally expecting.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/da...bndetails.html

Oh dear. "(After 3 minutes) approximately 25 percent by mass of the
matter in the universe is now in the form of helium nuclei: the rest
consists of protons."

So when is all the non baryonic dark matter supposed to arrive, and
from where?

For a detailed review, see
Gary Steigman
"Primordial Nucleosynthesis in the Precision Cosmology Era"
Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 57, 463-491 (2007)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARNPS..57..463S

Yep, that seems to confirm ratio of protons to neutrons (hence ups to
downs) does tend to unity as T tends to 0.

Thanks for the refs Jonathan, they have been most helpful [and I
haven't even finished reading the last one yet]

Of additional potential interest here is the decade earlier
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../9504082v1.pdf
This explicitly covers the non baryonic dark matter constraint.

In essence, it concludes that the baryonic mass must be less than ~
10% of the total mass, for BBN to produce an observationally plausible
mix of light elements.

Presumably the Harvard ref would lead to similar (and more accurate)
conclusions by implication, but, afaict from quick reading, does not
explicitly spell this out.

On Jun 26, 8:32 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 25 June, 17:56, "John Bell (Change John to Liberty for email)"

wrote:
I refer again tohttp://global.accelerators.co.uk/CCR/
Apparently, density is proportional to the cube of temperature in
matter dominated region, but the fourth power in radiation dominated.

Again, if anyone sees any errors, please advise.

I don't know if this could be regarded as an error or not, but if
matter is travelling at relativistic speeds, ie. close to c it follows
the radiation law Momemtum (prop 1/wavelength) = Ec where E is the
energy of the particle. Particle is travelling, near as no matter at
c.

I don't know for sure either, but suspect that this is all part and
parcel of what is meant by 'radiation dominated era'

By the nature of how pairs (of anything) are formed, if antimatter is
in equilibrium with matter it must be travelling at an appreciable
fraction of c at least.

Remember the early Universe was not matter, but matter and antimatter
with an eventual predominance of matter. How is still a mystery.

You seem to be conflating two different things here (and are by no
means alone in this).
There is, firstly, the mechanism for creating the big bang and its
immediate products. This is still unknown (at least in the published
domain). Then there is the mechanism for creating particle/
antiparticle pairs from photons, and vice versa. This is well known,
and, imo, we have no valid grounds for concluding other than that
those particles/antiparticles are both created and annihilated in
equal numbers.

The question of why there are so many high energy photons around in
the early universe (and hence so many [eventually destroyed] matter/
antimatter pairs), is probably worthy of further discussion in its own
right, and so I am starting a separate thread on that subject
(moderator permitting).

JB

Chalky wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:05Â pm, "Richard D. Saam" wrote:

Harrison provides some interesting ideas
particularly placing modern cosmology in an historical context
and presenting the hypothesis (among others)
that mass is continually being produced in the universe with time.

In what form?
In Harrison's presentation of the Friedmann-Lemaitre equations
it is not obvious what form the mass takes.

The majority of the universe 'dark energy'
(another term for matter )

I find this terminology very confusing.

Traditionally, dark energy refers to the (unknown) cause of the force
opposing gravitational attraction between matter in the universe at
large, and modelled as a re-introduction of Einstein's cosmpogical
constant.

What do you mean?
The same thing as you describe,
but trying to take the (unknown) out of it.

is characterized with u_permeability * u_permittivity
and u_permittivity by itself is characteristic
of a universe radiation component
(currently the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR))
such that the following relationships hold:

v_radiation^2 Â Â Â Â = u_permittivity * c^2

v_dark_energy^2 Â Â Â = u_permeability * u_permittivity*c^2

(replacing the garble)

v_radiation^2 = u_permittivity * c^2

v_dark_energy^2 = u_permeability * u_permittivity*c^2
and
v_dark_energy^2 = u_permeability * v_radiation^2

And what is v?
Its dimensions appear to be variable.

v is velocity (length/time)

u_permeability and u_permittivity are dimensionless

This gets back to a parallel sci.physics.research discussion
about use of SI versus CGS (mass, length, time) units.
Permeability(K) and Permittivity (epsilon) in SI have units
have an extraneous 'coulomb' which confuses
mass, length, time dimensional analysis.

This is a basic physics concept

v(K eps)^2 = K*epsilon*c^2

v(eps)^2 = epsilon*c^2

v(K eps)^2 = K*v(eps)^2

K and epsilon are dimensionless.

v(K epsilon) is a variable velocity
as a function of variable K and epsilon
and constant velocity of light(c)

v(epsilon) is a variable velocity
as a function of variable epsilon
and constant velocity of light(c)

v(K epsilon) is a variable velocity
as a function of variable K
and variable v(epsilon)

I would be interested in why you think
'v' dimensions appear to be variable?

As an aside:

In your browser, are you reading sci.physics.research
fixed width characters
and
and exponentiation due to carat '^'

That all was so convenient from worldnet.att.net
but we must choose a new newsnet that provides the same attribute.

Any suggestions?

Richard D. Saam

On Jul 6, 7:06*am, "Richard D. Saam" wrote:
Chalky wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:05Â pm, "Richard D. Saam" wrote:

Harrison provides some interesting ideas
particularly placing modern cosmology in an historical context
and presenting the hypothesis (among others)
that mass is continually being produced in the universe with time.

In what form?

In Harrison's presentation of the Friedmann-Lemaitre equations
it is not obvious what form the mass takes.

The reason I asked is that this is obviously important for a
discussion under this title, since it would presumably influence the
resultant mix of matter.

[snip]

And what is v?
Its dimensions *appear to be variable.

[snip]

I would be interested in why you think
'v' dimensions appear to be variable?

My mistake....This results when using SI units

As an aside:

In your browser, are you reading sci.physics.research
fixed width characters
and
and exponentiation due to carat '^'

No

That all was so convenient from worldnet.att.net
but we must choose a new newsnet that provides the same attribute.

Any suggestions?

There are lots of things that could be presented better, but we are
currently stuck with plain ascii here as this is the lowest common
denominator.

Afaict the worst bottleneck to more general improvement (at least for
those of us who use Google groups), is the email interface to/from the
moderators, since this tends to corrupt 8 bit characters.

JB