Was Dark Energy born at the BB, as Cosmic Inflation?

[kyle_baron]

1. Both are accelerations of space.

2. Both are the largest component of the universe, at each time frame.

3. If EVERYTHING came from the BB, then Dark Energy had to be one of these things.

4. What do you think? Yes or No, and why?

 

[ramparts]

From Wikipedia ("Inflation (Cosmology)"):

"As of 2006, it is unclear what relationship if any the period of cosmological inflation has to do with dark energy.[citation needed] Dark energy is broadly similar to inflation, and is thought to be causing the expansion of the present-day universe to accelerate. However, the energy scale of dark energy is much lower, 10-12 GeV, roughly 27 orders of magnitude less than the scale of inflation."

That's as of 2006. To the best of my knowledge, the last three years haven't seen any confirmation either way, but the energy thing is tough to get around. One would also have to wonder why this one field would only act at very early and very late times!

 

[MeteorWayne]

Just throwing an idea out here, (almost anything is possible until we learn more about DE ) perhaps the strength fell logarithmically. SO while very large "in the beginning" it swiftly fell off in strength. Now, 13.7 GY later, it is falling at a much slower rate, and now that the mass density of the Universe has decreased, it's effect can be seen.

Why would it fall at that rate? Who knows? Maybe when Einstein II figures out what it is.... :lol:

 

[kyle_baron]

Just throwing an idea out here, (almost anything is possible until we learn more about DE ) perhaps the strength fell logarithmically. SO while very large "in the beginning" it swiftly fell off in strength. Now, 13.7 GY later, it is falling at a much slower rate, and now that the mass density of the Universe has decreased, it's effect can be seen.

Why would it fall at that rate? Who knows? Maybe when Einstein II figures out what it is.... :lol:

I'm in total agreement with your logic and reasoning, MW. Let's figure it out now, Einstein II isn't needed.

 

[yevaud]

OK, here's one: Perhaps Dark Energy is the force that in the infant universe bootstrapped Inflation. It has entered a new phase of (relatively small sacale) Inflation again; a negative-pressure vacuum energy. Why is it occurrimg? Damfino.

 

[ramparts]

What do you mean "bootstrapped"?

 

[yevaud]

The Inflationary Universe, as viewed prior to Guth, had the concept of Inflation, but not of the sort Guth theorized. Inflation ramped up exponentially per/Guth, and it's not understood why or how. "Bootstrapping" means "lifting yourself into the air via your own bootstraps." Not possible, but there it is.

 

[kyle_baron]

OK, here's one: Perhaps Dark Energy is the force that in the infant universe bootstrapped Inflation. It has entered a new phase of (relatively small sacale) Inflation again; a negative-pressure vacuum energy. Why is it occurrimg? Damfino.

I'm all for speculation, but if that's the case, are you saying that D.E. and Inflation are seperate energy fields? And that one has engaged the other, by accelerating it?

 

[yevaud]

No, I said the same force, re-manifesting itself.

 

[kyle_baron]

So, we're all pretty much in agreement that Inflation and D.E. are one in the same, but that it changed logarithmically over time.

It has entered a new phase of (relatively small sacale) Inflation again; a negative-pressure vacuum energy. Why is it occurrimg? Damfino.

Why is it reoccuring? Would the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics apply to negitive-pressure vacuum energy? Energy can't be destroyed?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Not true at all. It's possible that inflation and DE are the same thing, but since we have no firm idea of what either is, you certainly can't say we all agree about it.

If you look at the facts, with current theory, vacuum energy doesn't fit, it's off by, ohhh 120 orders of magnitude

 

[ramparts]

Yeah, hey, I didn't sign up for that! I think it's incredibly unlikely they're the same thing, since they act at vastly different times and on vastly different scales, and there's nothing at all in theory or in observation to suggest that they're the same, except that they make things expand

 

[kyle_baron]

If you look at the facts, with current theory, vacuum energy doesn't fit, it's off by, ohhh 120 orders of magnitude

We don't know if the vacuum energy at the time of cosmic inflation, was the necessary 120 orders of magnitude. We only know that there is a shortfall now, 13.7 bil. yrs. later, in the vacuum of our universe. Would that be a correct assumption?

 

[kyle_baron]

Yeah, hey, I didn't sign up for that! I think it's incredibly unlikely they're the same thing, since they act at vastly different times and on vastly different scales, and there's nothing at all in theory or in observation to suggest that they're the same, except that they make things expand

Then you're saying, that they're seperate energy fields.

 

[yevaud]

We don't know if the vacuum energy at the time of cosmic inflation, was the necessary 120 orders of magnitude. We only know that there is a shortfall now, 13.7 bil. yrs. later, in the vacuum of our universe. Would that be a correct assumption?

That'd be about what I'm suggesting.

 

[ramparts]

Again, it depends what you mean by "shortfall". You mean there's less vacuum energy than there should be? Yes, if dark energy and inflation are caused by the same thing. But again, there's no evidence of such a thing.

Perhaps instead of thinking of it as an energy, look at it as the cosmological constant, a term we can add to Einstein's equations without making them invalid. This is just another way of describing the same thing. The fact that you can add this term to the equations crucially depends on its being constant - so it changing in time would be rather problematic.

 

[yevaud]

True, it belabors the point to refer to it as a constant if it changes.

 

[SpeedFreek]

But what if there were a "phase transition" of the cosmological constant, caused by the conditions in the first milliseconds of the universe?

I have read a suggestion by Brian Greene that dark energy might be left over from cosmic inflation, and that at the end of inflation the value of the "inflaton field" dropped off sharply towards zero, but may have settled at a non-zero value.

 

[ramparts]

As I've said, it's entirely possible, but there's zero evidence for it to date (and I'm not aware of many theories proposing how it would happen, either).

 

[kyle_baron]

Why is the Cosmological Constant even necessary, for determining the vacuum energy in the early BB universe? The Cosmological Constant only applies to the present day universe, and particles with in the atom, IMO. D.E. and Cosmic Inflation occured outside the atom. It's an apple vs orange comparrison, IMO.

 

[ramparts]

I'm not sure what you mean, Kyle. If there is a cosmological constant, it's always been there - that's the point of a constant And it has nothing to do with inside or outside of atoms... general relativity deals with things far bigger than atoms, and if there is a cosmological constant, it has zero to do with atoms (until the universe has expanded so much that atoms get ripped apart! But that's a long way off ). If there is a cosmological constant, it would serve as an explanation for the "dark energy", so there's not much good in talking about them separately.

 

[kyle_baron]

I'm not sure what you mean, Kyle. If there is a cosmological constant, it's always been there - that's the point of a constant And it has nothing to do with inside or outside of atoms... general relativity deals with things far bigger than atoms, and if there is a cosmological constant, it has zero to do with atoms (until the universe has expanded so much that atoms get ripped apart! But that's a long way off ). If there is a cosmological constant, it would serve as an explanation for the "dark energy", so there's not much good in talking about them separately.

So, what you're saying, is that there is no connection between Cosmic Inflation, and the Cosmological Constant? But there is a connection between the Dark Energy and the Cosmological Constant? That connection is a shortfall of 120 orders of magnitude (in energy) with respect to our current theory? Which in conclusion, does not add up?

 

[ramparts]

No no no! What I'm saying is that we don't know if there's a connection between dark energy and inflation. There might be, but there's no reason to think so. If I had to guess, I'd say probably not

But yes, the cosmological constant is dark energy, if they exist. They're just different ways of mathematically treating the same thing.

 

[kyle_baron]

No no no! What I'm saying is that we don't know if there's a connection between dark energy and inflation. There might be, but there's no reason to think so. If I had to guess, I'd say probably not

I'm not surprised that you would come to that conclusion, considering there is no empirical evidence. However, the circumstancial evidence is overwhelming, as listed in the opening post.

 

[ramparts]

Really? The only circumstantial evidence you've mentioned is that they both cause acceleration. If that's overwhelming, then by the same token there's overwhelming circumstantial evidence that gravity and magnetism are the same thing - and only dryson believe that