- #1
Quarlep
- 257
- 4
I know that universe can be have three different futures.But for lastes theories universe is growing faster then we thought.I want to ask how much energy we need to make this observable universe.
Quarlep said:We know that universe should collapse or at least be stable
Quarlep said:If potantial energy is high or equal then kinetic energy we get this two solutions.
Quarlep said:without dark energy universe should collpase
Quarlep said:Without dark energy what would be happen
Dark energy is a relatively small adjustment to late expansion rates (last few billion years or so). There's no reason to believe that dark energy was ever "created". The simplest model is the cosmological constant, which has been a component of General Relativity pretty much from the beginning of the theory.Quarlep said:Friedmann equations didnt gave the observable provement so that we create dark energy.And dark energy makes our universe observable provement.I mean dark energy solves the observable problems isn't it ?
As far as we know, zero.Quarlep said:I know that universe can be have three different futures.But for lastes theories universe is growing faster then we thought.I want to ask how much energy we need to make this observable universe.
Quarlep said:So there's two universe model I was asking energy diffrences between them and that's dark energy
Quarlep said:Friedmann model without cosmological comsatnt
Quarlep said:The one wwlhich the our universe through history
That's one that includes dark energy.Quarlep said:The one wwlhich the our universe through history
Hi Quarlep, I think I understand your question.Quarlep said:Friedmann model without cosmological comsatnt
This statement makes no sense. Prior to the 1990's, the parameters on our models for the expanding universe had gigantic error bars. We really didn't know much of anything about how that expansion rate has changed over time.Quarlep said:The one wwlhich the our universe through history
marcus said:I'm glad to think I understood your question! When I type in that thing at the end of the previous post, google says:
0.7e-9 (joule per (m^3)) * (cubic light year) =
5.92712685 × 1038 joules
So that is the amount in a cubic light year. And roughly how many cubic light years are there in the observable universe, radius 46 billion LY (that is the particle horizon, the current distance to the farthest matter we can have gotten signals from)
4/3*pi*(46 billion LY)^3
When I put this in:
0.7e-9 joule per m^3*(4/3)*pi*(46 billion light years)^3
google gives back:
0.7e-9 (joule per (m^3)) * (4 / 3) * pi * ((46 billion light years)^3) =
2.41660865 × 1071 joules
So I guess that must be the answer
Chalnoth said:This statement makes no sense. Prior to the 1990's, the parameters on our models for the expanding universe had gigantic error bars. We really didn't know much of anything about how that expansion rate has changed over time.
Now we know that it is impossible to fit the data we observe without some form of dark energy (or other, more exotic addition to the theory).
The answer Marcus gave is one of many possible answers.Quarlep said:Marcus gave me an answer
He gave one possible calculation. Just because it's possible to write down some numbers doesn't mean there aren't other ways.Quarlep said:He calculate dark energy energy isn't it