The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Where does the universe's new mass come from?  (Read 8226 times)

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« on: 13/01/2013 02:28:30 »
First of all, I want to be clear that I am not suggesting the universe is a black hole. I accept the Friedmann model which explains why it appears to satisfy (to within 3 significant digits, per Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe results) the Radius/Mass ratio of a simple Schwarzschild black hole (zero spin or charge).

My personal preference is for cosmological models that do not depend upon when the universe is observed, so I speculated, what if this relationship between the observable radius (Hubble distance) and mass is a fixed and unalterable situation. R/M = 2G/c2

If that is true, then the observable mass would be proportional to the age of the universe, M = (age) x c3/2G

However, because the average speed at which matter at the edge of our visible universe, the Hubble distance, will be receding from us at the speed of light, I don't see where the mass comes from. Somehow, the mass we observe would constantly increase even though nothing is coming in at the edges.

Can anyone explain how this works?


 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #1 on: 16/01/2013 17:27:46 »
Android

Can you elaborate on your first paragraph - the data from WMAP would put the mass of the universe such that the Schild radius for the observable universe would be at about 10 Glyr.  This is not in the same ball-park as the radius of the observable universe.  I must be missing something
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #2 on: 19/01/2013 23:44:27 »
They’ve redone the WMAP site, apparently, and I’m not finding the results clearly presented as I had when I looked at the 5-year results a few years back. The mass I’m using the the sum of the 4 categories of matter they list: “normal matter”, dark matter, radiant energy, and dark energy.

According to WMAP-5, the mass density of the universe is 9.9 x 1027 kg m3. All four categories of matter are included in this value. That’s homogeneous and isotropic throughout all of space that we can see. Given a radius (Hubble length) of 13.7 x 109 lightyears, I came up with a mass of 9.11 x 1052 kg.

By the way, I screwed up when I said 3 significant digits... the match is within 3%. Sorry about that.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #3 on: 20/01/2013 15:16:43 »
I don't understand why you believe that the mass of the universe is increasing. Can you clarify it for me?
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #4 on: 21/01/2013 17:40:19 »
Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, MOU, and the Hubble length, HOU, is equal to 2G/c2, not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then MOU must increase in direct proportion to time. That is, were the WMAP observations to be repeated when the universe is twice its current age, they would observe twice the current mass.

I'm just wondering where this new mass will appear, since it can't appear at the horizon, because at that distance, everything is moving away from us at c.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #5 on: 22/01/2013 18:54:25 »
Android - one thing to start with; observable distance DNE hubble length in my terms.  The observable universe is about 46billion light years radius.  The hubble length is the distance of stars  such that the gap is expanding at the speed of light  - they are not the same.

And on your sums - I make it that the mass of the universe via a hubble length schild radius is 95.4% of the mass of the universe through WMAP observation

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%281.306*10^26%29*%283*10^8%29^2%29%2F%282*%286.67*10^-11%29%29
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%284%2F3%29*pi*%28%281.306*10^26%29^3%29%29*%289.9*10^-27%29

That's pretty close - but ...
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #6 on: 23/01/2013 20:31:41 »
imatfaal, thanks for checking my math. I couldn’t get the Wolfram links to work but I’ll accept your results. I think that the ratio is pretty well established, though… it looks like our cosmos satisfies the Friedmann equations for flat space, which also satisfies the Schwarzschild relationship (radius to mass ratio of a “black hole” with zero charge and spin) if one uses a radius of the Hubble length.

I’m familiar with the co-moving frame distance but it isn’t relevant to the behavior of gravity and matter. For all observations, both the light and gravity of the most distant matter observable has travelled 13.7 billion light years and, no matter how distorted spacetime is, for all observers within spacetime, the apparent distance is 13.7 billion light years. While it’s informative to think of the instantaneous condition of the universe from a “godlike” perspective, independent of constraints of space and time, that’s not what any observer or object (e.g. astronomers, electrons, or any form of matter or energy) experiences.

If the observable universe has always satisfied the Friedmann equations for flat space, then the observable mass increases in direct proportion to the passage of time. And, no new matter appears at the horizon. I’m just wondering… where does the new mass come from?
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #7 on: 25/01/2013 17:53:08 »
If the Universe is getting "new mass" then could you also state the Universe is getting new Energy?  Maybe it is that Energy that creates the mass like E=mc2 but in reverse?

And if that might be true then the Universe is not a closed system?
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #8 on: 25/01/2013 22:18:23 »
Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, MOU, and the Hubble length, HOU, is equal to 2G/c2, not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then MOU must increase in direct proportion to time. That is, were the WMAP observations to be repeated when the universe is twice its current age, they would observe twice the current mass.
Where did you get this idea from? All that you’ve just explained to me means is that more mass is coming into view with time. That mass has always been there. We’re just being able to see more of it as time goes on.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #9 on: 25/01/2013 22:25:29 »
If the Universe is getting "new mass" then could you also state the Universe is getting new Energy?  Maybe it is that Energy that creates the mass like E=mc2 but in reverse?

And if that might be true then the Universe is not a closed system?
Even if it were true that more mass was being created it's also be true that more gravitational energy was being created as well and that has a negative contribution to the total energy of the universe.
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #10 on: 25/01/2013 23:33:23 »
Even if it were true that more mass was being created it's also be true that more gravitational energy was being created as well and that has a negative contribution to the total energy of the universe.

Now I am confused, could you explain how.  It seems counter intuitive that more mass = less energy?  Does gravity have a negative contribution to the energy of the Universe and how?  Would this be in terms of the rate of expansion?

I understand from your explanation this is extremely unlikely but I still wish to try and understand the physics involved.
« Last Edit: 25/01/2013 23:34:59 by Airthumbs »
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #11 on: 26/01/2013 02:16:26 »
[
Quote from: Airthumbs
Now I am confused, could you explain how.
Suppose you create two point particles, one of mass M, the other of mass m. The total mass-energy is (M+m)c^2. The kinetic energy is zero since they aren’t moving. The potential is –GMm/r. So while you add energy according to its masses you subtract a little bit of it off because of their mutual potential energy.
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #12 on: 26/01/2013 12:20:50 »
The potential is –GMm/r.

Could you expand on this a little bit please, is G gravity? and what is r?  If I can understand that then I think I might get it.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #13 on: 26/01/2013 15:05:40 »
G = Gravitational constant. I F is the force exerted on one body due to another, one body having mass M and the other having mass m and r being the distance between them then the force is

F = GMm/r2

G is known as the gravitational constant. It's a constant of proportionality.
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #14 on: 27/01/2013 16:54:23 »
If the Universe is getting "new mass" then could you also state the Universe is getting new Energy?  Maybe it is that Energy that creates the mass like E=mc2 but in reverse?

And if that might be true then the Universe is not a closed system?

The only source of this I can think of would be a "background quantity". The theorized "dark energy" might be just such a quantity that is uniform throughout space.
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #15 on: 27/01/2013 16:57:16 »
Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, MOU, and the Hubble length, HOU, is equal to 2G/c2, not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then MOU must increase in direct proportion to time. That is, were the WMAP observations to be repeated when the universe is twice its current age, they would observe twice the current mass.
Where did you get this idea from? All that you’ve just explained to me means is that more mass is coming into view with time. That mass has always been there. We’re just being able to see more of it as time goes on.

At the Hubble distance, everything is moving away at the speed of light. I worked through the numbers and it turns out that new mass would be entering at the horizon at precisely the rate needed to retain the ratio if the Hubble "constant" were precisely 2/3 of the observed value.
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #16 on: 27/01/2013 16:58:32 »
Even if it were true that more mass was being created it's also be true that more gravitational energy was being created as well and that has a negative contribution to the total energy of the universe.

Now I am confused, could you explain how.  It seems counter intuitive that more mass = less energy?  Does gravity have a negative contribution to the energy of the Universe and how?  Would this be in terms of the rate of expansion?

I understand from your explanation this is extremely unlikely but I still wish to try and understand the physics involved.

Yes, gravity has a negative contribution.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #17 on: 27/01/2013 18:04:33 »
Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, MOU, and the Hubble length, HOU, is equal to 2G/c2, not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then MOU must increase in direct proportion to time. That is, were the WMAP observations to be repeated when the universe is twice its current age, they would observe twice the current mass.
Where did you get this idea from? All that you’ve just explained to me means is that more mass is coming into view with time. That mass has always been there. We’re just being able to see more of it as time goes on.

At the Hubble distance, everything is moving away at the speed of light. I worked through the numbers and it turns out that new mass would be entering at the horizon at precisely the rate needed to retain the ratio if the Hubble "constant" were precisely 2/3 of the observed value.
I don't know how you're comming up with these numbers. But again, this is not new mass as in the sense it's being created as time goes on. It's only new in the sense that we can now see it.

Keep in mind that the fate of the universe and its rate of expansion is only based on mass density, not total mass.
Please
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #18 on: 24/03/2013 20:01:43 »
Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, MOU, and the Hubble length, HOU, is equal to 2G/c2, not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then MOU must increase in direct proportion to time. That is, were the WMAP observations to be repeated when the universe is twice its current age, they would observe twice the current mass.
Where did you get this idea from? All that you’ve just explained to me means is that more mass is coming into view with time. That mass has always been there. We’re just being able to see more of it as time goes on.

At the Hubble distance, everything is moving away at the speed of light. I worked through the numbers and it turns out that new mass would be entering at the horizon at precisely the rate needed to retain the ratio if the Hubble "constant" were precisely 2/3 of the observed value.
I don't know how you're comming up with these numbers. But again, this is not new mass as in the sense it's being created as time goes on. It's only new in the sense that we can now see it.

Keep in mind that the fate of the universe and its rate of expansion is only based on mass density, not total mass.
Please

Yes, new mass must be coming into view. However, because matter at the Hubble distance (edge of observable space) moves away from us at the speed of light, that cannot be the source of the matter newly observable. I'm not sure how to make that more clear. Since nothing goes faster than light, if the average movement of matter at the edge of observable space is *always* away from us at the speed of light, on average, no new matter comes into view.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #19 on: 25/03/2013 13:09:24 »
Not sure how you think there? You're using a relation between mass, and the distance we can see at the moment? Then speculating that this relation won't change? And from that reasoning finding more mass needed to keep your equation in balance? So what was the mass of the universe just after a inflation? As the gluon quark plasma had cooled down into rest mass?

Either you have to assume that rest mass is created constantly from ? spontaneous pair particle creation which then assume that the 'space' we have can't be 'neutral' in form of energy, as you would need a mechanism producing more particles than 'anti particles', on a continuous basis. Or you think of it as 'dark energy' and 'dark mass' producing this effect.

But first of all, you need to define the hypothesis in a clearer way so we can see how you reached it. And you also need to prove the concept by something more than a equation proving it.

Also: even though there is a expectation of dark energy and dark mass, none has been found by the LHC so far, and neither from any other particle accelerator.
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #20 on: 24/06/2013 00:19:47 »
I really don't understand the confusion. The instantaneous appearance (the only physically meaningful factor) of the universe satisfies the Friedman eq. for flat space. However, this means that the instantaneous appearance also satisfies the Schwarzschild metric which describes the radius to mass ratio for a black hole with no spin or charge. Okay?

The average velocity of the most distant matter for us, the Hubble distance, is away from us at the speed of light. This means that no new matter would be coming into view. Okay?

If the quantity of matter within our observable space has not been increasing over time then it's just a coincidence that the Friedman eq. match observation. Also, it would mean that in the past our observable universe possessed more matter than an equivalently-sized black hole, which is not allowed.

I don't see any reason to think Friedman just happens to appear to be right by accident, so new mass must be coming into view over time. But, since it doesn't seem to be coming in at the edge of observable space, where is it coming from?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #21 on: 24/06/2013 13:22:11 »
Could you link "The instantaneous appearance (the only physically meaningful factor) of the universe ", so I can follow how you get to this definition, please :) 

"The average velocity of the most distant matter for us, the Hubble distance, is away from us at the speed of light."

If you by that mean what limit a astronomical observation, we now are observing (in time) pretty close to the big bang. Anything beyond that 'radius in time' should be empty of mass, relative us observing. That has noting to do with how big a universe is, or what mass it may consist of.

If we define a universe to inflate (and expand) isotropically and homogeneous in all points, simultaneously so. Then there is no preferred point of observation, in this universe. You can stand wherever you want, look out into the universe to find the same result, as you look back in time. In fact, you must find this to be true using the stipulates from a Big Bang, inflation and expansion, otherwise you will invalidate them.

And if this is true I don't see how one can define a mass of a universe, other than a educated guess over a average, whatever 'size' (distance) relative mass we would like to define. Although, the universe must be 'infinite' from those stipulations, so any definition of a real 'mass' of a 'whole universe' must then become a infinity too, although still a average relative some distance (mass density).
=

Please TNS, set the time-limit for us correcting spelling etc, a little more generously.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2013 13:42:42 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #22 on: 24/06/2013 13:39:19 »
If you by it instead mean, and wonder, how we can keep a constant mass density, relative some distance, in a accelerating expansion? :) Then that is a very good question, which have me confused as well. On the other hand, it doesn't change a thing for that 'infinite universe with its infinite mass' how 'large' we might define a universe as, relative that mass.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #23 on: 24/06/2013 14:26:10 »
If I would make a choice for explaining a accelerating expansion I would prefer Einsteins biggest blunder :) A 'cosmological constant' but not using it as defining a dark energy, and mass. I like it as it was, a numerical definition giving us some value for this expansion. There are ideas that explains it from 'SpaceTime ripples' though as http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-05n.html
 

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #24 on: 24/06/2013 19:48:09 »
Could you link "The instantaneous appearance (the only physically meaningful factor) of the universe ", so I can follow how you get to this definition, please :) 

"The average velocity of the most distant matter for us, the Hubble distance, is away from us at the speed of light."

If you by that mean what limit a astronomical observation, we now are observing (in time) pretty close to the big bang. Anything beyond that 'radius in time' should be empty of mass, relative us observing. That has noting to do with how big a universe is, or what mass it may consist of.

If we define a universe to inflate (and expand) isotropically and homogeneous in all points, simultaneously so. Then there is no preferred point of observation, in this universe. You can stand wherever you want, look out into the universe to find the same result, as you look back in time. In fact, you must find this to be true using the stipulates from a Big Bang, inflation and expansion, otherwise you will invalidate them.

And if this is true I don't see how one can define a mass of a universe, other than a educated guess over a average, whatever 'size' (distance) relative mass we would like to define. Although, the universe must be 'infinite' from those stipulations, so any definition of a real 'mass' of a 'whole universe' must then become a infinity too, although still a average relative some distance (mass density).
=

Please TNS, set the time-limit for us correcting spelling etc, a little more generously.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The instantaneous appearance of the universe is how it looks at any instant. Things like co-moving frames don't describe how the universe works because they ignore things like speed of light and depend on concepts that have no physical reality (simultaneity, disproved by relativity).

Regarding, "I don't see how one can define a mass of a universe", I'm more interested in the mass of an observed volume. The volume defined by our observable universe.

That volume is (apparently) increasing in mass but the mass is not entering from the observable horizon.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Where does the universe's new mass come from?
« Reply #24 on: 24/06/2013 19:48:09 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums