[AndroidNeox (OP)]

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?

[imatfaal]

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

[AndroidNeox (OP)]

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.

[Pmb]

I don't understand why you believe that the mass of the universe is increasing. Can you clarify it for me?

[AndroidNeox (OP)]

Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, M_OU, and the Hubble length, H_OU, is equal to 2G/c², not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then M_OU 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.

[imatfaal]

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 ...

[AndroidNeox (OP)]

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?

[Airthumbs]

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?

[Pmb]

Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, M_OU, and the Hubble length, H_OU, is equal to 2G/c², not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then M_OU 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.

[Pmb]

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.

[Airthumbs]

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.

[Pmb]

[

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.

[Airthumbs]

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.

[Pmb]

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.

[AndroidNeox (OP)]

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.

[AndroidNeox (OP)]

Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, M_OU, and the Hubble length, H_OU, is equal to 2G/c², not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then M_OU 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.

[AndroidNeox (OP)]

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.

[Pmb]

Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, M_OU, and the Hubble length, H_OU, is equal to 2G/c², not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then M_OU 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

[AndroidNeox (OP)]

Presuming that the observed relationship between the observed mass of the universe, M_OU, and the Hubble length, H_OU, is equal to 2G/c², not by coincidence, but that it is an unchanging relationship, then M_OU 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.

[yor_on]

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.