How Does Dark Energy Exhibit Negative Pressure in Cosmology?

Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
2
The Wikipedia article on dark energy says "dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure". In what sense can energy "have" pressure?

Is it that the value of the metric tensor field at an event, when multiplied by the cosmological constant, is a tensor in some way analogous to the stress-energy tensor, with components corresponding to energy-density, momentum density and stress? Is this effectively the stress-energy tensor of some, as yet, unidentified matter? If so, why does it play a different role in the equation to the stress-energy tensor of dark matter, which I'm guessing (rightly or wrongly) is subsumed into the regular stress-energy tensor. When Wikipedia: Dark energy says, "In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe", what is the relationship of pressure to this figure of 73%?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The dark energy looks like this in terms of SETs. Isotropic negative pressure.

G_{\mu\nu}=\kappa \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> \mu c^2&amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp;0 &amp;0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp;0 &amp;0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0\end{array} \right]-<br /> \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> \Lambda g_{00} &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp;\Lambda g_{11} &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp;\Lambda g_{22} &amp; 0 \\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; \Lambda g_{33}\end{array} \right]<br />
 
What does \mu stand for in the time-time component of \text{diag}(\mu c^2,0,0,0) = T_{\mu\nu}? Is the name pressure only given to the spatial diagonal components of the second term? If this is a tensor equation, could we chose coordinates in which the second term on the right, by analogy with the stress-energy tensor, would have off-diagonal space-space components (dark stress)? Does the name dark energy refer to \Lambda g_{00}, or to the whole of the second term on the right, or to or \mu c^2, or to the whole expression? Does the name dark energy refer to a quantity defined only in a particular conventional coordinate system, or does it refer to a particular component of a tensor, regardless of what value that component takes in a given coordinate system?
 
The first term is the SET of the gravitating matter in its rest-frame. The second term is energy/pressure caused by \Lambda. The SET of a perfect fluid is

<br /> T_{\mu\nu}=(\mu+p)U_\mu U_\nu + pg_{\mu\nu}<br />

with Um=0, m= 1,2,3 and U0 <> 0, it reduces to something like my first expression. So the cosmological constant is claimed to be energy/pressure ( I've dropped a factor of c2 somewhere...)

This is informative,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution
 
Last edited:
Do "gravitating matter" and "perfect fluid" here both refer to the source of the acceleration in the expansion of the universe, commonly called dark energy?

And do I understand you correctly that \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} is just the p g_{\mu\nu} term of the SET for this exotic perfect fluid?
 
Are you referring to this theory: Dark fluid?
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top