2.3. Composition of the universe
It is important to stress that absolutely no progress in cosmology can
be made until a relationship between
and P
is provided, say, in the form of the functions
wi(a)s.
This fact, in turn, brings to focus two
issues which are not often adequately emphasized:
(i) If we assume that
the source is made of normal laboratory matter, then the relationship
between and
P depends on our knowledge
of how the equation of state for matter behaves at different
energy scales. This information needs to be provided by atomic physics,
nuclear physics
and particle physics. Cosmological models can at best be only as accurate
as the input physics about Tik is; any
definitive assertion about the state of the universe is misplaced, if
the knowledge about Tik which it is based
on is itself speculative or non existent at the relevant
energy scales. At present we have laboratory results testing the
behaviour of
matter up to about 100 GeV and hence we can, in principle, determine
the equation of state for matter up to 100 GeV. By and large, the
equation of
state for normal matter in this domain can be taken to be that of an
ideal fluid with
giving the energy density and P
giving the pressure; the relation between the two is of the form
P =
w
with
w = 0 for non relativistic matter and w = (1/3) for
relativistic matter and radiation.
(ii) The situation becomes more complicated when we realize that it
is entirely possible for the large scale universe to be dominated by
matter whose presence is undetectable at laboratory scales. For
example, large scale scalar fields dominated either by kinetic energy or
nearly constant potential
energy could exist in the universe and will not be easily detectable at
laboratory scales. We see from (6) that such
systems can have an equation of state of the form P =
w with
w = 1 (for kinetic energy dominated scalar field) or w = -
1 (for potential energy dominated scalar field).
While the conservative procedure for doing cosmology would be
to use only known forms of Tik on the right
hand side of Einstein's
equations, this has the drawback of preventing progress in our understanding
of nature, since cosmology could possibly be the only testing
ground for the existence of forms of Tik
which are difficult to detect at laboratory scales.
![]() |
Figure 1. Cosmic inventory of energy densities. See text for description. (Figure adapted from [46].) |
One of the key issues in modern cosmology has to do with the conflict in principle between (i) and (ii) above. Suppose a model based on conventional equation of state, adequately tested in the laboratory, fails to account for a cosmological observation. Should one treat this as a failure of the cosmological model or as a signal from nature for the existence of a source Tik not seen at laboratory scales? There is no easy answer to this question and we will focus on many facets of this issue in the coming sections.
Figure 1 provides an inventory of the density
contributed by different forms of matter in the universe.
The x-axis is actually a combination
hn of
and the Hubble
parameter h since different components are measured by different
techniques. (Usually n = 1 or 2; numerical values are for
h = 0.7.) The density parameter contributed today by visible, non
relativistic, baryonic matter in the universe is about
B
(0.01 - 0.2) (marked
by triangles in the figure; different estimates
are from different sources; see for a sample of references
[51,
52,
53,
54,
55,
56,
57,
58,
59,
60]).
The density parameter due to radiation is about
R
2 × 10-5
(marked by squares in the figure).
Unfortunately, models for the universe with just these two
constituents for the energy density are in violent disagreement with
observations. It appears to be necessary to postulate the existence of:
So in addition to H0, at least four more free parameters
are required to describe the background universe at low energies (say,
below 50 GeV). These are
B,
R,
DM and
describing the
fraction of the critical density contributed by baryonic matter, radiation
(including relativistic particles like e.g, massive neutrinos; marked by
a cross in the figure), dark matter and cosmological constant
respectively. The first two certainly exist; the existence
of last two is probably suggested by observations and is definitely not
contradicted by any observations. Of these, only
R is well
constrained and other quantities are plagued by
both statistical and systematic errors in their measurements.
The top two positions in the contribution to
are from
cosmological constant and non baryonic dark matter.
It is unfortunate that we do not have laboratory evidence for the
existence of the first two dominant contributions to the energy density
in the universe. (This feature alone could make most of the
cosmological paradigm described in this review irrelevant at a
future date!)
The simplest model for the universe is based on the assumption that each of the sources which populate the universe has a constant wi; then equation (20) becomes
![]() |
(22) |
where each of these species is identified by density parameter
i and the
equation of state characterized by
wi. The most familiar form of energy densities
are those due to pressure-less matter with
wi = 0
(that is, non relativistic matter with rest mass energy density
c2
dominating over the kinetic energy density,
v2/2)
and radiation with wi = (1/3).
Whenever any one component of energy density dominates over others,
P
w
and it
follows from the equation (22) (taking k = 0, for simplicity) that
![]() |
(23) |
For example,
a-4,
a
t1/2 if the source is relativistic and
a-3, a
t2/3 if
the source is non-relativistic.
This result shows that the past evolution of the universe is
characterized by two important epochs (see eg.
[43,
44]):
(i) The first is the radiation dominated epoch which occurs
at redshifts greater than
zeq
(
DM /
R)
104. For
z
zeq the energy density is dominated by
hot relativistic matter and the universe is very well approximated as a
k = 0 model with
a(t)
t1/2. (ii) The second phase occurs for
z << zeq in which the universe is
dominated by non relativistic matter and
- in some cases - the cosmological constant. The form of a(t)
in this phase depends on the relative values of
DM and
.
In the simplest case, with
DM
1,
= 0,
B <<
DM the
expansion is a power law with
a(t)
t2/3.
(When cosmological constant dominates over matter, a(t)
grows exponentially.)
During all the epochs, the temperature of the radiation varies
as T
a-1. When the temperature falls below
T
103 K,
neutral atomic systems form in the universe and photons decouple from
matter. In this scenario, a relic background of such photons with Planckian
spectrum at some non-zero temperature will exist in the present day
universe. The present theory is, however, unable to predict the value of
T at t = t0; it is therefore a free
parameter related
R
T40.