0

In Barbara Ryden's Intro to Cosmology, she says that, since we can write the energy density of the universe as $\varepsilon(t) = \sum\limits_{w}\varepsilon_w$, where $w$ runs over the possible equation-of-state parameters of different parts of the universe, and also $P = \sum\limits_{w}w\varepsilon_w$ (from the equation-of-state), then the fluid equation $$ \dot{\varepsilon} + 3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(\varepsilon + P\right) = 0 $$ should hold for each component separately, as long as there is no interaction between the different components.

She then concludes that the energy density of matter falls like $a^{-3}$ and of radiation as $a^{-4}$.

In a latter chapter in her book, when she talks about recombination and decoupling, where matter and radiation clearly interact, she also states that the number density of matter falls like $a^{-3}$. But since matter and radiation do interact, then above conclusion that the fluid equation holds for every component separately, fails.

How, then, can she safely say that the energy density of matter, at the epoch of recombination and decoupling, falls like $a^{-3}$?

JonTrav1
  • 990

1 Answers1

1

The universe switched from radiation dominated to matter dominated about 50,000 years after the Big Bang. See How long was the universe radiation dominated? for the details of the calculation. However recombination happened about 380,000 thousand years after the Big Bang and by then the energy density of radiation made a negligible contribution to the total energy density. That's why Ryden can safely ignore the radiation.

If you were looking at times near the switchover, i.e. around 50,000 years after the Big Bang, then you're quite correct that you would need to include the contributions from both matter and radiation, and the scaling would be somewhere between $a^{-4}$ and $a^{-3}$.

John Rennie
  • 367,598