Infinite universe x Deceleration of expansionby fbs7 Tags: deceleration, expansion, infinite, universe 

#1
Jan2212, 09:52 AM

P: 127

I understand we don't know if the universe is finite or infinite, but I know that in the center of the Earth there is no gravity because the attraction from Earth's gravity is the same on all directions, so the final result is zero.
So, if the universe is infinite and matter is equally distributed, then the attraction of gravity from the universe on any given point should be the same in all directions... therefore the final result should be zero, so the effect of the universe's mass in any point in space should be zero. That means the universe's mass should have no effect on slowing down its expansion. Ergo, the fact that the universe slowed down its expansion after the big bag should be evidence the universe is finite. Of course this argument is wrong... but I can't find where. Any help, please? 



#2
Jan2212, 10:10 AM

P: 127

2. The resultant Force on a POINT PARTICLE only will be zero. This includes only the fundamental particles whose space occupies the exact spot at the centre of the Earth. I have ignored the rest of your post for now because the rest of your argument follows from a false premise. 



#3
Jan2212, 10:30 AM

PF Gold
P: 5,705





#4
Jan2212, 11:37 AM

P: 127

Infinite universe x Deceleration of expansionOr, asking the other way around, if I take a grain of sand and remove the local influences (Earth, Moon, Sun, galaxy, galaxy cluster)... will the gravity due to the rest of the universe be zero or nonzero? I suspect my problem is that I know what acceleration/deceleration due to gravity is (I know it is a nice little vector, at least in common experience), but I only have a vague comprehension of what "expansion of the universe" is. I suspect that "deceleration of the expansion of the universe" may be a bit different than "deceleration due to Earth's gravity". 



#5
Jan2212, 12:16 PM

P: 499

You can argue in two ways
A) In a homogeneous universe, gravity will balance out, so overall will not have an effect B) A homogeneous spherical shell of matter will have no effect on matter inside the shell. Hence, if we consider a sphere of matter, we think of the matter outside it as making up a series of spherical shells, and so we can ignore the matter outside it. The matter in the sphere will be pulled inwards. But this applies to any sphere, hence overall matter will be pulled together. Isaac Newton claimed that (A) was the case, but it was never entirely convincing. (A) tends to make sense if you believe in absolute space, so that there's no reason for any matter to move from its original position. If you don't believe in absolute space then (B) looks much more convincing, and so following Einstein's theory of relativity has become the accepted viewpoint. 



#6
Jan2212, 12:29 PM

P: 5,634

I think the prior post answers your question, but I wanted tomake a few comments
There are also other 'gravitational affects'...like time dilation that continue unabated even though the net gravitational force is close to zero. In other words the gradient of the gravitational potential (attractive 'gravity') is close to zero, but the gravitational potential [time dilation] remains. Further, even if the universe is infinite, gravity from beyond the cosmological horizon [beyond the observable/visible universe] would not have yet reached us since light has not and both travel at 'c'. PS: Why is 'deceleration of expansion' in your title?? 



#7
Jan2212, 12:33 PM

P: 5,634

You might find this prior discussion interesting:
HOW STRONG IS GRAVITY AT THE CENTER OF THE EARTH http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...y+inside+earth 



#8
Jan2212, 01:18 PM

P: 321





#9
Jan2212, 02:32 PM

P: 127

That's because I read somewhere that during some time since the big bang the rate of expansion of the universe decreased, and then started to increase during the last billion years or so. I read that increase in the expansion of the universe being referred the acceleration of universe... so I just guessed that the period through which the rate of expansion of the universe was decreasing, should be called deceleration. I didn't really think much of it  my terminology is uneducated. Probably should have referred to as decrease of expansion. 



#10
Jan2212, 02:45 PM

P: 127

Wow, that's fantastic  I never thought an infinite, homogeneous and isotropic universe would get nonzero gravity. That's mindboggling!! Thankfully, if I understood this and the previous posts, the "inifinite" part does not apply, right, because a location is only affected by what's inside its observable radius (the 13.7 billion lightyears thing)? Therefore, for the purpose of calculating the gravity due to the rest of the universe, we are indeed inside a very large, but finite, sphere, which in the large scale is homogenous, is that correct? So, back to the main issue... the overall gravity due to distant bodies at the center of that megasphere should be zero  so it should be zero everywhere, given any point will be in the center of its own observable universe. So how can the mass of the universe have an effect in its expansion, give the gravity effects at large scale cancel themselves everywhere? 



#11
Jan2212, 02:57 PM

PF Gold
P: 5,705

I inflated for a tiny fraction of a second then decelerated for about 6 or 8 billion years and then the mass became spread out enought so that "dark energy" took over and the expansion not only stopped decelerating, it started accelerating and has been doing that for 6 or 8 billion years. Hm ... "give or take a billion" makes me sound like a politicion spending our military budget. 



#12
Jan2312, 08:02 AM

P: 5,634

ok, here is a better explanation...the entire article is of general interest: The implications of all this are mostly beyond imagination!!! 



#13
Jan2312, 12:05 PM

P: 321





#14
Jan2312, 06:58 PM

P: 5,634

This is also interesting within the same article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_..._perturbations 



#15
Jan2312, 10:04 PM

P: 127

Thank you



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
finite expansion at infinite  Calculus  1  
Universe expansion, then deceleration, then acceleration?  Cosmology  12  
Infinite universe in expansion  Cosmology  33  
Infiniteinfinite universe explains all  General Discussion  42  
Does an infinite universe effect an infinite outlook?  General Astronomy  11 