Accelerated expansion and its rate

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the topic of accelerated expansion of the universe, focusing on its measurement, implications, and the mathematical frameworks used to describe it. Participants share references to relevant literature and engage in technical discussions about the parameters involved in cosmological models.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants request references and papers on the accelerated expansion of the universe, specifically inquiring about the rate of this expansion.
  • One participant cites a survey paper by Michael Turner, discussing the dimensionless number q that measures the acceleration of expansion, and provides definitions and equations related to the scale factor R.
  • Another participant raises a question about the sign in the formula for q and expresses confusion regarding the expansion parameter a, seeking clarification on its value at the present moment.
  • A participant presents a calculation involving Hubble's Law and proposes that the Hubble 'Constant' is not actually constant but varies with the Universe Expansion Acceleration Rate and differential galaxy velocities.
  • There is a discussion about the value of the expansion parameter a at the present time, with some participants asserting it equals 1, while others question this interpretation based on the definitions of R and R0.
  • Participants engage in calculations related to the deceleration parameter q, with one participant seeking confirmation of their calculations and reasoning based on the Friedmann equations.
  • There is an ongoing debate about the notation and definitions used in cosmology, with participants noting inconsistencies and redundancies in the terminology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the expansion parameter and the calculations related to the deceleration parameter q. There is no consensus on these points, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact values and implications of the parameters discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various assumptions, such as the flatness of the universe and the estimated energy density, which may influence their calculations and interpretations. The discussion also highlights the complexity and potential confusion arising from the terminology and notation used in cosmology.

kristobal hunta
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I am graduate student working now at the project in cosmology. I would appreciate any links or references to the papers or publications casting a light on the problem of accelerated expansion of the universe.

Did they found the rate of accelerated expansion?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
kristobal hunta said:
I am graduate student working now at the project in cosmology. I would appreciate any links or references to the papers or publications casting a light on the problem of accelerated expansion of the universe.

Did they found the rate of accelerated expansion?

please look at this easy survey paper
"Making Sense of the New Cosmology"
by Michael Turner

http://arxiv.org/astro-ph/0202008

he is at Chicago and is one of the most eminent of today's cosmologists
you can rely on what he says
it is representative of the main consensus
(but the numbers are sharper in more recent papers)

the acceleration of expansion is measured by the dimensionless number q

see the definition of q on page 7 near the bottom

see equation (1) on page 7
where you see the quantity R"/R which measures acceleration
is given by the second Friedmann equation

R is the scale factor in the RW metric (the standard metric used in cosmology),
R is usually normalized so it is equal to 1 at present time
and the increase in R tracks the expansion

R' is the increase rate (the time derivative) of R
R'' is the increase in the increase in R

to get rid of units and get a more pure number we can divide first by R

R''/R has dimension of reciprocal time2
that is it is a "per second per second" or a "per year per year" type of quantity

Now one can further normalize this if one divides by the square of the H parameter, because the H parameter is itself a reciprocal time!

therefore one can have a pure dimensionless number that expresses the amount of acceleration if one writes

[tex]\frac{R''}{R H^2}[/tex]

this is the q which he mentions

it would be good to know this number since it expresses how much acceleration there is

also he talks about why we know about this
(from the 1998 supernova observations)

also this article by Lineweaver is good
http://arxiv.org/astro-ph/0305179
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, marcus, but you forgot the signus minus in the formula for q :wink:
I have problems understanding the expansion parameter. The expansion parameter a is

[tex] a= \frac {R} {R_0}[/tex]
R is the scale factor at time t, and R0 the scale factor at time t0. What's the exact value of the expansion parameter at this moment?
 
Ultimate Acceleration...


The Universe is far more dimentionally vast now at this instant in time than what is currently optically viewable through primordial radiation.

Integrating Hubble's Law into the average acceleration theorem yields the following solution:

WMAP Ho = 71 +/- 4 km/sec/Mpc

[tex]\Delta d_t = (d_f - d_i)[/tex] (31.5 BLy - 13.18 BLy)
[tex]a_u = 2 H_o^2 \left( \Delta d_t - \frac{nc}{H_o} \right)[/tex]

au = 4.679*10^-10 m*s^-2

n - fractional luminous galaxy velocity
au - Universe Expansion Acceleration Rate
Ho - Hubble 'Constant'

[tex]H_o = \frac{ (V_i + V_f)}{ 2(d_f - d_i)} = \frac{ c(n_i + n_f)}{ 2(d_f - d_i)}[/tex]

[tex]H_o = \frac{a}{(V_f - V_i)} = \frac{a}{c(n_f - n_i)}[/tex]

According to these solutions, Hubble's 'Constant' is not actually a constant, but a function of the Universe Expansion Acceleration Rate and the differential galaxy velocities which compose it.
[/color]
Reference:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/mar/03022004/nation_w/144063.asp
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=14613&page=2&pp=15
 
meteor said:
Ok, marcus, but you forgot the signus minus in the formula for q :wink:
I have problems understanding the expansion parameter. The expansion parameter a is

[tex] a= \frac {R} {R_0}[/tex]
R is the scale factor at time t, and R0 the scale factor at time t0. What's the exact value of the expansion parameter at this moment?

they usually use subscript zero to mean the present
so time t0 is the present
and H0 is the Hubble parameter at present

by your definition, a, at present is equal to 1.

You know the common estimate is that the universe is flat.
the energy density (all forms) is estimated to be about equal to one times the critical density. Actually they estimate 1.04 plus or minus some error bar.
But let's assume it is simply flat, to make things easy.

Then the "deceleration" parameter q (with the minus sign you mentioned)
comes out to be about -0.6
or maybe we should be focusing on -q, the "acceleration" parameter, which comes out to be about 0.6

expansion is accelerating so this dimensionless number 0.6 is positive.

I actually got 0.595, when I calculated it. But that is close to 0.6.

Assuming flat, which although not sure is within the uncertainty range, then to calculate this thing all you need is the 0.73 dark energy fraction of total energy density.

The formula is

[tex]-q = \frac{a''}{a H^2} = \frac{a'' a}{a'^2} = - \frac{1}{2}(1 - 3 (0.73))[/tex]

the formula comes from the two Friedmann equations
 
Last edited:
marcus said:
...

The formula is

[tex]-q = \frac{a''}{a H^2} = \frac{a'' a}{a'^2} = - \frac{1}{2}(1 - 3 (0.73))[/tex]

the formula comes from the two Friedmann equations

for me, this is the first time that I have calculated the acceleration parameter (or minus the deceleration)
anyone want to confirm or point out mistakes?

Meteor does this seem OK?

by definition H = a'/a
so dividing by H^2 is the same as dividing by (a'/a)^2
which is why the two alternative forms of writing -q

then one looks at the two friedmann equations and one equation
gives a''/a
and the other equation gives (a'/a)^2
and one divides first equation by second equation
I think it is not very hard or complicated to see
if you want friedmann equantions written out, please tell me
(or maybe someone else will)
 
marcus, I don't see how the expansion parameter can be 1. That means that R and R0 have the same value. But aren't they the value of the scale factor at different stages of the evolution?
 
meteor said:
Ok, marcus, but you forgot the signus minus in the formula for q :wink:
I have problems understanding the expansion parameter. The expansion parameter a is

[tex] a= \frac {R} {R_0}[/tex]
R is the scale factor at time t, and R0 the scale factor at time t0. What's the exact value of the expansion parameter at this moment?

you asked how it is at this moment
this moment is t = t0
(they often use this subscript zero for the present)

at this moment R = R(t) = R(t0) = R0 by definition

(the cosmologists often use the subscript zero to indicate the current value of some parameter, at this moment)

so dividing R by R0 is a way of normalizing the scale parameter so that it will be forced to equal 1 at the present moment

at present R/R0 = 1

they really have a bit too much redundant notation---and some cosmologists are using R instead of a, or a instead of R---they don't have completely consistent conventions
as a general rule either a or R will stand for a scale parameter that is very often normalized to be equal to one at the present moment.

then the Hubble parameter H(t) is defined to be a'/a
or equivalently R'/R

and the Hubble parameter at the present moment H0 is defined to be H(t0 ) = present value of a'/a
or equivalently R'/R

it is like having to learn French, or some even less efficient language, where they have many ways to say the same thing---or perhaps this is good?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K