Uniform redshift in inflationary model?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of the inflationary cosmological model and the balloon analogy often used to explain it. It questions whether the analogy implies that distant objects should separate faster than closer ones, leading to a non-uniform redshift. However, it clarifies that the balloon model does not designate an "origin," making such implications inaccurate. The conversation also distinguishes between inflation, a brief period of rapid expansion, and ordinary expansion cosmology. For further understanding, resources like the "wright balloon model" and related cosmology tutorials are suggested.
toliynyk
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
This question might be a result of perceptual ignorance but still:
In explaining an inflationary cosmological model that postulates a prime singularity (i.e. starting with a Big Bang) some tend to associate it with "dots on an inflating balloon". Doesn't this imply that the "dots" that are somewhat farther away from the origin should be separating faster than closer ones? And if so, wouldn't that lead to a non-uniform redshift effect in opposite directions perpendicular to the origin? And then there's the subject of initial velocity of objects of different mass - shouldn't this effect the propagation of matter in such a model, leading to a "lagging behind" of larger matter clusters due to higher inertia?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The words people use are often confusing. The standard comology model (since way back----1950 or earlier) has involved EXPANSION.

What you are asking about is not "inflation" (in cosmo that word is technical, reserved for an unproven very special very brief episode of extremely rapid expansion before ordinary objects and ordinary matter existed). The balloon with dots is not used to illustrate the "inflation" episode, as far as I know.

What you are asking about seems to be just ordinary expansion cosmology, that is what the balloon with dots is often used to illustrate.

The kind of questions you are asking about expansion cosmology are similar to ones often discussed in the Cosmology Forum. Hopefully this thread will be moved there, and we can see about answering them.
 
toliynyk said:
... associate it with "dots on an inflating balloon". Doesn't this imply that the "dots" that are somewhat farther away from the origin should be separating ...

No it does not imply that. The balloon analogy is only a 2D picture of what really happens in 3D, but it is still quite useful so let's think about it!

In the balloon toy model no one dot is the "origin". So it is not possible for some dots to be "farther away" from the origin than other dots.

If you want to understand the balloon analogy better you might try googling "wright balloon model". A professor at UCLA has a cosmology tutorial website and it has a short computer animation you can watch, plus a lot of other goodies.
There is also a balloon model sticky thread here at cosmo forum that you might find helpful.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top