Register to reply

Age of a vaccum energy dominated universe

by sri sharan
Tags: dominated, energy, universe, vaccum
Share this thread:
sri sharan
#1
Feb27-12, 10:08 AM
P: 32
The other day, I was calculating the age of universe dominated by vacuum energy and it turned out to be infinity. What does age of the universe being infinite mean? On explanation I thought of is that may be this implies that such a universe has no beginning. Is it a proper explanation?
Phys.Org News Partner Space news on Phys.org
Lunar explorers will walk at higher speeds than thought
Amazon founder's firm to build new rocket engines
Space: The final frontier... open to the public
Nabeshin
#2
Feb27-12, 12:43 PM
Sci Advisor
Nabeshin's Avatar
P: 2,193
No, it simply means the universe will never experience a big crunch, i.e. recollapse. Simply put, the scale factor never returns to zero. It is of course possible to have a universe which starts with a=0, but then persists indefinitely (as is the case with our own).
sri sharan
#3
Feb27-12, 01:26 PM
P: 32
Hmm, isn't that more like the fate of the universe. What I was trying to calculate was what would be the present age of the universe in standard Friedman cosmology for a flat universe(sorry i didn't mention that before), as a function of the observed CMB redshift and Hubble. But what I got was that for vacuum dominated universe, the age would turn out to be infinity (irrespective of value of redshift and H), and the only meaningful explanation I could think of was universe with no beginning

cepheid
#4
Feb27-12, 05:05 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
cepheid's Avatar
P: 5,196
Age of a vaccum energy dominated universe

Quote Quote by sri sharan View Post
Hmm, isn't that more like the fate of the universe. What I was trying to calculate was what would be the present age of the universe in standard Friedman cosmology for a flat universe(sorry i didn't mention that before), as a function of the observed CMB redshift and Hubble. But what I got was that for vacuum dominated universe, the age would turn out to be infinity (irrespective of value of redshift and H), and the only meaningful explanation I could think of was universe with no beginning
Perhaps you were doing your integrals wrong? What values did you use for [itex] \Omega_m [/itex] and [itex] \Omega_\Lambda[/itex]? Even if I plug in 0 for the former and 1 for the latter in here...

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

...I get about 37 Gyr, not ∞.

Also, what do you mean by, "as a function of the observed CMB redshift?" What does that have to do with anything? Isn't the only relevant value of z the value at which you want to compute the age of the universe (which would be z = 0 for the age at the present time)?
George Jones
#5
Feb27-12, 07:08 PM
Mentor
George Jones's Avatar
P: 6,248
Quote Quote by sri sharan View Post
But what I got was that for vacuum dominated universe, the age would turn out to be infinity (irrespective of value of redshift and H), and the only meaningful explanation I could think of was universe with no beginning
Yes.
cepheid
#6
Feb27-12, 08:48 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
cepheid's Avatar
P: 5,196
Quote Quote by George Jones View Post
Yes.
Yeah, my bad. When I responded to the OP, I hadn't actually written out the equations (EDIT: and I'm assuming that this is a case for which the numerical calculator that I linked to simply breaks down). So tell me if I'm doing this right. With only dark energy (assuming it's in the form of a cosmological constant) the Friedmann equation is[tex]\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{\Lambda}{3}[/tex]This assumes the universe is spatially flat. This becomes[tex]\frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{dt} = \left(\frac{\Lambda}{3}\right)^{1/2}[/tex]which you can solve analytically to get [tex]a(t) = \exp\left[\left(\frac{\Lambda}{3}\right)^{1/2}(t-t_0)\right][/tex]where I arbitrarily chose t0 to be the time value when the scale factor is unity. The thing is, as you back in time, for t < t0, the scale factor asymptotically approaches 0, but never actually reaches it. So it would seem that indeed this type of cosmological model does not have a beginning.

I'm guessing that the OP tried to invert the differential equation and then integrate to solve for t(a), but obtained something proportional to [itex]\int_0^1 \frac{1}{a}\,da[/itex] which does not converge -- which is another way of showing the same result.

So I read that this is the de Sitter universe, and that it is also used as an approximation to inflationary models whose dynamics are similar. Is this idea of "no beginning" sort of the basis for "eternal inflation?"
Chalnoth
#7
Feb28-12, 12:10 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 4,840
Quote Quote by cepheid View Post
So I read that this is the de Sitter universe, and that it is also used as an approximation to inflationary models whose dynamics are similar. Is this idea of "no beginning" sort of the basis for "eternal inflation?"
The only issue here is that any amount of matter or radiation causes the universe to have a finite age. So it is not considered feasible for inflation to be past-eternal, because there will always be some matter or radiation, no matter how diffuse.
sri sharan
#8
Feb28-12, 01:42 AM
P: 32
Quote Quote by cepheid View Post

I'm guessing that the OP tried to invert the differential equation and then integrate to solve for t(a), but obtained something proportional to [itex]\int_0^1 \frac{1}{a}\,da[/itex] which does not converge -- which is another way of showing the same result.

So I read that this is the de Sitter universe, and that it is also used as an approximation to inflationary models whose dynamics are similar. Is this idea of "no beginning" sort of the basis for "eternal inflation?"
yeah, that's what I did. And thanks of the the De Sitter info . Didnt know about that before


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Density Parameter for radiation dominated universe Cosmology 3
Calculating the Redshift at which the Universe was dominated by different components Advanced Physics Homework 0
Cosmological constant or dark energy or vaccum denisty/energy/energy density Astronomy & Astrophysics 9
Mass-dominated vs. radiation-dominated. Cosmology 5
The Friedmann equation in a lambda-dominated universe Advanced Physics Homework 4