I Avoiding structure collapse due to dark energy?

AI Thread Summary
Dark energy competes with gravity in cosmic structures, potentially slowing or preventing their collapse, particularly in galaxies. However, its influence on smaller scales, like individual galaxies, is considered minimal, making it unlikely to prevent gravitational collapse or evaporation. The discussion suggests that while dark energy might enhance the escape of stars from galaxies, it is more relevant to larger structures like galaxy clusters. The effects of dark energy on gravitational collapse are expected to be small, with significant processes occurring over time scales not yet fully explored. Ultimately, dark energy's role in structure stability remains constrained by its equation of state, which aligns with observed cosmic structures.
Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR Summary
Avoiding structure collapse due to dark energy?
I had a question about this paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3742)

There, the authors indicate that dark energy competes against gravity in oversdensities and can slow down or even prevent their collapse.

I have a simple question about this:

Galaxies will in principle evaporate their outer layers and their innermost ones will collapse under graviational forces and the relaxation of the orbits around the galactic nucleus through tidal forces and graviational waves emission. However, can there be galaxies (or other structrues) where the "fight" between gravity and dark energy can stabilize these structures indefinetely preventing their evaporation and gravitational collapse (assuming no external perturbations occur) despite the influence of tidal forces, gravitational waves emission...etc?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Intuitively I would say that the dark energy effect on the distance scale of a single galaxy is too small to prevent the processes you describe. (Note that putting a star on an escape trajectory due to interactions with other stars should be slightly easier in the presence of dark energy.) However, I have not done the math. I'll read the paper you reference when I get a chance to see if there are any relevant calculations in it.
 
PeterDonis said:
Intuitively I would say that the dark energy effect on the distance scale of a single galaxy is too small to prevent the processes you describe. (Note that putting a star on an escape trajectory due to interactions with other stars should be slightly easier in the presence of dark energy.) However, I have not done the math. I'll read the paper you reference when I get a chance to see if there are any relevant calculations in it.
Thank you. Perhaps this would be more suitable for bigger structures like clusters?
 
Suekdccia said:
Perhaps this would be more suitable for bigger structures like clusters?
Possibly. However, what I said about putting an object on an escape trajectory would be even more true for a bigger structure. So I don't think dark energy can suppress "evaporation"; instead it should enhance it.

As for gravitational collapse, a bigger structure isn't going to collapse all at once, its collapse will be galaxy by galaxy. So you would have to look at the effects of dark energy on a much smaller scale with regard to collapse. On that scale, it might slow down the collapse by a small amount, but it won't prevent it.

Of course, it's possible that a dark energy equation of state with a ##w## much less than ##-1## might change things; the paper is basically trying to constrain the possible values of ##w## by looking at structure formation and stability. But given that ##w## is within the range they find to be compatible with the structures we see today, I don't think dark energy can significantly change the longer term processes you describe; those processes (at least if we want them to go to completion, i.e., structures like the ones we see today are entirely either evaporated or collapsed) happen on a time scale that we haven't probed yet (the universe isn't old enough), so we can't rule them out just because dark energy is within the range that is consistent with the structures we see today.
 
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##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top