Beginning of accelerating expansion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the timing of the beginning of the universe's accelerating expansion after the inflationary period. Participants explore various estimates for when this acceleration started, with a range suggested between 5 billion to 8 billion years ago. The conversation includes inquiries about the consensus within the scientific community and the observational evidence that supports these estimates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note the lack of a clear consensus on the exact timing of the universe's expansion acceleration, with estimates varying widely.
  • One participant mentions that the timing depends on parameters such as H0 (Hubble constant) and Lambda (cosmological constant), suggesting that different models yield different results.
  • A participant describes using a specific calculator based on the standard LCDM model to analyze the timing of the acceleration, indicating that the inflection point of acceleration occurs around 7 billion years, but this can vary with different parameter inputs.
  • Another participant provides detailed calculations and results from their use of the model, discussing how changing parameters like H0 and Lambda can affect the timing of the inflection point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the timing of the acceleration's onset, with no consensus reached. The discussion reflects multiple competing views and uncertainties regarding the parameters influencing these estimates.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence of estimates on specific model parameters and the potential for different interpretations based on varying inputs. There are unresolved aspects regarding the implications of these parameters on the timing of the acceleration.

hendoS
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I've been trying to find the latest, best guess, as to how long ago the universe's expansion began to accelerate (post-inflation). I've seen various estimates on websites from 5 billion to 8 billion years ago.

Is there any kind of consensus in the community that studies these things as to a more limited time range for this acceleration to have started? What is the latest observational evidence used to support these estimates?

Any links and additional info is appreciated!
 
Space news on Phys.org
I don't know the answer but am curious as to why it matters to you.
 
hendoS said:
I've been trying to find the latest, best guess, as to how long ago the universe's expansion began to accelerate (post-inflation). I've seen various estimates on websites from 5 billion to 8 billion years ago.

Is there any kind of consensus in the community that studies these things as to a more limited time range for this acceleration to have started? What is the latest observational evidence used to support these estimates?

Any links and additional info is appreciated!
It depends on what parameters you plug into the model, mainly on H0, and Lambda. You can go get your favorite parameters, e.g. the Planck report gives you a choice of whether they depend on just Planck data or a mix of theirs with various other studies.

Once you decide on the two parameters you can plug them into some version (like Jorrie's calculator) of the standard LCDM cosmic model and it will tell you. I will work an example for you. Suppose you want to use Jorrie's DEFAULT parameters which he essentially got from 2013 Planck mission report.
Then it is very simple. You click on the Lightcone link (in my sig) and you narrow the time range say make Supper = 3 and Slower=1 (which is the present, or z=0)
and you might want to increase the number of steps N = 20 (and later even higher for better resolution, but let's start with 20)
and then you go to column select menu and check the "R0a'(t)" which gives you the TIME DERIVATIVE OF A REPRESENTATIVE DISTANCE.
And then you press "calculate" and you will get among other things the growth speed of a sample distance and it will INITIALLY DECLINE and then around say year 7 billion it will BEGIN TO INCREASE. And that's your answer.
 
Last edited:
I did exactly what I suggested you do and got this:
[tex]{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline R_{0} (Gly) & R_{\infty} (Gly) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/tex] [tex]{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&a'R_{0} (c) \\ \hline 0.333&3.000&3.2851&4.8024&17.294&5.765&11.260&0.9995\\ \hline 0.352&2.840&3.5592&5.1793&16.494&5.809&11.615&0.9791\\ \hline 0.372&2.688&3.8546&5.5797&15.679&5.833&11.967&0.9602\\ \hline 0.393&2.544&4.1726&6.0033&14.847&5.836&12.316&0.9428\\ \hline 0.415&2.408&4.5145&6.4498&14.001&5.814&12.660&0.9271\\ \hline 0.439&2.280&4.8815&6.9183&13.141&5.765&12.998&0.9131\\ \hline 0.463&2.158&5.2749&7.4072&12.269&5.686&13.327&0.9010\\ \hline 0.490&2.042&5.6956&7.9146&11.386&5.575&13.647&0.8909\\ \hline 0.517&1.933&6.1448&8.4377&10.494&5.428&13.957&0.8828\\ \hline 0.546&1.830&6.6229&8.9733&9.594&5.243&14.253&0.8770\\ \hline 0.577&1.732&7.1307&9.5174&8.691&5.017&14.536&0.8735\\ \hline 0.610&1.639&7.6686&10.0656&7.784&4.748&14.804&0.8726\\ \hline 0.644&1.552&8.2365&10.6131&6.879&4.432&15.057&0.8743\\ \hline 0.681&1.469&8.8344&11.1548&5.976&4.068&15.292&0.8788\\ \hline 0.719&1.390&9.4618&11.6855&5.079&3.653&15.511&0.8863\\ \hline 0.760&1.316&10.1179&12.2004&4.192&3.185&15.713&0.8968\\ \hline 0.803&1.246&10.8017&12.6948&3.316&2.662&15.897&0.9106\\ \hline 0.848&1.179&11.5121&13.1648&2.456&2.082&16.065&0.9276\\ \hline 0.896&1.116&12.2475&13.6072&1.612&1.444&16.216&0.9482\\ \hline 0.947&1.056&13.0065&14.0193&0.788&0.746&16.351&0.9723\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&13.7872&14.3999&0.000&0.000&16.472&1.0000\\ \hline \end{array}}[/tex]

The growth speed for this sample distance is given in units of the speed of light. You can see that it gets as low as 0.8726 c. You can see the inflection point is around year 7.67 billion. You can make the inflection point change by choosing a slightly different H0 Hubble rate. The way you control that is by controlling its reciprocal the Hubble distance R0 = c/H0
The default Hubble distance is 14.4 billion LY as you an see at the top. You can type in a slightly different R0 and that will change H0 and that will change the numbers that the model computes, including the inflection point.

It is important for you to find the "column definition and selection" menu so that you can select "a'(t) R0" the distance growth speed of a sample distance. You can also UNselect various columns so the output table will not be so wide and distracting. When I did it I unchecked a couple of source recession velocity columns Vnow and Vthen because they are not relevant to your question and might be distracting.

One other thing I did, forgot to tell you, was when I opened "column definition and selection" menu to check the distance growth speed a'R0 at that point I also BUMPED UP THE NUMBER OF DECIMAL PLACES in that column from 2 to 4, so we could see the result in 4 decimal precision.
If you go to that menu you can see how the precision of each column can be varied as you wish.

I wanted to see how changing the model parameters would move the inflection point so I made R0 less (14.0 billion LY) which makes H0 slightly larger as you can see if you try it. And that then made the inflection come slightly EARLIER. Closer to 7.6 than to 7.7.

If you are familiar with the cosmological constant Lambda you know that it determines the longterm value of the Hubble radius namely Rinfinity, which viceversa determines Lambda by a simple formula. So you can try varying that too. I suppose increasing Lambda means decreasing Rinfinity (increasing the longterm growth rate H(t)) and probably makes the inflection come EARLIER, i.e. acceleration starts earlier if you reduce the Rinfinity parameter, you can try that with the calculator if you want.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K