Does This Cosmological Model Re-Collapse?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a cosmological model characterized by parameters \Omega_{MO}=3, \Omega_{\Lambda O}=0.01, and \Omega_{RO}=0, which leads to the conclusion that the universe will re-collapse. The mathematical analysis yields three values for the scale factor, a: -14.87, 1.51, and 13.36, with the first value being unphysical. The critical insight is that the universe re-collapses when the derivative of the Hubble parameter, H(a), is negative, indicating a local maximum in the scale factor.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Friedmann equations in cosmology
  • Familiarity with the Hubble parameter and its relation to redshift
  • Basic knowledge of calculus, specifically derivatives and local maxima
  • Concept of density parameters (\Omega) in cosmological models
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Friedmann equations in detail to understand their implications for cosmic evolution
  • Learn about the Hubble parameter as a function of scale factor and redshift
  • Explore the second derivative test in calculus and its application in cosmological models
  • Investigate the significance of density parameters (\Omega_{total 0}) in determining the fate of the universe
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, and students of physics who are interested in understanding the dynamics of the universe and the implications of different cosmological models.

ajclarke
Messages
34
Reaction score
1
Hello.

I have been working through some questions and answers to do with cosmology. One of them asks you to consider a model where:

\Omega_{MO}=3
\Omega_{\Lambda O}=0.01
\Omega_{RO}=0
and asks you to show mathematically that the model re-collapses.

Following through the math, I get three values of a: -14.87,1.51 and 13.36.

Clearly the first can be disregarded and unphysical since a cannot be negative, but I can't decide what's the significance between the second two which allows me to isolate the value corresponding to collapse.

Cheers.
Adam
 
Space news on Phys.org
What 'math' are you following through with?
 
If a is normalized time, then it may have zero diameter 14.87 time units in the past, first collapse 1.51 in the future, and a "recollapse" later. Not sure if that's correct though.
 
What is the definition of \Omega_{s0} for some species s? What is \Omega_{\rm total 0} in the universe you are studying?
 
Make use of the second Friedmann equation to make sure that when H(a) goes to zero, dH/da is negative.
 
zhermes said:
What 'math' are you following through with?

I used the equation for the Hubble Parameter as a function of redshift, then changed this over to be a function of scale factor instead.

cristo said:
What is the definition of \Omega_{s0} for some species s? What is \Omega_{\rm total 0} in the universe you are studying?

\Omega_{total 0} = 1

I don't understand the first bitof the question I'm sorry.

Chalnoth said:
Make use of the second Friedmann equation to make sure that when H(a) goes to zero, dH/da is negative.

I'm uncertain as to how that determines which of the two remaining parameters is the recollapsing universe?
 
ajclarke said:
I'm uncertain as to how that determines which of the two remaining parameters is the recollapsing universe?
If the derivative of the Hubble parameter is negative, then it's recollapsing.
 
Don't you have Ωtotal0 equal to 3.01, instead of unity?
 
Use the second derivative test from elementary calculus. a\left(t\right) has a local maximum at t = t_1 if da/dt \left(t_1 \right) = 0 and d^2 a/dt^2 \left(t_1 \right) < 0. To find d^2 a/dt^2, differentiate the Friedmann equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 127 ·
5
Replies
127
Views
27K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
24K