Equivalence of Universe Accelerating Expansion?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equivalence of the universe's accelerating expansion and the effects of gravitational forces from a hypothetical massive spherical shell. The Friedmann equations govern the universe's expansion, which is fundamentally different from gravitational attraction described by the inverse square law. Key insights include the shell theorem, which states that a spherical shell exerts no gravitational force on objects within it, thus ruling out the proposed model. The conversation references Sean Carroll's General Relativity notes and highlights that void models of expansion do not align with observational data.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Friedmann equations and their role in cosmology
  • Familiarity with the shell theorem in gravitational physics
  • Basic knowledge of Minkowski space and its implications
  • Awareness of dark energy and its effects on cosmic expansion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric in cosmology
  • Explore the implications of the shell theorem in gravitational physics
  • Review Sean Carroll's General Relativity notes, particularly Chapter 8
  • Investigate current research on void models and their compatibility with cosmic data
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, and physics students interested in the dynamics of cosmic expansion and gravitational effects in the universe.

Mathchallenged
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Does the accelerating expansion of the universe with dark energy behave the same way if it was inside a large spherical shell with a very large mass with gravitational attraction but no dark energy?
Without suggesting that there actually is a massive spherical shell enclosing the universe, I am trying to explore whether the observed expansion of the universe would be the same if there was a spherical shell with a diameter greater than the universe, with some arbitrary mass producing a gravitational force acting on the enclosed universe. I might have expressed this idea badly. A little help would be appreciated.
 
Space news on Phys.org
No. The equations of motion are entirely different.

The expansion is uniformly linear with distance. Motion under gravitational attraction is not.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin
Please point me at a tutorial comparing the two sets of equations. I want to understand how they are different. Thanks.
 
The solution inside the spherical shell is essentially a spherical cut out of Minkowski space.
 
Mathchallenged said:
Please point me at a tutorial comparing the two sets of equations. I want to understand how they are different. Thanks.
You may or may not find something comparing the two. The accerating universe expansion is modeled by the Friedmann equation, with the appropriate vacuum/dark energy density.

You should be able to find lots on that.

Gravitational attraction, on the other hand, is an inverse square law. Which is quite different.
 
Orodruin said:
The solution inside the spherical shell is essentially a spherical cut out of Minkowski space.
...but filled with a uniform expanding fluid, if we want to model the universe. I think that would be a bit different, and wouldn't it also depend on how the sphere is behaving? Is it also expanding so the mass inside is constant, or what?

@Mathchallenged - The mainstream model of the universe is called the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetime (although many sources don't include Lemaitre) and its evolution is governed by the Friedmann equations. Chapter 8 of Sean Carroll's GR notes covers it (free to download), and I think the wiki article isn't too bad.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Mathchallenged said:
spherical shell with a diameter greater than the universe, with some arbitrary mass producing a gravitational force acting on the enclosed universe.
A spherical shell of matter produces zero gravitational force on anything inside the shell. So no, it is not at all the same as the effect of dark energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin and PeroK
Orodruin said:
The solution inside the spherical shell is essentially a spherical cut out of Minkowski space.
If there's no matter inside the shell. But even if there is matter inside the shell, so the solution inside is not Minkowski, the shell itself has zero effect on the matter inside the shell, because of the shell theorem. That is the key fact that rules out the kind of model described in the OP.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin
PeterDonis said:
If there's no matter inside the shell. But even if there is matter inside the shell, so the solution inside is not Minkowski, the shell itself has zero effect on the matter inside the shell, because of the shell theorem. That is the key fact that rules out the kind of model described in the OP.
Sure, I was just focusing on the part of replacing dark energy with a large sphere.
 
  • #10
Mathchallenged said:
Summary:: Does the accelerating expansion of the universe with dark energy behave the same way if it was inside a large spherical shell with a very large mass with gravitational attraction but no dark energy?

Without suggesting that there actually is a massive spherical shell enclosing the universe, I am trying to explore whether the observed expansion of the universe would be the same if there was a spherical shell with a diameter greater than the universe, with some arbitrary mass producing a gravitational force acting on the enclosed universe. I might have expressed this idea badly. A little help would be appreciated.
The idea that the accelerated expansion of the universe can potentially be explained by us being near the center of a large underdense region, with more dense universe beyond that, is a serious idea that has been considered by cosmologists. It was very hotly and actively debated around something like 10-20 years ago, with lots of back-and-forth.

I believe the resolution is that the "void models" of expansion here just don't fit with the data. This paper is an example:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3725

So, yes, it might have been possible for the accelerated expansion to have been due to us just being very near the center of an underdense region (a "void", hence the name). But the data doesn't appear to fit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K