Four Forces vs. Fifth Force: Physicist's Insight

  • Thread starter Thread starter chaszz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forces
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of forces in physics, particularly questioning whether the force driving the universe's accelerated expansion could be considered a fifth fundamental force. Participants argue that while dark energy is not fully understood, it does not necessarily qualify as a fundamental force since it may not be unexplainable by existing theories. The conversation also touches on the role of pressure in gravitational interactions, with some suggesting that negative pressure could explain the expansion of the universe. Ultimately, while the cosmological constant is the leading explanation for dark energy, the evidence remains insufficient to confirm any single theory. The complexity of these concepts highlights the ongoing challenges in understanding the fundamental forces of nature.
  • #31
Is it correct that if it wasnt for the recent increase in dark energy expansion, that the matter density would eventually become higher in the filaments between voids and the sizes of galaxies would increase due to filament collapse and galaxy collisions? If so would this constitute another happy "goldilocks" coincidence?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Chalnoth said:
Yes, if there was enough mass relative to the current rate of expansion and no dark energy, or if the dark energy at some point in the future goes away and it turns out that the remaining mass is large enough compared to the rate of expansion, then it would recollapse. And in General Relativity, it would collapse to a singularity. Though to be fair, General Relativity cannot be trusted that far.

Chalnoth In this simple model I can't see what causes the collapse since the universe is infinite and the forces are approximately equal in all directions. Unless the small differences in gravity caused instability and accumulaton of matter in certain locations?
 
  • #33
Tanelorn said:
Is it correct that if it wasnt for the recent increase in dark energy expansion, that the matter density would eventually become higher in the filaments between voids and the sizes of galaxies would increase due to filament collapse and galaxy collisions? If so would this constitute another happy "goldilocks" coincidence?
My impression is no, not if the universe didn't recollapse. My understanding of structure formation (admittedly basic understanding) is that in an expanding universe, matter that is within the Jeans' length collapses in on itself, while matter outside that length does not. So basically, structures will gobble up all the local matter they can, then stop growing. Dark energy turns off this growth sooner, but I think it stops in any expanding universe.

This isn't the case for a universe that recollapses, because the collapse brings matter closer together, causing more things to enter the Jeans' Length.

But admittedly I could be mistaken. I don't have experience with the non-linear growth of structure.
 
  • #34
Tanelorn said:
Chalnoth In this simple model I can't see what causes the collapse since the universe is infinite and the forces are approximately equal in all directions. Unless the small differences in gravity caused instability and accumulaton of matter in certain locations?
Think of an expanding universe like a fluid. If this fluid is made out of normal matter, then the gravity between the particles of the fluid wants to pull the whole thing together. So if it is expanding, gravity acts to slow the expansion by pulling everything closer to everything else. If this pull is strong enough, by the density being large compared to the expansion rate, then it will cause the universe to recollapse in on itself.
 
  • #35
Chalnoth thanks for the Jeans length reference, I think this answers questions above that I have had for quite a while. Although, what is the estimated value, it seems like it isn't that large? Wouldnt this be relevant for star formation?
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Tanelorn said:
Chalnoth thanks for the Jeans length reference, I think this answers questions above that I have had for quite a while. Although, what is the estimated value, it seems like it isn't that large? Wouldnt this be relevant for star formation?
The length depends upon the density. So it is relevant for the formation of objects of all scales, whether asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies, or galaxy clusters. It's just that in an expanding universe, the average density is decreasing, and since it takes larger regions longer to collapse, there is a point where regions don't have enough time to collapse before the expansion lowers the density so far that they can longer collapse (because the Jeans' Length is smaller than the size of the overdensity).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K