I Friedmann Equation Analysis, expansion of the universe?

AI Thread Summary
Friedmann's equation indicates that a negative right-hand side (RHS) in the second Friedmann equation suggests the universe's expansion is decelerating, but does not definitively indicate future contraction. The rate of change of the scaling term, represented as a dot, can be positive even if the acceleration (double dot) is negative. Current evidence shows that the universe is expanding, with both the rate of expansion and its acceleration being positive in recent billions of years. However, prior to this period, the universe was still expanding despite having a negative acceleration. Understanding these dynamics requires careful analysis of the signs of both the dot and double dot terms.
SmcWill
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Friedmann's Eq can be viewed here https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March08/Frieman/Equations/paper1x.gif
What I don't get is that all the texts/analyses of Friedmann's equation say that if the right hand side is negative it means that the universe will expand reach a critical point and then contract. But if the right hand side is negative doesn't it mean that a dot, the rate of change of the scaling term, is imaginary? Also I don't understand how this squared term can be negative, or even how we can analyze something from it being negative. Thank you!
 
Space news on Phys.org
SmcWill said:
if the right hand side is negative doesn't it mean that a dot, the rate of change of the scaling term, is imaginary?

They mean the RHS of the second Friedmann equation, the one with ##\ddot{a} / a## on the LHS.

Also, you may be misunderstanding the sources you're looking at (links to them would be helpful). The RHS of the second Friedmann equation being negative means the expansion of the universe is decelerating; but that alone doesn't tell you whether the expansion will eventually stop and then turn into contraction. You need more information to determine that.
 
I understand that if that equation is negative then the acceleration of the scale constant is concave down. But then doesn't that mean that we must know the sign of a double dot and a dot? For example it tells us that a(t) is concave down. but what if it were a function like this http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/functions/images/function_concave_down.gif (the left graph), and is there any evidence that it isn't this way? Also, thank you for your reply that cleared a lot of confusion up.
 
SmcWill said:
doesn't that mean that we must know the sign of a double dot and a dot?

No. It is perfectly possible for ##\ddot{a}## to be negative but ##\dot{a}## positive.

SmcWill said:
is there any evidence that it isn't this way?

We know that ##\dot{a}## is positive in our universe now. That's what "the universe is expanding" means, and we have lots of evidence that the universe is expanding.

In our actual universe now, ##\ddot{a}## is also positive. That is what is meant by "the expansion of the universe is accelerating". But that has only been the case for the last few billion years; before that, ##\ddot{a}## was negative, but ##\dot{a}## was still positive (the universe was still expanding--and it has been since the Big Bang).
 
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...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top