How Do We Know the Universe's Expansion Is Accelerating?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ViperSRT3g
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expansion Universal
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the universe's expansion and whether it is accelerating. Participants explore the implications of using type Ia supernovae as standard candles for measuring this expansion, questioning how acceleration is determined rather than a constant rate of expansion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how we know the universe is accelerating, suggesting that objects appearing to recede faster could be due to the expansion process rather than actual acceleration.
  • Another participant argues that differences in redshift indicate that acceleration is occurring, implying that without acceleration, redshift differences would not be observed.
  • A further explanation discusses that the term "acceleration" does not imply a single speed of expansion, but rather a percentage rate of distance increase that can change over time.
  • The historical context is provided, noting that prior to 1998, it was believed that the percentage rate of distance growth was declining rapidly, but later findings suggested it was leveling off, leading to a better fit with observed data.
  • Specific numerical values are mentioned regarding the growth rates, indicating a small but positive percentage rate of expansion.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the clarification provided, indicating that the explanation helped them understand the concept better.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the universe's expansion, with some supporting the idea of acceleration based on redshift observations, while others propose alternative interpretations of the data. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of the expansion.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the nature of acceleration and the definitions of terms like "speed" and "percentage rate" in the context of cosmic expansion. The discussion also reflects historical shifts in understanding based on observational data.

ViperSRT3g
Messages
52
Reaction score
2
I was reading an article about the recent type Ia supernova in the big dipper when the question popped into my head that I've forgotten about until now.

Since we use the Ia supernova as our candles to measure the expansion of the universe, how do we know that everything is accelerating?

It's easy to look at objects that are further away and see them moving away from us faster because that's how universal expansion works. What I'm wondering about is from seeing the universe expanding ever faster as we look at further objects, how do we know that it is ACCELERATING rather than expanding at a constant rate?

What I'm thinking in my head is the universe might be expanding at a constant rate, but objects further away may just appear to be receding faster just because of the expansion process (With all the red shifting and such). Not sure how we're extrapolating an acceleration because we're already seeing something similar.

I'm hoping I'm just misconstruing things here and that I don't have any misconceptions of how the universe works.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
If there were no acceleration there would be no differences in red shift but differences are observed that make it obvious that there has to be acceleration.

This topic has been discussed here many dozens of times, if not hundreds. Try a forum search.
 
ViperSRT3g said:
...What I'm thinking in my head is the universe might be expanding at a constant rate, but objects further away may just appear to be receding faster just because of the expansion process (With all the red shifting and such). Not sure how we're extrapolating an acceleration because we're already seeing something similar.
...

The choice of words has been unfortunate. There isn't anyone speed that the U is expanding. So "acceleration" in this case doesn't mean that "the speed the U is expanding is increasing". Since there isn't one definite speed for the whole, that would be a confusingly vague way to put it.

You realize that the speed any given distance increases is proportional to its size. So at any given era there is a PERCENTAGE RATE that distances are increasing. That's the best thing to focus on.

You understand exponential growth, like money in a savings account. IF THE PERCENTAGE RATE WERE CONSTANT then the growth of cosmic distances between clusters of galaxies etc would be EXPONENTIAL. So obviously anyone given distance's growth speed would be accelerating.

But until 1998 astronomers thought that the percentage rate of distance growth was DECLINING rapidly enough that you would NOT be getting that kind of exponential increase in the size of anyone given distance. The universe's own gravity was gradually bogging down the percentage growth rate enough to prevent acceleration.

Then in 1998 they discovered that you get a better fit to the data with a model where YES THE PERCENTAGE RATE IS STILL DECLINING BUT THE DECLINE is not as rapid as we thought and IS LEVELING OFF TO A CONSTANT percentage RATE AND WE ARE ALREADY SEEING something approximating exponential growth.

To put numbers on it, today's growth rate is 1/144 % per million years. We used to think that was on track to gradually tail off to ZERO % per million years. But in 1998 they realized you get a significantly better fit if you say the decline is on track to level off at 1/173% per million years.
A small, but nevertheless positive percentage rate.

And we are already getting so near the eventual target now that expansion is beginning to act as if the percentage rate is nearly constant,which means NEARLY (but still very gradual) exponential growth, which means the curves bend very slightly up, the slope gently increases---the kind of thing we mentally associate with "acceleration". So in 1998 they trumpeted the news in great excitement.

But you could think of it more calmly (and boringly:biggrin:) as simply observing that the percentage growth rate is still declining but is tending to level out so the decline is more gradual than we thought before.

I don't know if that is a good way or a bad way to explain it. Let me know if this doesn't work for you, and ask more questions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thank you so much Marcus, that definitely clears it up just about perfectly for me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
691
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K