Is Gravitation Responsible for the Stability of the Universe?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Souhardya Nandi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expansion Gravitation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of gravitation in the stability of the universe, particularly in the context of celestial bodies and the expansion of the universe. Participants explore whether gravitational attraction alone is sufficient to prevent collapse and how the expansion of the universe influences this dynamic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why celestial bodies do not collapse into each other despite gravitational attraction, suggesting that expansion may play a role.
  • Others assert that the universe is indeed expanding and accelerating, but debate whether this can be considered concrete proof of such phenomena.
  • It is noted that in a Newtonian framework, gravitational interactions do not lead to spontaneous collapse due to the relative motion of celestial bodies.
  • Some participants emphasize that while gravitational attraction is significant, it is not the sole factor in the formation of stars, as energy must be radiated away for dust clouds to collapse.
  • One participant argues that at scales relevant to collisions, the effects of expansion are negligible and that expansion does not occur within gravitationally bound systems.
  • Another point raised is that electromagnetic forces also play a role in the stability of matter at smaller scales, alongside gravitational forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the influence of expansion on gravitational interactions and the nature of proof in scientific theories. There is no consensus on whether expansion is a contributing factor to the stability of celestial bodies.

Contextual Notes

Some claims depend on specific assumptions about gravitational interactions and the definitions of proof in science. The discussion does not resolve the complexities of these interactions or the implications of universal expansion.

Souhardya Nandi
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
In the universe, there are several celestial bodies, all of which attract each other. Then why is it so that they do not collapse towards each other. Is it a consequence of expansion. If so, will a change in acceleration of expansion have any effect on it.And can then this be considered a concrete evidence of an expanding universe ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
We already have evidence the universe is expanding and that it's accelerating.
 
Even if you just consider a Newtonian universe, things would not just collapse spontaneously. Even if things attract each other, this does not mean that things will fall straight to each other. This is because stars, planets, black holes, and whatnot are generally in relative motion that is not directed straight at each other. Two bodies that interact gravitationally according to Newton's law of gravitation will generally have a separation that behaves as an ellipse or a hyperbola, depending on whether or not they are gravitationally bound to each other.

Of course, it does happen that celestial objects collide.
 
CWatters said:
We already have evidence the universe is expanding and that it's accelerating.
I know we have such evidences. However, I wanted to know if this phenomenon can be considered a proof.
 
Orodruin said:
Even if you just consider a Newtonian universe, things would not just collapse spontaneously. Even if things attract each other, this does not mean that things will fall straight to each other. This is because stars, planets, black holes, and whatnot are generally in relative motion that is not directed straight at each other. Two bodies that interact gravitationally according to Newton's law of gravitation will generally have a separation that behaves as an ellipse or a hyperbola, depending on whether or not they are gravitationally bound to each other.

Of course, it does happen that celestial objects collide.
I understand your point. So, do you mean expansion is not playing any role in this observation ?
 
Yes, at the scales where collisions are relevant, the effects of expansion are negligible (also, expansion does not occur within gravitationally bound systems).
 
Souhardya Nandi said:
I know we have such evidences. However, I wanted to know if this phenomenon can be considered a proof.

There is no such thing as proof in science. Theories are supported by evidence, but they can never be proven.
 
Every star is an example of matter/dust collapsing together.
 
CWatters said:
Every star is an example of matter/dust collapsing together.
Yes, but this is generally not purely due to gravity. In order to contract into a star, a lot of energy has to be radiated away through other processes for the dust cloud to collapse.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CWatters
  • #10
Gravitation provides acceleration, which means that for example, objects pulled together by mutual gravity are accelerated - with just 2 of them, can attract directly - but with n-body at varying distances, they will all be accelerated giving them different velocities - this velocity may be sufficient to then slingshot away or somesuch. Electromagnetic attractions and repulsions are also necessary to help ensure the particles that get close enough together to actually stay close too. This EM is generally balanced at larger scales, but without it, at short scales, the gravity alone would not be enough to necessarily form large bodies.

Though DE or universal expansion however you call it may overcome gravity on the largest scales, galaxies remain intact and even galactic clusters seem to preserve structure.

(Edit- sorry, this was kinda what was answered in the first couple of replies already.)
 

Similar threads

Graduate Gravitational Instability and accelerated explanation of Universe?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Undergrad Expansion-Collapse cycle in cosmological structures?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Age of the Universe and the Cosmological Constant
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Undergrad Acceleration of Universe Expansion: 1/r2
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
Undergrad Do the Sachs-Wolfe and Rees-Sciama Effects Influence Matter?
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Undergrad Sachs-Wolfe effect in a Dark Energy universe?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad How do you get to the conclusion that there is accelerating expansion?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
High School What is the relationship between expansion and curvature?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
High School History of Cosmology: 1915-1929 | Einstein, Hubble & GR
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
High School Expansion of the Universe
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K