Limits FRW universe , rate of expansion, k=-1,0.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the limits of the scale factor's time derivative, ##\dot{a}##, as the scale factor ##a## approaches infinity in the context of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology. The participants analyze the Friedmann equation, specifically ##\dot{a^{2}}=\frac{8\pi G}{3} \rho a^{2} + | k |##, and the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor for a perfect fluid. They conclude that for an open universe with curvature ##k=-1##, the limit of ##\dot{a^{2}}## approaches 1, while for a flat universe with ##k=0##, it approaches 0. The discussion also highlights the differences in pressure between dust and radiation, which could influence the derivation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Friedmann equations in cosmology
  • Knowledge of energy-momentum tensor for perfect fluids
  • Familiarity with the concepts of scale factor and cosmic expansion
  • Basic principles of general relativity and cosmological models
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Friedmann equations in detail
  • Explore the implications of different curvature parameters (k) in cosmological models
  • Investigate the role of pressure in the evolution of the universe for various matter types
  • Learn about the conservation laws in cosmology and their applications
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, and physics students interested in the dynamics of the universe's expansion and the mathematical foundations of FRW cosmology.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
Hi,

I'm looking at deriving the limits of ##\dot{a}## as ## a-> \infty ## , using the Friedmann equation and conservtion of the ##_{00}## component of the energy momentum tensor for a perfect fluid. Both of these equations respectively are:

## \dot{a^{2}}=\frac{8\pi G}{3} \rho a^{2} + | k |## (from Friedmann and using ## k \leq 0## [1]

## 0= -\partial_{0} \rho - 3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\rho + p)## [2]

##a## is the scale factor, ##\rho## is the density

I've just seen a proof when modelling this perfect fluid as dust, where dust obeys ##\rho a^{3} ## is a constant. I'm looking at how you generalise this proof to, radiation say - which obeys ##\rho a^{4} ## is constant. I will now state the solution proof for dust, and my attempt for the radiation proof. My question is whether my radiation proof is valid - I doubt it because the last step looks a bit dodgy - can you simply divided by ## a ## and have the limits still hold - that is ## \dot{a^{2}} -> | k | ## ...

Dust Proof:

## \partial_{0} \rho a^{3} = a^{3} (\dot{\rho} + 3\frac{\rho\dot{a}}{a})= -3pa^{2}\dot{a}##.
RHS ## < \leq 0 ## => ## \rho a^{2} -> 0 ## as ## a -> \infty ##
=> ## \dot{a^{2}} -> | k | ## from eq [1].

My Radiation Proof:
- Simply multiply eq [1] by a, eq[2] by ##a^{4}## as a pose to ##a^{3}## as done in the worked dust proof. I then have similar conclusions , so ##\rho a^{3} -> 0## as ##a -> \infty ## and so by eq[1] multiplied by a I conclude that ##a\dot{a^{2}} -> a | k | ## .

This is the line I'm concerned with, dividing by ##a## am I then ok to claim that ##\dot{a^{2}} -> | k | ##

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
##\rho a^4 = c## implies ##\dot {a^2} = \frac{c'}{a^2} + |k|## with constants c and c'. As ##a \to \infty##, ##\dot {a^2} \to |k|##?

Pressure will be different for dust and photons, that could be relevant in the derivation of those equations.
 
mfb said:
##\rho a^4 = c## implies ##\dot {a^2} = \frac{c'}{a^2} + |k|## with constants c and c'. As ##a \to \infty##, ##\dot {a^2} \to |k|##?

Pressure will be different for dust and photons, that could be relevant in the derivation of those equations.

Thanks. That looks like a better way to do it. Looking att the full derivation, apologie I don't have time to include it all here, pressure varying will not affect the derivation. So I conlude that ##\dot {a^2} -> 1## for an open universe with k=-1 and ##\dot {a^2} -> 0## when k=0. Are these the known limiting expansion values for the dust and radiation case? That they have the same limit, does this sound correct?
 
You are considering the evolution of a universe with negligible mass and radiation and without cosmological constant. There is nothing that would accelerate or slow expansion, the solution looks natural.
 
mfb said:
##\rho a^4 = c## implies ##\dot {a^2} = \frac{c'}{a^2} + |k|## with constants c and c'. As ##a \to \infty##, ##\dot {a^2} \to |k|##?

Pressure will be different for dust and photons, that could be relevant in the derivation of those equations.

Sorry to re-bump. So post 2 proves the limits without needing the energy-momentum tensor or the conservation of energy? I'm just wondering why the source I used , used them if it can be shown without.

Is what I did generally mathematically incorrect?
 
In an empty universe (##\rho \approx 0##) without cosmological constant, the constant ##\dot a## is a direct consequence of the first Friedmann equation.
The evolution until the universe is nearly empty is different and can need a more detailed analysis. If the initial matter density is too high, you never reach that point.
 
Not really relevant to the discussion above but...

FRW cosmology is "introductory physics homework?" Wow. I wish I had gone to a school where that was the case.:)
 
DEvens said:
Not really relevant to the discussion above but...

FRW cosmology is "introductory physics homework?" Wow. I wish I had gone to a school where that was the case.:)

ha. it says undergrad in the description. I'm a final year :)
 
Is the last line of what I did mathematially incorrect?
 
  • #10
If you know ##a## has a lower bound (at least after some time T), it works.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K