Question regarding Friedmann equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Friedmann equation allows for a solution where H = H0 = 0, suggesting a static universe independent of the scale factor a and various density parameters (Ωs). However, this solution is deemed spurious as it leads to undefined conditions when H0 = 0. The discussion highlights that H can be zero with non-zero H0 under specific combinations of a and Ωs, but H = H0 = 0 does not represent a valid configuration in General Relativity (GR). The participants emphasize that if H is zero at all times, the critical density must also be zero, resulting in a Minkowski space scenario.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Friedmann equations in cosmology
  • Familiarity with General Relativity (GR) principles
  • Knowledge of critical density concepts in cosmology
  • Basic algebraic manipulation involving equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Friedmann equations in detail
  • Explore the implications of critical density in cosmological models
  • Investigate the conditions under which H can equal zero in GR
  • Learn about the mathematical properties of static universe solutions
USEFUL FOR

Cosmologists, physicists, and students of theoretical physics seeking to deepen their understanding of the Friedmann equations and their implications in cosmology.

Buzz Bloom
Gold Member
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
465
It has occurred to me that the Friedmann equation

Friedmann.png

allows for a solution
H = H0 = 0 .
This seems to say that independently of the value of the scale factor a, and the various Ωs, a static universe is possible. I am guessing that this solution is spurious and is a side effect of the derivation of the equation.

I am curious about how the derivation introduced this spurious solution of the cosmological form of the GR equations, and would much appreciate someone posting an explanation.

Regards,
Buzz
 
Space news on Phys.org
Buzz Bloom said:
allows for a solution
H = H0 = 0 .

What makes you think that? You do realize that, if ##H_0 = 0##, the LHS is undefined, right?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buzz Bloom
how js H=0 a solution inependently of the value of a? Only if the Omegas are zero this can be true...
 
Hi Chris:

Thanks for your post.

If H0 = 0, then H = 0 no matter what values a or the Ωs have. I understand that H can also be zero with H0 not zero for some combinations of value for a and the Ωs. Such a solution would correspond to a mathematically possible configuration of a GR universe, but H = H0 = 0 does not.

Regards,
Buzz
 
PeterDonis said:
if H0=0, the LHS is undefined
Hi Peter:

Got it. Thank you. I have also seen the equation somewhere in the form
H = H0 √ . . .
This form, together with another of my occasional senior moments, are the sources of the spurious solution.

Regards,
Buzz
 
If H is zero the critical density is zero and so there is nothing in the universe. You recover Minkowski space.
 
Buzz Bloom said:
Hi Chris:
If H0 = 0, then H = 0 no matter what values a or the Ωs have. I understand that H can also be zero with H0 not zero for some combinations of value for a and the Ωs. Such a solution would correspond to a mathematically possible configuration of a GR universe, but H = H0 = 0 does not.

Well a's are not constant. In some point they can give an overall zero result and it's when the H=0 (acceleration halts for a moment).
The thing then is that if you want it to be always zero indepent of the value of a, the omegas to be zero. As for example the only way for:
ax^2+ bx+c =0 (always 0 independently of the value of x) would need a=b=c=0.
 
Orodruin said:
If H is zero the critical density is zero

More precisely, if H is zero at all times then the critical density is zero.
 
Buzz Bloom said:
It has occurred to me that the Friedmann equation

View attachment 94379
allows for a solution
H = H0 = 0 .
This seems to say that independently of the value of the scale factor a, and the various Ωs, a static universe is possible. I am guessing that this solution is spurious and is a side effect of the derivation of the equation.

I am curious about how the derivation introduced this spurious solution of the cosmological form of the GR equations, and would much appreciate someone posting an explanation.

Regards,
Buzz
If you permit this kind of division by zero, you can prove 1 = 2. All you've shown is that if you divide by zero, you can prove anything.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buzz Bloom
  • #10
If you permit this kind of division by zero, you can prove 1 = 2. All you've shown is that if you divide by zero, you can prove anything.
Hi Chalnth:

Sorry I wasn't clearer in my post #5.

What you said above is what I meant by "another of my occasional senior moments".

Regards,
Buzz
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K