Question regarding Friedmann equation

AI Thread Summary
The Friedmann equation suggests a solution where H = H0 = 0, implying a static universe independent of the scale factor and density parameters. However, this solution is considered spurious, as it leads to undefined conditions and requires all density parameters to be zero for it to hold true. Discussions clarify that while H can be zero with non-zero H0 under certain conditions, the specific case of H = H0 = 0 does not correspond to a viable cosmological model. The conversation also touches on the implications of allowing division by zero, which can lead to nonsensical conclusions. Overall, the consensus is that this solution arises from the mathematical derivation rather than a physical reality.
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 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 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

Back
Top