Questions on Expansion of the Universe and Newtonian Physics

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lee_st3
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang and its relation to Newtonian physics. Participants clarify that the Big Bang is not an explosion in space but rather an expansion of space itself, which does not conform to traditional Newtonian principles. The acceleration of the universe's expansion is defined by the second derivative of the scale factor, distinct from Newtonian acceleration. Furthermore, while gravity does influence the expansion rate, it does not negate the ongoing acceleration of the universe.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Big Bang model and its implications
  • Familiarity with cosmological concepts such as the Hubble parameter
  • Basic knowledge of calculus, particularly differentiation
  • Awareness of the differences between Newtonian physics and general relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical framework of cosmology, focusing on the Friedmann equations
  • Learn about the Hubble parameter and its role in cosmic expansion
  • Explore the implications of dark energy on the universe's acceleration
  • Investigate the differences between Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's theory of general relativity
USEFUL FOR

Astrophysics students, cosmologists, and anyone interested in understanding the fundamental principles of the universe's expansion and the limitations of Newtonian physics in cosmological contexts.

lee_st3
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
I just have a few musings about how newtonain physics could be applied to the accelerating universe.
So I know that people say that Newtonian physics can't be applied alone to the total of the cosmos, as the universe is expanding outward in contradiction to the Newtonian principles. My question has to do with the force and energy regarding the big bang. We know that the big bang was a huge release of energy and force outwards. Could the increasing acceleration of the universe be attributed to the massive force of the big bang inducing an acceleration that hasn't become negative due to the sheer force? And later in time the gravity of the universe will eventually slow the acceleration? Sorry if this is a dumb question and if you can't follow my logic, I'm new to astrophysics and am not well versed on the topic, but I was curious.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: susu1 and PeroK
Astronomy news on Phys.org
lee_st3 said:
We know that the big bang was a huge release of energy and force outwards.
No, it wasn't. There is no "outwards" in the big bang model of the early universe. Your question is based on false premises. What you are describing is simply not how the model works.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
lee_st3 said:
We know that the big bang was a huge release of energy and force outwards.
Clearly, you have gotten your "knowledge" from pop-sci presentations, which DO describe (TOTALLY incorrectly) the Big Bang Singularity as an explosion in space with everything radiating out from there. This is just nonsense. Read some actual physics. Pop-sci presentation can be great fun to watch and read but they are entertainment, not education.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
No, in short.

The acceleration familiar from Newtonian physics is a very different thing from the second derivative of the scale factor, which is the "acceleration" referred to in cosmology. They have the same broad sense of increasing speed, and there isn't realy a more appropriate word than acceleration, but they really are completely distinct concepts. For example, even in a universe where there is no accelerated expansion, receding objects increase their recession speed over time.

You really do need to get to grips with the maths before you can make sensible suggestions, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ibix said:
For example, even in a universe where there is no accelerated expansion, receding objects increase their recession speed over time.
That not really correct. Recession speed between comoving objects is proportional to the Hubble parameter ##H = \dot a/a## and to the distance ##d = ax##, where ##x## is the fixed comoving distance. The recession speed is therefore ##\dot a x##, which increases if its derivative ##\ddot a x## is positive, ie, if ##\ddot a >0## - which is the very definition of accelerating expansion.

Alternatively just differentiate the physical distance ##d## twice for the same result.
 
Orodruin said:
That not really correct. Recession speed between comoving objects is proportional to the Hubble parameter ##H = \dot a/a## and to the distance ##d = ax##, where ##x## is the fixed comoving distance. The recession speed is therefore ##\dot a x##, which increases if its derivative ##\ddot a x## is positive, ie, if ##\ddot a >0## - which is the very definition of accelerating expansion.

Alternatively just differentiate the physical distance ##d## twice for the same result.
Ah yes - was thinking ##Hd## and forgot ##d=a\chi##.
 
lee_st3 said:
Could the increasing acceleration of the universe be attributed to the massive force of the big bang inducing an acceleration that hasn't become negative due to the sheer force?
No. The expansion of space is not the result of applying a newtonian-style force.
lee_st3 said:
And later in time the gravity of the universe will eventually slow the acceleration?
The expansion is slowing down, but that rate of slowdown will actually decrease as time passes. In other words, the expansion is 'accelerating' as objects in the universe become more spread out and gravity between them weakens.
 
lee_st3 said:
So I know that people say that Newtonian physics can't be applied alone to the total of the cosmos, as the universe is expanding outward in contradiction to the Newtonian principles.
In fact, Newtonian physics doesn't contradict the expansion of the universe, as Professor Leonard Susskind explains here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
916
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
596
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K