Solving expansion rate for a variant of the Friedmann equation

Kyrios
Messages
28
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


For the equation H^2 = \frac{8 \pi G \rho_m}{3} + \frac{H}{r_c} how do I find the value of H for scale factor a \rightarrow \infty, and show that H acts as though dominated by \Lambda (cosmological constant) ?

Homework Equations


\rho_m \propto \frac{1}{a^3}
H > 0

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm not sure how to show that H is driven by \Lambda, but have tried to sub in the scale factor in place of matter density and make the scale factor go to infinity.
As in,
H^2 = \frac{8 \pi G }{3 a^3} + \frac{H}{r_c}
This gets rid of the \frac{8 \pi G \rho_m}{3} leaving H = \frac{1}{r_c}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is ##r_c##? Is it constant?
 
Yes r_c is a constant which is called the cross over scale. I don't think we need to know the value of it
 
Okay. Now, solve

$$H = \frac{1}{r_c}$$

for the scale factor ##a##.
 
Alternatively, what is ##H## for a universe that has a non-zero cosmological constant ##\Lambda##, and that is otherwise empty, i.e., that has no matter or radiation content?
 
ok, so H = \frac{1}{r_c}
H = \frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{dt} = \frac{1}{r_c}
\int_{0}^{a} \frac{1}{a} da = \int_{0}^{t} \frac{1}{r_c} dt
ln(a) = \frac{1}{r_c} t
a = \exp(\frac{t}{r_c})

Which is akin to dark energy domination a \propto \exp(Hr_c) ?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...

Similar threads

Back
Top