B The Fate of the Universe -- Expansion or Collapse?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the expansion of the universe and the implications of galaxies moving away faster than light. It highlights that current cosmological models suggest a uniform expansion rate, indicating that even unobservable galaxies are receding. The conversation questions whether gravitational effects could reverse this expansion, but participants assert that all known gravitational influences are accounted for in existing models. It is noted that once galaxies exceed the speed of light, they will eventually become unobservable due to redshift, akin to objects entering a black hole. The consensus leans toward the idea that the universe is unlikely to collapse, as current evidence does not support such a scenario.
stilt
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Expansion over collapse
If galaxies are now expanding away faster than light, then how would we know if this has now started to slow, stop and or reverse ? Is there a chance we may never know and the universe collapse won't be seen coming ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physics Forums.

In our cosmological models the expansion rate is the same everywhere. If galaxies we can see are still receding then so are the ones we can't see. And our current best estimate is that we aren't in the kind of universe that collapses anyway.
 
Thanks for your reply. It was only recently we discovered galaxies are expanding out against certain theories. Let's say the gravitational effect starts to kick in and they do start to accelerate back into a collapsed universe.
 
stilt said:
It was only recently we discovered galaxies are expanding out against certain theories.
What are you referring to here?

stilt said:
Lets say the gravitational effect starts to kick in
What "gravitational effect" are you talking about? Galaxies right now are responding to all "gravitational effects".
 
stilt said:
It was only recently we discovered galaxies are expanding out against certain theories.
Nearly a century ago isn't all that recent...
stilt said:
Lets say the gravitational effect starts to kick in and they do start to accelerate back into a collapsed universe.
There isn't any gravitational effect that we are aware of that isn't already included in our models, so there's nothing to "kick in" that hasn't already.

If you are asking what would happen if something we haven't yet discovered happens then the answer is we won't know until we've discovered it.
 
stilt said:
Summary:: Expansion over collapse

If galaxies are now expanding away faster than light, then how would we know if this has now started to slow, stop and or reverse ? Is there a chance we may never know and the universe collapse won't be seen coming ?
Beyond a certain distance, every galaxy we can observe is now and always has been receding at faster than the speed of light. This includes most of the observable galaxies.

This sounds weird, but the fact is that in General Relativity, there is no well-defined notion of relative speed between different locations. Which means that the speed you get depends critically upon how you define your terms. In this case, the speed being talked about is rate of change in proper distance.

And we can observe galaxies that are now and always have been moving faster than the speed of light simply because they were much closer when that light was emitted, and the rate of expansion has slowed down over time. As a photon started to travel towards us from such a galaxy, at first the distance between us and that photon grew: it would move in our direction, but slower than the universe between us and the photon would expand. Eventually, the rate of expansion slowed to the point that the photon started making ground instead.

The photon by this time will have traveled a good distance away from its source galaxy. With the larger distance between us, the expansion is carrying that galaxy away faster than the now-closer photon. So the galaxy can keep moving away at faster than light while the photon eventually does reach us.

Note that in the far future, when the universe's expansion is dominated by the cosmological constant, the expansion itself will be a constant so this will no longer occur: once a galaxy starts receding at faster than light in such a universe, we no longer receive any new light from that galaxy. We continue to see light from the galaxy for a long time, but none of it from after the point it crossed that horizon.

Our universe is not currently dominated by the cosmological constant, but there is still just such a horizon (it's just way more complicated to calculate). And all of the galaxies which have always been moving faster than the speed of light away from us have, I'm pretty sure, moved past that horizon long ago. So we can never see those galaxies age beyond a certain point. Their light will just redshift away until we can't observe them any longer, similar to what happens when an object enters a black hole.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top