Time derivative of Hubble parameter

Click For Summary
The time derivative of the Hubble parameter can be calculated using the quotient rule or product rule applied to the functions involved in H(t) = a'/a. The derivative of H is shown to be negative in the standard cosmological model due to its dependence on the energy density and pressure, which are positive terms. As the matter density decreases, the derivative approaches zero, indicating that H declines more slowly and approaches a constant positive growth rate. This behavior is associated with accelerated expansion, where the decline of H levels out, leading to exponential growth. Currently, H is approximately 1/144 of a percent per million years, with an expected limit of 1/173 of a percent per million years.
Lapidus
Messages
344
Reaction score
12
Is rather a question of calculus skills, but how do I get the time derivative of the Hubble parameter here in [1]? Is it the Leibnitz rule, the chain rule, some clever re-arrangement?


thank you
 
Space news on Phys.org
Lapidus said:
Is rather a question of calculus skills, but how do I get the time derivative of the Hubble parameter here in [1]? Is it the Leibnitz rule, the chain rule, some clever re-arrangement?thank you

equation [1] is a straightforward application of the definition of H(t) = a'/a
and the Leibnitz rule
or I would call it the "quotient rule" for taking derivative of f(t)/g(t)

You can also think of it as the "product rule" applied to the two functions f(t) and (1/g(t))

Notice that (1/a)' = (-a'/a2) (I guess you could call that an application of "chain rule")

so you just make a simple application of product rule to H(t) = a' * (1/a)

and you get a'' * (1/a) + a' * (-a'/a2) = a''/a - (a'/a)2

======================

Be careful there is something misleading in the last 4 or 5 equations on that page you linked to!

In the standard cosmological model the derivative of H is always negative.

That page is a bit inconsistent because it introduces the Friedman equations WITH LAMBDA THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT, so there should be no "dark energy component" in the energy density rho, and the pressure p.

rho and p are just positive terms like you would expect, nothing tricky.

So he actually shows that the derivative of H is NEGATIVE because it is proportional to
-(rho + p), which is negative.

And this is correct, according to standard model (where you have a cosmological constant).

As matter thins out, rho + p goes to zero,

so the derivative of H, which is negative, goes to zero. So H declines slower and slower and levels out to a constant positive percentage growth rate H in the limit.

This is what is meant by "accelerated expansion" (H declining to a positive limiting value) because growth at a constant percentage rate is, of course, EXPONENTIAL growth. So if you watch a particular distance grow, it goes like money in the bank at a constant percentage rate of interest.

"Acceleration" does not mean that H(t) should increase. In the standard model with cosmo constant Lambda, it just means that the DECLINE of H(t) is leveling out to a small positive value so we get exponential growth.

Currently H is about 1/144 of a percent per million years, and the expected H limit is 1/173 of a percent per million years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K