Universe Expansion: Is a Big Crunch Imminent?

AI Thread Summary
The universe is currently expanding at an accelerating rate, with distant galaxies showing increased redshift, indicating they are moving away faster over time. Initially, the expansion was decelerating, leading to uncertainty about whether the universe would face a Big Crunch or continue expanding indefinitely. However, the discovery of the universe's acceleration confirms that a Big Crunch is unlikely under current conditions. Unless future factors alter this acceleration, the consensus is that the universe will not experience a Big Crunch. Understanding this acceleration clarifies the long-term fate of the universe.
jjgillis1
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
First of all I'm a physics n00b so forgive me for intruding upon you people, whom I consider to be the pinnacle of humanity. I've always heard the universe is flying apart at a faster and faster rate as time passes. The more distant the galaxy the more redshifted it is, meaning the faster its flying away from us, but the further out we look the further back in time we look, meaning galaxies were flying apart faster in the past.

does this not mean the universe is slowing down and a big crunch is imminent? what am I not understanding here?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The expansion of the universe used to be decelerating, but is now accelerating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Before it was determined that the expansion was reaccelerating, nobody knew whether the universe was destined for a big crunch (deceleration stops the expansion and turns it around) or infinite expansion (deceleration never succeeds in stopping the expansion).

Now that we know it's accelerating, we know for sure that there won't be a Big Crunch.
 
Unless for some reason the acceleration starts to slow down in the future for some reason then there shouldn't be a big crunch.
 
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