What Will Happen if Universe Stops Expanding?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sozme
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
If the universe were to stop expanding, the outcome would depend on its geometry; a spherical universe could lead to a "big crunch," while hyperbolic or flat models suggest perpetual expansion. The discussion highlights the evolving theories around cosmic expansion, including ideas of cyclic models and the current belief in accelerating expansion. The concept of relativity complicates the scenario, particularly regarding how simultaneous changes in expansion might affect space-time geometry. Variations in expansion rates across different regions could also yield unique effects on the universe's structure. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for grasping theories like the Big Crunch and the implications of cosmic expansion.
sozme
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
What would happen if the universe stopped expanding?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Hi sozme! In the case of a hyperbolic of flat universe, the universe never stops expanding in finite cosmic time. In the spherical case, the expansion does stop in finite cosmic time and results in the "big crunch".
 
Seems like a fine question...

The old idea was that space did not expand, then the idea was that it did. There was the idea that the expansion had a beginning, and also the idea that the expansion was cyclic and alternated through epochs of expansion and collapse, and another idea that the expansion was continuous and never even had a beginning, and another idea that maybe in the early beginning that some parts of the universe expanded earlier than others, and then there was an idea that early in the beginning there was a short but huge expansion before the slower later and present expansion. Lately, the present expansion that was thought to be certainly not accelerating is now thought to be accelerating.

So the dynamics of space expansion has really been all over the map.

I think what phinds and dedishrfu are suggesting, rightly, is that there are some theoretical problems with posing this question.

For example, if you are imagining that the expansion stopped suddenly, everywhere at once, then maybe a problem arises about relativity of simultaneity... and probably extends to scenarios where the stopping of the expansion happens gradually by slowing down "everywhere" at the same rate.

On the other hand, if the expansion of the universe is presently uniform everywhere, and apparently accelerating uniformly everywhere, I'm not sure how relativity of simultaneity handles that either. Maybe phinds and dedishrfu could touch on that.

Now if you imagine that the expansion changes at different rates in different parts of the universe, I suspect that would have some effects on the geometry of space-time, maybe some peculiar ones.

Maybe someone could verify, but I believe current thinking is that co-movement of mass along with and at rest with respect to the local expansion of space is not subject to inertial effects of that movement.
 
Very good replies. It's still over my head, but I asked it just because I wanted to understand a little bit more about the Big Crunch theory - and wondered if expansion had anything to do with it.
 
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##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
76
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
68
Views
9K
Back
Top