Big Crunch in an infinite, symmetrical, Newtonian universe?

  • B
  • Thread starter Pony
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Infinity
In summary, the concept of a "Big Crunch" in an infinite, symmetrical, Newtonian universe explores the possibility of the universe ultimately collapsing back into a singularity after expanding. This scenario posits that gravitational forces could eventually overcome the expansion driven by the initial conditions of the universe, leading to a cyclical model of cosmic evolution. The discussion involves examining the implications of such a model on the nature of the universe, including the role of symmetry and the dynamics of gravitational interactions, while considering the philosophical and scientific ramifications of an infinite, yet temporally bound, universe.
  • #1
Pony
39
10
Is there a Big Crunch in an infinity, Newtonian, symmetrical universe, e.g. an infinity grid, with stars in its nodes, due to the gravitational attraction?

One can argue that every net force is 0, so there isn't one.

But I think there is an another argument, that leads to a Big Crunch, that I fail to see rn.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
In a Newtonian universe filled with uniform density matter the amount of mass in a thin shell at radius ##r## scales as ##r^2##, and its contribution to the potential at your location scales as ##r^{-1}##. Thus the potential at your location (or indeed any other) looks like##\int_0^\infty rdr=\infty##. So I don't think such a Newtonian model is consistent to start with.
 
  • #3
Pony said:
One can argue that every net force is 0, so there isn't one.
Not consistently.

Ibix said:
In a Newtonian universe filled with uniform density matter the amount of mass in a thin shell at radius ##r## scales as ##r^2##, and its contribution to the potential at your location scales as ##r^{-1}##. Thus the potential at your location (or indeed any other) looks like##\int_0^\infty rdr=\infty##. So I don't think such a Newtonian model is consistent to start with.
The shell theorem essentially relies on being able to pick a potential that is zero at infinity. Unfortunately, this is incompatible with an infinite constant density (as you have shown here). Considering the Newtonian gravitational potential such that
$$
\nabla^2 \phi = 4\pi G \rho_0 = {\rm constant},
$$
the boundary condition at infinity necessarily breaks the homogeneity and isotropy assumption for any solution.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes Klystron and PeterDonis
  • #4
Pony said:
But I think there is an another argument, that leads to a Big Crunch, that I fail to see rn.
Maybe: take a big, finite ball, calculate the shrinking speed around the origin, and take the limit, and see if that tends to a finite, non zero number. I can calculate that
 
  • #5
Pony said:
Maybe: take a big, finite ball, calculate the shrinking speed around the origin
What shrinking speed around the origin are you talking about?
 
  • #6
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
  • Like
Likes Mazmul and Ibix
  • #8
Pony said:
Maybe: take a big, finite ball, calculate the shrinking speed around the origin, and take the limit, and see if that tends to a finite, non zero number. I can calculate that
@PeterDonis has asked for clarification on the model. I am not @Pony, but I want to guess at what he had in mind.

We take a finite spherical dust cloud with uniform density. The dust is initially at rest. We allow the system to evolve from this starting point and observe the result.

It is a well known consequence of the shell theorem that gravitational acceleration within a spherical body of uniform density scales directly with distance from the center. We would expect dust at the periphery of the cloud to be accelerating toward the center at a calculable rate: ##a = \frac{GM}{R^2}##. Here ##R## is the radius of the entire cloud.

Dust halfway out from the center would be accelerating inward at half rate. Dust 10% of the way out at 10% rate. ##a \propto r##

Similarly, the inward velocity of the dust will be proportional to radius: ##v_r \propto r##

So as the dust cloud evolves, it will remain spherical and will always have uniform density. Though that density will increase over time.

So the inward collapse will result in a point of infinite density in finite time. One could write a differential equation and solve for the collapse time as a function of ##G## and the initial density. The size of the spherical distribution does not enter in.

If we reverse time and "run the film backward" from a perfectly uniform starting point, we should see decellerating expansion and a moment of minimum density followed by an accelerating collapse and a "big crunch".
 
  • #9
jbriggs444 said:
We take a finite spherical dust cloud with uniform density. The dust is initially at rest. We allow the system to evolve from this starting point and observe the result.
We already know the result: this is the 1939 Oppenheimer-Snyder dust collapse model. The dust collapses to form a Schwarzschild black hole.

jbriggs444 said:
It is a well known consequence of the shell theorem that gravitational acceleration within a spherical body of uniform density scales directly with distance from the center.
Not in this scenario. You are thinking of a static spherical body. The spherical cloud of dust is not static.

jbriggs444 said:
as the dust cloud evolves, it will remain spherical and will always have uniform density. Though that density will increase over time.
This is true, but the computation that Oppenheimer and Snyder did to reach this conclusion is not the one you did. The correct computation makes use of the fact that the dust region at the initial instant is identical to a portion of a closed matter-dominated FRW universe at the instant of maximum expansion. The already known dynamics of that solution is then used to give the dynamics of the dust region, and Birkhoff's Theorem is sufficient to prove that the vacuum region exterior to the dust is the Schwarzschild vacuum. Those two things are all that is needed.

For more information, see this series of Insights articles (the link is to the first of three):

https://www.physicsforums.com/insig...-model-of-gravitational-collapse-an-overview/
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #10
jbriggs444 said:
@PeterDonis has asked for clarification on the model.
The reason I asked is that I am not aware of any relevant model in which there is "shrinking speed around the origin".
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #11
PeterDonis said:
This is true, but the computation that Oppenheimer and Snyder did to reach this conclusion is not the one you did. The correct computation makes use of the fact that the dust region at the initial instant is identical to a portion of a closed matter-dominated FRW universe at the instant of maximum expansion.
Right. I understood @Pony to be working under the model of Newtonian mechanics rather than on the correct model of general relativity. My calculations are based on the Newtonian model.

And yes, I agree that an accelerating Newtonian collapse would not be well described as a fixed shrinking speed around the origin.
 

FAQ: Big Crunch in an infinite, symmetrical, Newtonian universe?

What is the Big Crunch?

The Big Crunch is a theoretical scenario in cosmology where the expansion of the universe eventually reverses, leading to a collapse of all matter and energy back into a singular point. This concept is often discussed in the context of a closed universe, where gravitational forces dominate and cause the universe to stop expanding and start contracting.

How does the Big Crunch relate to an infinite, symmetrical, Newtonian universe?

In an infinite, symmetrical, Newtonian universe, the Big Crunch is less straightforward. Newtonian gravity suggests that an infinite universe filled with matter would not necessarily lead to a collapse because the gravitational forces would be balanced across the infinite space. However, if the density of matter were sufficiently high, gravitational attraction could still lead to a scenario resembling a Big Crunch, albeit with complexities due to the infinite nature of the universe.

What role does dark energy play in the Big Crunch scenario?

Dark energy, which is thought to be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe, plays a crucial role in preventing a Big Crunch in our current understanding of cosmology. In a universe dominated by dark energy, the expansion continues indefinitely, making the Big Crunch scenario less likely. In a Newtonian framework, dark energy is not typically included, but if it were, it would counteract the gravitational forces that could lead to a collapse.

Can the Big Crunch be observed or tested?

Currently, the Big Crunch is a theoretical construct and cannot be directly observed. However, cosmologists study the expansion rate of the universe, the density of matter, and the effects of dark energy to understand the fate of the universe. Observations of distant galaxies and cosmic microwave background radiation provide insights into whether the universe is open, closed, or flat, which influences the likelihood of a Big Crunch occurring.

What are the implications of a Big Crunch for the future of the universe?

If a Big Crunch were to occur, it would imply a cyclical model of the universe, where after the collapse, conditions could lead to another Big Bang and the formation of a new universe. This raises philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of time, existence, and the ultimate fate of all matter and energy. However, current observations suggest that the universe is likely to continue expanding indefinitely, making the Big Crunch an unlikely scenario in our current cosmological model.

Back
Top