Undergrad Universe Expansion: GR vs Hubble Reconciled

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on reconciling General Relativity (GR) predictions of the universe's size with the Hubble expansion model. It highlights that the Hubble expansion is exponential, particularly in scenarios dominated by dark energy, while GR allows for various scale factor evolutions depending on the universe's composition. The graphs referenced illustrate different evolutionary paths, with one showing a mislabeling issue regarding the 'open' universe model. The conversation emphasizes the need for valid references to support claims about these models. Ultimately, the lack of a solid basis for discussion leads to the closure of the thread.
jeremyfiennes
Messages
323
Reaction score
17
TL;DR
The two seem contractory. How are they reconciled?
The GR predictions for the universe's size are those of fig.a. Whereas the Hubble expansion is exponential, fig.b. How are the two reconciled?

expansioN.JPG
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jeremyfiennes said:
The GR predictions for the universe's size are those of fig.a.
Where are you getting that figure from?

jeremyfiennes said:
the Hubble expansion is exponential
What "Hubble expansion" are you talking about? Where are you getting that figure from?
 
  • Like
Likes Hyperfine and Vanadium 50
I don't know. My memory doesn't go back that far. But it us implicit in this one which I found in wikipedia:

universe future.jpg

"Possible velocity vs. redshift functions; patterned after Davis & Lineweave, CC BY-SA 3.0." The 'linear' curve is the Hubble law case.
 
All four curves in the OP are allowed under GR. Without knowing the context, we won't be able to answer why they were labelled like that.
The first graph shows the evolution of the scale factor with time in universes with matter+radiation (although the latter doesn't really show in such simplified representation) depending on the ratio of density vs critical density - these are labelled 'flat' and 'closed'. For the one labelled 'open' to curve upwards like that, the composition must include dark energy. If it were approaching linear expansion instead of exponential, all three would represent the possible futures of the universe as could be encountered in textbooks pre-1990s, before dark energy was seriously considered. As is, the 'open' one is a bit out of place in its company, and mislabelled, but permissible under GR nonetheless.
The graph labelled 'b) Hubble' shows the time evolution of the scale factor in universes where the only component present is dark energy. It's the only case where expansion is exponential. It is also equivalent to the Hubble parameter never changing, so it's what you get from naively assuming that the Hubble constant in the Hubble law is constant in time.
All kinds of scale factor evolutions are permissible under GR - exponential, linear, approaching steady state, contracting. Which one is appropriate depends on what's in the universe.

The graph in post #3 shows a completely different thing. That one's about how Doppler shift works.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PeterDonis
Thanks.
 
jeremyfiennes said:
I don't know. My memory doesn't go back that far.
Need I point out that this means they are not valid references?

Since we have no valid basis for discussion, this thread is closed.
 
In an inertial frame of reference (IFR), there are two fixed points, A and B, which share an entangled state $$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0>_A|1>_B+|1>_A|0>_B) $$ At point A, a measurement is made. The state then collapses to $$ |a>_A|b>_B, \{a,b\}=\{0,1\} $$ We assume that A has the state ##|a>_A## and B has ##|b>_B## simultaneously, i.e., when their synchronized clocks both read time T However, in other inertial frames, due to the relativity of simultaneity, the moment when B has ##|b>_B##...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K