I Universe Expansion: GR vs Hubble Reconciled

jeremyfiennes
Messages
323
Reaction score
17
TL;DR Summary
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.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top