Will the Cosmos Expand Forever or Collapse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter victorvmotti
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosmos
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether the universe will expand indefinitely or collapse back to a singular point. Current observational data and the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker models suggest that the cosmos is likely to experience perpetual expansion. The cubic equation presented by Carroll indicates that if it lacks real solutions, an endless expansion is expected. The idea of a "big crunch" is largely dismissed due to the discovery of accelerated expansion. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the scale factor and its implications for predicting the universe's fate.
victorvmotti
Messages
152
Reaction score
5
Will the cosmos expand forever or the expansion will stop and then the whole universe collapses to that point of spacetime from which the big bang started?

Carroll (2004) shows that this will become clear in a formula that shows the fate of the cosmos:

Ω0a^3+(1- ΩM0- Ω)a+ ΩM0=0

This simple cubic equation in terms of a, the scale factor, gives us predictive power. If there is no real solution to it then we have to expect “perpetual” expansion. And the current experimental data indeed favor such an open ended cosmic future.

What do you think about this conclusion?
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
I am not sure what it is that you are asking.

Yes, observational evidence, when combined standard Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker models, strongly favours a universe that expands forever.

The same observation evidence and models, however, make no strong prediction about whether the universe is open or closed, i.e.., the universe seems to be very near the borderline.
 
victorvmotti said:
Will the cosmos expand forever or the expansion will stop and then the whole universe collapses to that point of spacetime from which the big bang started?

It can't possibly collapse to the same point in spacetime where it started because the arrow of time only goes one way.

The "big crunch" scenario was in favor before accelerated expansion was discovered a couple of decades ago but is now widely regarded as not what's going to happen.

EDIT: I should add that the term "point in spacetime" should, I think, be taken to mean not just a particular point in time but also a particular point in space and since the big bang did not happen at a point in space, that's another reason why saying that it could go back to the "same" point in spacetime is impossible.
 
victorvmotti said:
This simple cubic equation in terms of a, the scale factor, gives us predictive power. If there is no real solution to it then we have to expect “perpetual” expansion. And the current experimental data indeed favor such an open ended cosmic future.
What do you think about this conclusion?
I think that every cubic equation has a real solution.
 
Bill_K said:
I think that every cubic equation has a real solution.

Carroll should have specified explicitly that turn-around values of the scale factor ##a## need to be real and positive, i.e., only positive solutions of the cubic are physically valid. He produces the real, positive solutions.
 
Last edited:
Great feedback.

Yes, he begins by seeing when the Hubble parameter passes through zero, changes sign, from positive to negative, and then arrives at this cubic equation in terms of the scale factor.

I was wondering if this cubic equation captures all information and related values, here only density parameters of matter and vacuum, to predict the fate of the cosmos, either a crunch or a perpetual expansion.
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K