New answers tagged

1

Sticking with the sphere analogy, first remember that in this analogy, the Universe is a shell, i.e. only the points on the surface of the sphere exist in the Universe, not points inside or outside. If the Universe has a spherical geometry, then the centre would be the centre of this sphere, which is not in the Universe anymore (which is why one would say ...


3

In general relativity a free particle moves on a trajectory called a geodesic and to make it diverge from that geodesic you need to apply a force to it. To take an everyday example, an object momentarily at rest at the surface of the Earth would normally follow a geodesic that leads radially towards the centre of the Earth with an acceleration relative to ...


1

Because there is no quantum theory of gravitation, we cannot express with confidence the microscopic view of what is happening. However, at the large scale the expansion of space is described by the Hubble parameter, and the Big Bang model, which is informed by the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which once was 3,000 K,but today is about 2.7 K, which ...


2

The preferred frame of reference is that of the co-moving reference frame that defines the Hubble flow. In practical terms that can be defined by correcting any velocity for the observer's motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background. Individual peculiar velocities for galaxies (including our own) are measured in hundreds to thousands of km/s. This ...


6

I though I would discuss the transition from radiation to matter dominated phases and from there to the dark energy phase. A fair amount of this can be discussed with just Newtonian mechanics. General relativity changes this by some subtle means, but as a coarse grained view, to borrow a stat mechanics term, Newtonian mechanics captures a lot of this. We ...


16

The title and the text actually ask two different questions. While Kyle Oman and Thriveth answer the title excellently, I'll address the question in the text which asks "Why did the Universe expand in the first place, before dark energy (DE) started to dominate". The answer to this is inflation (we think). The first fraction of a second after the creation ...


9

The short version: The amount of matter in the Universe is fixed, so as the Universe expands, matter density will drop because the same amount of matter will be spread out on more space. Dark Energy, on the other hand, is (by definition) constant or almost constant in density. This means that no matter how dilute the Dark Energy is, if it waits long enough, ...


19

Let's start partway through the expansion of the Universe in the matter dominated epoch. At this time the energy density is dominated by matter, but the dark energy and radiation components are still present, just relatively small. The Universe is expanding, but the expansion is gradually slowing down. As the Universe expands, the density of matter scales ...


8

The most distant object that light we emit today can reach in the distant future is at the event horizon $$eH(t) = a(t)\cdot \int_{t}^{t_{max}} \frac{c\cdot \text{d}t'}{a(t')}$$ which is now approximately 17 billion lightyears away, see the future light cone in comoving coordinates which converges to this distance: If the light was emitted at the big ...


1

The metric for the de Sitter spacetime, which approximates the observable universe in stationary coordinates is $$ ds^2~=~-\left(1~-~\frac{r^2\Lambda}{3}\right)dt^2~+~\left(1~-~\frac{r^2\Lambda}{3}\right)^{-1}dr^2~+~r^2d\Omega^2 $$ The important term is $$ \left(1~-~\frac{r^2\Lambda}{3}\right), $$ that looks a bit like the Schwarzschild factor. This ...


0

Well first of all, Considering dark energy and other factors, what is the most distant object light could reach? If you are talking about an OBJECT like stars, galaxies etc... the farthest object we can "see" is located 13.39 bilions light-years (Galaxy GNz-11, you can search that) The 11 on the name indicates its redshift z=11. ...


0

I will use most of @Ted answer to describe 'hot' but I will ask a more basic question: I think the best way to think about it is that the sentence "the photons have cooled" is simply describing a fact, not explaining that fact. At early times, the photons at any given location had a thermal (blackbody) distribution corresponding to a high ...


-1

It changes. In fact, after 3000 billion years, the constants will have changed so much that all the current structures in the universe will be destroyed, including quarks and electrons.


0

First of all, the Universe isn't expanding according to "current theories". It is an observational fact. Second, there is no center of the Universe. Space was created, and started expanding. This expansion pulls everything away from each other. Galaxies lie approximately still in space, but space is expanding. This means that no matter where you are located ...


0

First of all, there is NO centre in the universe. I know it's not a good analogy, but think of the universe as the surface of a balloon. Forget the interior, we're only looking at 2 dimensions, whereas the real universe has 3 of them. Put some ink dots on the balloon, which represent galaxies (note: NOT planets). Now inflate that balloon. You'll see that ...



Top 50 recent answers are included