The Destiny of the Universe

µ ¶2
ȧ 8πG kc2
= ρ− 2
a 3 a

where
2 −2U
kc =
mx2
Thus far we have considered only k = 0. Clearly the ultimate fate of the
Universe may be affected by the choice of k.

k = 0 The Universe expands for ever slowing it’s rate of expansion as time
evolves.

k < 0 In this case the RHS of the Friedmann equation is always positive and
again the expansion will continue forever. Since the a-dependence of the
k-term is weaker than the a-dependence of the G-term it will dominate

1
 eventually (when a get large enough) so we will have the equation.
µ ¶2
ȧ kc2
=− 2
a a

Cancelling the a’s and solving gives a solution a ∝ t, so when the k-term
dominates the expansion rate speeds up from t2/3(dust) or t1/2(rad) to
t. In this case the velocity becomes constant at very long times.

k > 0 In this case the RHS of the Friedmann equation will become zero at
some point.

The constant k is unchanging in either space or time and as we see

determines the ultimate fate of the Universe in this simple model. It is
directly linked with the amount of matter in the Universe.

2
 The Observable Universe
We can only see the light which has had time to reach us. Light emitted
at the time of the Big Bang would not yet have had time to do so. In any
case at very early times the Universe was opaque to EM radiation since the
material existed as a charged particle plasma and absorbed the radiation
very easily.

A related question is Where did the Big Bang happen? The rather
unsatisfactory answer to this is ”everywhere and nowhere” - Everywhere
since in the infinite curvature regime all points are overlapping. and nowhere
since the space we have now no longer contains the point where the Bang
occurred.

3
We would like to measure the expansion rate and the mass of the Universe.
To measure the expansion rate we must measure the velocity and the
distance to the object. The velocity is easy via the Doppler shift ( but we
have to look far enough away that random velocities are negligible compared
to the expansion velocity. To get the distance we must overcome encounter
several difficulties:

• To use the parallax method of measuring angles is impractical at

large distances since the angles are too small (1 micro-arc second
≈ 10−10 deg!).

• A common technique is to use standard candles. These are well

characterized object whose brightness we believe we know well. By
measuring the brightness and using the inverse square law we can infer
the distance. This however is a very rough technique and has lead to a
rather inaccurate determination of Hubble’s constant.

4
Often The Hubble’s constant is parameterized as

H = 100 h kms−1Mpc−1

with (0.4 ≤ h ≤ 0.8). A parsec (pc) is 3.26 light years or 3 × 1016m.

This is a widely used, convenient unit defined as the distance for which the
earth-sun line would subtend one second of arc. A megaparsec is roughly
the distance between galaxies

Another crucial quantity is the density parameter Ω0.

µ ¶2
ȧ 2 8πG kc2
=H = ρ− 2
a 3 a

For a given value of H there is a special value of the density which would
make the geometry of the Universe flat ( k = 0). This is known as the
critical density:
3H 2
ρc(t) =
8πG
Since we know the Hubble constant we can work this out.

5
 ρc(t0) = 1.88h2 × 10−26kg m−3

This is a tiny number when compared to e.g. the density of water 103kg m−3.
However let’s rescale it into astronomy units.

ρc(t0) = 2.7h−1 × 1011M¯/(h−1M pc)3

M¯ is the mass of the Sun. Now it doesn’t seem so small. There are roughly
1011 stars in a galaxy, typically like the Sun, and the galactic separation is
about 1Mpc. So the density in the Universe is close to ρc(t0).
Remember that ρc(t0) is not the true density of the Universe just the density
required to make it flat - and it may not be flat. It simply sets the scale.
Physicists like to use the dimensionless parameter
ρ
Ω(t) =
ρc

6
In trying to decide on the ultimate fate of the universe we look at all the
contributions from different components to the total density e.g. Ωrad and
Ωdust.

7
 The Age of the Universe
The rate of expansion of the Universe is given by H so the simplest estimate
of the age of the Universe is H −1. We have

H0 = 100 hkms−1Mpc−1

which hides the fact the H has units of time (since ~v = H~r) Converting to
useful units give s
H0−1 = 9.77 h−1 × 109years
So the first guess is that the Universe is 10 billion years old. Note the the
uncertainty in H carries through to this estimate.

This is in the same ballpark as figures obtained from geological timescale

for the Earth (5 billion), ”Uranium dating” of the galactic disk (10 billion),
chemical evolution of old stars (12 billion). It is remarkable that all these
numbers are pretty close at all and gives us confidence that the Big Bang
idea is on the right track.

8
Can we do better ? Well we’re pretty sure the Universe has been dust-
dominated for most of it’s life. Let’s assume the density is exactly the
critical density so we have

µ ¶2/3
t
a(t) =
t0
ȧ 2
H(t) = =
a 3t

The present value of the Hubble parameter is

2
H0 =
3t0

so
2 −1
t0 = H0 = 6.5h−1 × 109years
3
Now things are getting a little close for comfort the measured ages are up
to 10 billion years.

9
If the Universe is closed ( density larger than the critical density) the age
of the universe will be even shorter than this estimate. This is one of the
arguments against a closed Universe.

On the other hand if Ω0 < 1 this helps since the matter would have slowed
the expansion less and hence taken longer to reach the current value of H0.

10
 Weighing the Universe
From what we have seen the amount of matter in the Universe is a key
parameter in determining our eventual fate. What can we guesstimate from
observations?

ρc(t0) = 1.88h2 × 10−26kg m−3 = 2.7h−1 × 1011M¯/(h−1M pc)3

Counting Stars We believe we have a good understanding of stars. from

the luminosity and temperature we can get a decent estimate of the mass.
This gives a contribution towards the critical density of

ρ
Ωstars = stars ≈ 0.005 → 0.01.
ρc

Note this is independent of h even though the critical density depends on

h2. This is because the estimate requires the light flux which is inversely
proportional to the distance squared. Hence the h dependence in the
ratio disappears.

11
Other Normal matter There is much matter which is not in the form
of stars. In particular gas clouds, both hot and cold, contribute large
amounts of matter due to their size. From a knowledge of the relative
abundances of the light element : hydrogen and helium we can infer that
the amount of so-called baryonic-matter (protons,neutrons) lies in the
range
0.016 < ΩB h2 < 0.024.
This constraint is certainly strong enough to suggest that there is not
enough baryonic matter around to close the Universe.

Dark matter The clearest evidence for the existence of unseen matter
comes from galactic rotation measurements. If a galaxy is rotating then
it;s constituent stars are in Kepler orbits around the centre. This involves
a balance between the centripetal force and the gravitational pull of the
matter inside it’s orbit. i.e.

v2 GM (R)
=
R R2
12
 r
GM (R)
v =
R

A large distance from the centre we expect the mass to be roughly

constant so the rotational velocity should drop off as the root of the
distance. The data suggests that the velocity is roughly constant. There
value is around three times higher than the velocity predicted from the
observed luminous material. The conclusion is that there is some ten
times more material which cannot be seen. Standard estimates suggest
that
Ωhalo = 0.1
This is just about consistent with the upper limit of the baryonic matter
if the smallest value of the Hubble constant is taken.

The galaxies themselves also have a relative motion and are affected by
each other. A similar analysis leads to the conclusion that the total
density in the Universe must obey

Ω0 ≥ 0.3

13
This is well above the amount allowed by nucleo-synthesis for baryonic
matter and so the conclusion is that the dark matter is not simply made
up of neutrons and protons.

Studies of the structures in the Universe indicate also that the Universe
requires a density of
Ω0 ≥ 0.3
in order to have developed the amount of structure is has today in the
time the Universe has been evolving.

One candidate constituent of dark matter are neutrinos. Although

assumed to be massless in the Standard Model recent neutrino oscillation
experiments indicate that they may indeed have a small mass. If the mass
were very small, it would typically be travelling at near the speed of light
and such matter is unfavourable for structure formation in the Universe.
As such it is believed that light neutrinos could only contribute part of
the required dark matter. Heavier muon and tau neutrinos are attractive
from the structure formation point of view but this is inconsistent with
particle physics since the observed muon and tau neutrinos are seen to
be moving very quickly and are hence not too heavy.

14
There are whole families of other candidates for exotic dark matter
photinos, slepton and squarks.
Under the heading of compact objects come the primordial black holes.
These are black holes supposed to be formed in the very early stages of
the Big Bang. If they formed early enough the baryonic matter they are
made from is not included in the nucleosynthesis bound ΩB above since
they could not participate.
Another class of compact objects are the MACHOs standing for MAssive
Compact Halo Object. These object have masses around the Sun’s mass
but are dark. e.g. the brown dwarf remnants of a star. Such objects
have actually been detected using gravitational lensing techniques. By
monitoring the light from stars every few days they can detect when
the intensity increase due to the focussing effect of a compact object.
Amazingly they managed to see a few such occurrences.

15