/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6743987]

The rate of expansion of our universe appears to be accelerating at an increasing pace, given the measurements we have made over the last twenty years or so. Is this 'meta-acceleration' accelerating at an increasing pace as well, or static, or decreasing, or fluctuating, or did someone just flub their numbers and the newer values reflect the errors in previous measurements?

I did some basic maths a while back, and assuming that the rate of meta-acceleration is itself static, the universe will undergo a Big Rip scenario sometime in the early 2100s. This is of course assuming that a) three sources are sufficient to calculate a meta-acceleration rate, b) said sources are correct, c) values reflect changes in the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe rather than corrections for previous errors in measurement, and d) my maths is not flawed.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.6744000]

>The rate of expansion of our universe appears to be accelerating at an increasing pace

No. It appears to be flat. Neither accelerating nor decelerating.

>the universe will undergo a Big Rip scenario sometime in the early 2100s

Lol no. Anyone who has studied cosmology at any level knows that's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6744010]

>>6744000

So the changes in measurement of the 'life expectancy' of the universe based on rate of expansion between, say, 1990 and 2010 are simply error corrections, and not indicative of an accelerating rate?

[Anonymous No.6744024]

>>6744010
I cannot tell you if you don't point to specific results.

[Anonymous No.6744032]

>>6744024

Looking for the articles now. In retrospect I should have bookmarked them in a separate folder to make them easier to retrieve. :c

[Anonymous No.6744042]

>>6744000
nice dubs trips

[Anonymous No.6744179]

>>6743987
>meta-acceleration
Its called Jerk.

>early 2100s
Nigger do you even know what cosmological timescales are?

[Anonymous No.6744187]

>>6744179
>Jerk of the Universe

κϵκ

[Anonymous No.6744219]

>>6744024

Couldn't find the original articles, as it turns out that I had bookmarked them in a previous installation of both Chrome and Windows. However, I found one of the papers, as well as another:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302506v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0033v3.pdf

Infuriatingly enough, it seems that I misread the latter the first time around, and it seems to imply that w is roughly equivalent to -1. It does allow for both greater as well as lesser values, though, with the lower limit values being statistically more likely (in the sense that yes, there will probably be a Big Rip, but no, it probably won't happen for around a hundred billion years or so). Still, the lowest boundary value seems to indicate it could potentially happen in as little as 15-20 billion years. I think my confusion may have arisen from estimated time of 'death' of the universe based on different scenarios - the Freeze, if I'm not mistaken, was supposed to ultimately end much, much later - long after even the last of the black holes evaporated quadrillions of years from now - while the absolute soonest that these two papers indicate the Rip could occur is a mere fraction of that at 15-20 billion years, and even the best fit value is a mere hundred or so billion years. Taking the discrepancy between these values alone without considering the fact that they only work in different scenarios easily results in abysmal timeframes such as the one I mentioned in the OP.

tl;dr idungoofed

>>6744179

See above, and thank you for reminding me of that term.

[Anonymous No.6745951]

flat

[Anonymous No.6746245]

>>6745951

What are you trying to say?