Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2006 / ii / Paper 1 / 10D / b

Assume the present universe is expanding, $\dot{a}(t_0)>0$. The stated energy inequality and the Raychaudhuri equation imply $\ddot{a}\le 0$ wherever $a>0$. Therefore for $t<t_0$ in that positive branch, $\dot{a}(t)\ge \dot{a}(t_0)$, andNonnegativity of $a(t)$ forces $t_0-t\le a(t_0)/\dot{a}(t_0)=H_0^{-1}$. If the solution remains valid towards the past, its positive branch must thus end in $a=0$ within that time; a positive scale factor extending further would contradict the inequality. HenceThis argument presumes an expanding branch and the stated energy condition throughout it, rather than proving either assumption.

There are two relevant failures of the naive numerical bound. The supplied ten-billion-year Hubble time is an approximate observational input: a smaller inferred present expansion rate gives a larger Hubble time, and comparison with stellar ages must include these uncertainties. More decisively, a positive cosmological constant, or other dark energy with sufficiently negative pressure, has $\rho +3P/c^2<0$ and permits accelerated expansion, so the concavity assumption fails. Observations of acceleration therefore remove this particular upper-bound argument. This is a discussion of the supplied historical estimate, not an assertion that its numerical value is a current measurement.