Phantom Energy and Cosmic Doomsday

Robert R. Caldwell,1 Marc Kamionkowski,2 and Nevin N. Weinberg2

1
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Dartmouth College, 6127 Wilder Laboratory, Hanover, NH 03755
2
Mail Code 130-33, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
Cosmologists have long wondered whether the Universe will eventually re-collapse and end with
a Big Crunch, or expand forever, becoming increasingly cold and empty. Recent evidence for a
flat Universe, possibly with a cosmological constant or some other sort of negative-pressure dark
energy, has suggested that our fate is the latter. However, the data may actually be pointing toward
an astonishingly different cosmic end game. Here, we explore the consequences that follow if the
dark energy is phantom energy, in which the sum of the pressure and energy density is negative.
The positive phantom-energy density becomes infinite in finite time, overcoming all other forms of
matter, such that the gravitational repulsion rapidly brings our brief epoch of cosmic structure to
a close. The phantom energy rips apart the Milky Way, solar system, Earth, and ultimately the
arXiv:astro-ph/0302506v1 25 Feb 2003

molecules, atoms, nuclei, and nucleons of which we are composed, before the death of the Universe
in a “Big Rip”.

PACS numbers: 98.80.-k

Hubble’s discovery of the cosmological expansion,

crossed with the mathematical predictions of Friedmann
and others within Einstein’s general theory of relativ-
ity, has long sparked speculation on the ultimate fate
of the Universe. In particular, it has been shown that
if the matter that fills the Universe can be treated as
a pressureless fluid, which would be the case for galax-
ies, then the Universe expands forever (if it has a Eu-
clidean or hyperbolic spatial geometry) or eventually re-
collapses (if its spatial geometry is that of a 3-sphere).
Evidence from supernova searches [1, 2] and the stun-
ning cosmic microwave background (CMB) results from
balloon and ground experiments [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] and
now from WMAP [3, 4] that indicate an accelerating cos-
mological expansion show that this simple picture is not
enough; the Universe additionally consists of some sort
of negative-pressure dark energy.
The dark energy is usually described by an “equation-
FIG. 1: Current constraints to the w-Ωm parameter space.
of-state” parameter w ≡ p/ρ, the ratio of the spatially-
The red solid curves show the age (in Gyr) of the Universe to-
homogeneous dark-energy pressure p to its energy density day (assuming a Hubble parameter H0 =70 km sec−1 Mpc−1 ).
ρ. A value w < −1/3 is required for cosmic acceleration. The light shaded regions are those allowed (at 2σ) by the
The simplest explanation for dark energy is a cosmolog- observed cluster abundance and by current supernova mea-
ical constant, for which w = −1. However, this cosmo- surements of the expansion history. The dark orange shaded
logical constant is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than region shows the intersection of the cluster-abundance and su-
expected from quantum gravity. Thus, although we can pernova curves, additionally restricted (at 2σ) by the location
add this term to Einstein’s equation, it is really only a of the first acoustic peak in the cosmic-microwave-background
placeholder until a better understanding of this negative power spectrum and quasar-lensing statistics.
pressure arises. Another widely explored possibility is
quintessence [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16], a cosmic scalar field
that is displaced from, but slowly rolling to, the minimum Figure shows, w seems to be converging to w = −1.
of its potential. In such models, the equation-of-state pa- But what about w < −1? Might the convergence to
rameter is −1 < w < −1/3, and the dark-energy density w = −1 actually be indicating that w < −1? Why
decreases with scale factor a(t) as ρQ ∝ a−3(1+w) . restrict our attention exclusively to w ≥ −1? Matter
Fig. 1 shows constraints to the w-Ωm parameter space with w < −1, dubbed “phantom energy” [19], has re-
(where Ωm is the pressureless-matter density in units of ceived increased attention among theorists recently. It
the critical density) from the cluster abundance, super- certainly has some strange properties. For example, the
novae, quasar-lensing statistics (see Refs. [17, 18] and ref- energy density of phantom energy increases with time.
erences therein), and the first acoustic peak in the CMB It also violates the dominant-energy condition [20, 21],
power spectrum (values taken from Ref. [4]). As the a cherished notion that helps prohibit time machines
 2

the expansion is accelerating, as a consequence of dark

energy with −1 ≤ w < −1/3, then the expansion again
continues forever. However, in this case, the scale factor
grows more rapidly than the horizon. As time progresses,
galaxies disappear beyond the horizon, and the Universe
becomes increasingly dark. Still, structures that are cur-
rently gravitationally bound, such as the Milky Way and
perhaps the Local Group, remain unaffected. Thus, al-
though extragalactic astronomy becomes less interesting,
Galactic astronomy can continue to thrive.[37]
With phantom energy, the Friedmann equation govern-
ing the time t evolution of the scale factor a(t) becomes
H 2 ≡ (ȧ/a)2 = H02 [Ωm /a3 + (1 − Ωm )a−3(1+w) ], where
H0 is the Hubble parameter, and the dot denotes a time
derivative. If Ωm ≃ 0.3, then the Universe is already
dark-energy–dominated, and for w < −1 it will become
increasingly dark-energy–dominated in the future. We
thus approximate the subsequent evolution of the scale
FIG. 2: Same as in Fig. 1, except extended to w < −1. Here, factor by neglecting the first term on the right-hand side.
the blue dot-dash curves show for phantom-energy (w < −1)
Doing so, we find that the scale factor blows up in a time
models the time (in Gyr) remaining in the Universe (assuming
a Hubble parameter H0 = 70 km sec−1 Mpc−1 ).
trip − t0 ≃ (2/3)|1 + w|−1 H0−1 (1 − Ωm )−1/2 from the cur-
rent time t0 . For example, for w = −3/2 and H0 = 70
km sec−1 Mpc−1 , the time remaining before the Universe
and wormholes. However, it is hard to see how time ends in this “Big Rip” [31] is 22 Gyr.
machines and wormholes would arise with phantom en- As in a cosmological-constant Universe, the scale fac-
ergy. Although sound waves in quintessence travel at tor grows more rapidly than the Hubble distance H −1
the speed of light, it does not automatically follow that and galaxies will begin to disappear beyond the horizon.
disturbances in phantom energy must propagate faster With phantom energy, the expansion rate H grows with
than the speed of light; in fact, there are already sev- time, the Hubble distance decreases, and so the disap-
eral scalar-field models for phantom energy in which the pearance of galaxies is accelerated as the horizon closes
sound speed is subluminal [19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. It is in on us. More intriguing is that the increase in the dark-
true that these models feature unusual kinetic terms in energy density will ultimately begin to strip apart gravi-
their Lagrangians, but such terms may arise in supergrav- tationally bound objects. According to general relativity,
ity [27] or higher-derivative-gravity theories [28]. Theo- the source for the gravitational potential is the volume
rists have also discussed stringy phantom energy [29] and integral of ρ + 3p. So, for example, a planet in an orbit of
brane-world phantom energy [30]. Connections with the radius R around a star of mass M will become unbound
dS/CFT correspondence have also been made [31]. To roughly when −(4π/3)(ρ + 3p)R3 ≃ M . With w ≥ −1,
be sure, phantom energy is not something that any the- −(ρ+ 3p) is decreasing with time so if −(4π/3)(ρ+ 3p)R3
orist would have expected; on the other hand, not too is smaller than M today, then it will remain so ever after.
many more theorists anticipated a cosmological constant! Thus, any system that is currently gravitationally bound
Given the limitations of our theoretical understanding, it (e.g., the solar system, the Milky Way, the Local Group,
is certainly reasonable to ask what empirical results have galaxy clusters) will herafter remain so.
to say. With phantom energy, −(ρ + 3p) increases, and so
In Fig. 2 we generalize the analysis of cosmological at some point in time every gravitationally bound sys-
constraints to a parameter space that extends to w < −1. tem will be dissociated. With the time evolution of the
As indicated here, there is much acceptable parameter scale factor and the scaling of the phantom-energy den-
space in regions with w < −1; see also Refs. [32, 33]. sity with time, we find that a gravitationally-bound sys-
With certain prior assumptions, the best fit is actually tem ofpmass M and radius R will be stripped at a time
at w < −1. t ≃ P 2|1 + 3w|/[6π|1 + w|], where P is the period of
As we now show, if w < −1 persists, then the fate a circular orbit around the system at radius R, before
of the Universe is quite fantastic and completely differ- the Big Rip (see Table I). Interestingly, this time is
ent than the possibilities previously discussed. To begin, independent of H0 and Ωm .
let us review these other fates. In a flat or open Uni- Thus, for example, for w = −3/2, the interval is
verse without dark energy, the expansion continues for- t ≃ 0.3 P before the end of time. In this case, clusters
ever, and the horizon grows more rapidly than the scale will be stripped roughly a billion years before the end of
factor; the Universe becomes colder and darker, but with time. In principle, if w were sufficiently negative, the An-
time the co-moving volume of the observable Universe dromeda galaxy would be torn from the Local Group be-
evolves so that the number of visible galaxies grows. If fore it could fall into the Milky Way; however, given cur-
 3

down to the microscopic, leads us to remark that our

TABLE I: The history and future of the Universe with w =
present epoch is unique from the viewpoint that at no
−3/2 phantom energy.
other time are non-linear structures possible. When the
Time Event phantom energy becomes strong enough, gravitational
∼ 10−43 s Planck era instability no longer works and the Universe becomes
∼ 10−36 s Inflation homogeneous. Eventually, individual particles become
First Three Minutes Light Elements Formed isolated: points separated by a distance greater than
∼ 105 yr Atoms Formed 3δt(1 + w)/(1 + 3w) at a time trip − δt cannot communi-
∼ 1 Gyr First Galaxies Formed cate before the Big Rip. Therefore, the dominance of the
∼ 15 Gyr Today
phantom energy signals the end of our brief era of cosmic
trip − 1 Gyr Erase Galaxy Clusters
trip − 60 Myr Destroy Milky Way
structure which began when the non-relativistic matter
trip − 3 months Unbind Solar System emerged from the radiation. In such a Universe, certain
trip − 30 minutes Earth Explodes cosmic questions have new significance. It is natural to
trip − 10−19 s Dissociate Atoms find ourselves — or more generally, non-linear structure
trip = 35 Gyrs Big Rip — living close to the onset of acceleration if the struc-
ture is soon destroyed and the Universe does not survive
much longer afterwards [31]. A Big Rip renders the “why
now?”, or question of cosmic coincidence, irrelevant.
rent upper limits to −w, this is unlikely. For w = −3/2,
the Milky Way will get stripped roughly 60 million years The current data indicate that our Universe is poised
before the Big Rip. Curiously, when this occurs the hori- somewhere near the razor-thin separation between phan-
zon will still be ∼ 70 Mpc, so there may still be other tom energy, cosmological constant, and quintessence. Fu-
observable galaxies that we will also see stripped apart ture work, and the longer observations by WMAP, will
(although given the time delay from distant objects, we help to determine the nature of the dark energy. In the
will see the Milky Way destroyed first). A few months meantime we are intrigued to learn of this possible new
before the end of time, the Earth will be ripped from the cosmic fate that differs so remarkably from the re-collapse
Sun, and ∼ 30 minutes before the end the Earth will fall or endless cooling considered before. It will be necessary
apart. Similar arguments also apply to objects bound by to modify the adopted slogan among cosmic futurologists
electromagnetic or strong forces. Thus, molecules and — “Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice”
then atoms will be torn apart roughly 10−19 seconds [36] — for a new fate may await our world.
before the end, and then nuclei and nucleons will get
dissociated in the remaining interval. In all likelihood, Acknowledgments RRC thanks the UCSB KITP for
some new physics (e.g., spontaneous particle production hospitality. This work was supported at Caltech by
or extra-dimensional, string, and/or quantum-gravity ef- NASA NAG5-9821 and DoE DE-FG03-92-ER40701, at
fects) may kick in before the ultimate singularity, but the KITP by NSF PHY99-07949, and at Dartmouth by
probably after the sequence of events outlined above. NSF grant PHY-0099543. NNW was supported by a NSF
The end of structure, from cosmic, macroscopic scales graduate fellowship.

[1] Perlmutter, S. et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586 (1999). [15] Turner, M. S. & White, M., Phys. Rev. D 56, 4439–4443
[2] Riess, A. G. et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009–1038 (1998). (1997).
[3] Spergel, D. N. et al., astro-ph/0302209 (2003). [16] Boyle, L., Caldwell, R. R. & Kamionkowski, M., Phys.
[4] Page, L. et al., astro-ph/0302220 (2003). Lett. B 545, 17–22 (2002).
[5] Miller, A. D. et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 524, L1–L4 [17] Wang, L. et al., Astrophys. J. 530, 17–35 (2000).
(1999). [18] Perlmutter, S., Turner, M. S. & White, M., Phys. Rev.
[6] de Bernardis, P. et al., Nature 404, 955–959 (2000). Lett. 83, 670–673 (1999).
[7] Hanany, S. et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 545, L5–L9 (2000). [19] Caldwell, R.R., Phys. Lett. B 545, 23–29 (2002); astro-
[8] Halverson, N. W. et al., Astrophys. J. 568, 38–45 (2002). ph/9908168.
[9] Mason, B. S. et al., astro-ph/0205384 (2002). [20] Hawking, S. W. & Ellis, G. F. R. The large scale structure
[10] Benoit, A. et al., astro-ph/0210306 (2002). of space-time (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
[11] Caldwell, R. R., Dave, R. & Steinhardt, P. J., Phys. Rev. 1973).
Lett. 80, 1582–1585 (1998). [21] Carroll, S. M., Hoffman, M. & Trodden, M., astro-
[12] Ratra, B. & Peebles, P. J. E., Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406– ph/0302067 (2003).
3427 (1988); Peebles, P. J. E. & Ratra, B., Astrophys. J. [22] Parker, L. & Raval, A., Phys. Rev. D 60, 063512 (1999);
325, L17 (1988). Phys. Rev. D 60, 123502 (1999); Phys. Rev. D 62, 083503
[13] Wetterich, C., Nuc. Phys. B 302, 668 (1988); Astron. (2000); Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 749 (2001).
Astrophys. 301, 321 (1995). [23] Armendariz-Picon, C., Damour, T. & Mukhanov, V.,
[14] Coble, K., Dodelson, S. & Frieman, J., Phys. Rev. D 55, Phys. Lett. B 458, 209–218 (1999).
1851–1859 (1997). [24] Chiba, T., Okabe, T. & Yamaguchi, M., Phys. Rev. D
 4

62, 023511 (2000). Chris A., and Guzzo, L., astro-ph/0211480 (2002).
[25] Faraoni, V., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 471–481 (2002). [34] Steinhardt, P. J. & Turok, N., Science 296, 1436–1439
[26] Carroll, S. M., Hoffman, M. & Trodden, M., astro- (2002).
ph/0301273 (2003). [35] Kallosh, R. et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 123503 (2002).
[27] Nilles, H.-P., Phys. Rep. 110, 1–162 (1984). [36] Frost, R. “Fire and Ice” (1916), from Collected Poems of
[28] Pollock, M. D., Phys. Lett. B 215, 635–641 (1988). Robert Frost, (Holt & Co., 1930).
[29] Frampton, P., astro-ph/0209037 (2002). [37] There is another possibility: if the quintessence potential
[30] Sahni, V. & Shtanov, Y., astro-ph/0202346 (2002). at some point becomes negative, then the Universe can
[31] McInnes, B., JHEP 0208, 029 (2002). reach a point of maximum expansion and then re-collapse
[32] Hannestad, S. & Mortsell, E., Phys. Rev. D 66, 063508 [34, 35].
(2002).
[33] Schuecker, P., Caldwell, R. R., Böhringer, H., Collins,