this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
60 points (96.9% liked)

Ask Science

8690 readers
166 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

As in, are there some parts of physics that aren't as clear-cut as they usually are? If so, what are they?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The expansion of the universe is measured at 70km per second per megaparsec (~3 million light years).

So if you take 2 things that started say ~3 billion light years apart (which would be ~1000x a megaparsec), that means every single second the universe has existed those 2 points have gotten 70,000km further apart. And now that they're further apart, they separate even faster the next second.

For reference:

  • 31.5 million seconds in a year. ( 3.15 x 10^7 )
  • universe is 13.8 billion years old ( 1.38 x 10^10 )

So we talking about this 70,000km getting added between the 2 points ~4 x 10^17 times.

Then you gotta bring calculus into it to factor in the changing distance over time.

It ... adds up. Which is why you'll see the estimates for the observable universe's radius being ~46.5 billion light years (93 billion light year diameter), even though the universe had only existed for ~14 billion years.

[–] TauZero@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And now that they’re further apart, they separate even faster the next second.

That's a common misconception! Barring effects of matter and dark energy, the two points do NOT separate faster as they get farther apart, the speed stays the same! The Hubble constant H0 is defined for the present. If you are talking about one second in the future, you have to use the Hubble parameter H, which is the Hubble constant scaled with time. So instead of 70 km/s/Mpc, in your one-second-in-the-future example the Hubble parameter will be 70 * age of the universe / (age of the universe + 1 second) = 69.999...9 and your two test particles will still be moving apart at 70000km/s exactly.

The inclusion of dark energy does mean that the Hubble "constant" itself is increasing with time, so the recession velocity of distant galaxies does increase with time, but that's not what you meant. Moreover, the Hubble constant hasn't always been increasing! It has actually been decreasing for most of the age of the universe! The trend only reversed 5 billion years ago when the effects of matter became less dominant than effects of dark energy. This is why cosmologists were worried about the idea of a Big Crunch for a while - if there had been a bit more matter, the expansion could have slowed down to zero and reversed entirely!

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Oh wow thanks. You learn something new every day! I'm definitely an "armchair physicist", and still find it hard to think about things in a nonstacically geometric way.

Sounds like the Hubble Constant ain't so constant :)

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks! That kind of math is definitely above my education.