Galaxy expansion & cosmological constant

In summary, Astro forum member ibysaiyan is attempting to prove that the escape velocity of a galaxy is greater than its characteristic speed, but he is incorrect in his calculations. Furthermore, dark energy does not behave like a constant and will not keep galaxies bound together indefinitely.
  • #1
ibysaiyan
442
0
Hi Astro forum... I have got something to clarify which came across my mind as I was trying to answer few problems.So without any further delay , let's start :

For simplicity we will assume that dark matter doesn't influence the center of mass of galaxy A. Now let's say galaxy A has mass 'M' concentrated at the center with a separation distance of 'r' from the edge. In this case with simple arithmetic manipulation we get :

[itex]V_{escape}[/itex] = [itex]\sqrt{GM/r}[/itex]

Now I know that at shorter separation distances gravitational forces overwhelm ( i.e are greater) than cosmological constant , and then using Hubble's law v = [itex]H_{0}[/itex] r( assuming redshift is inteperted as doppler shift) .. so far it all makes sense...
But if I am asked to prove that Vesc >> v ... I was thinking of something as following:

[itex]V_{escape}[/itex] = [itex]\sqrt{GM/r}[/itex]

Squaring both sides to get:
[itex]V_{escape}^2[/itex] = [tex]2GM/r[/tex]
which gives r = [itex]2GM/ V_{escape}^2[/itex]

Now as said previously v = [itex]H_{0} r[/itex]

so v = [itex]H_{0} 2 GM / V_{escp^2} [/itex]

[itex]V_{escp^2} = H_{0} *2 GM / v [/itex]

Gives us [itex]V_{escp} \propto[/itex] [itex]v^{-1/2}[/itex]

Is this suffice enough to prove Vesc >> v ? am I on the dot on this one ?

Any input is appreciated.

-ibysaiyan

EDIT: Oh why are my latex command showing up.. hm..
edit2: latex error fixed
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
I have no idea what it is you're trying to prove here, but whatever it is, you're going about it wrong. First off, you state that you want to prove [itex] V_{esc} \gg v[/itex], what is [itex]v[/itex]? The characteristic velocity of stars in the galaxy? I have absolutely no idea what it is you're trying to derive, it just looks like mindless symbol manipulation and combination of equations which leads me to the second point...

Doing anything on a galactic scale, you cannot use Hubble's velocity relation. It's not merely that the recessional velocities predicted by it will be much smaller than typical velocities of galactic motion (is this what you're trying to prove?), Hubble expansion DOESN'T HAPPEN in gravitationally bound clusters. Furthermore, this is completely separate from the cosmological constant! In a traditional Lambda-CDM model, the density of dark energy is constant, and gravitationally bound objects (like our galaxy) will stay gravitationally bound indefinitely. (I say traditional because there are some models in which Lambda is somehow a function of time, and grows, leading to 'big rip' scenarios).

As a final point, your equation for escape velocity is incorrect:
[tex]v_{esc}=\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}}[/tex]
While
[tex]v_{orbit}=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}[/tex]
Where this [itex]v_{orbit}[/itex] is the velocity of a circular orbit of radius r.
 
  • #3
Nabeshin said:
I have no idea what it is you're trying to prove here, but whatever it is, you're going about it wrong. First off, you state that you want to prove [itex] V_{esc} \gg v[/itex], what is [itex]v[/itex]? The characteristic velocity of stars in the galaxy? I have absolutely no idea what it is you're trying to derive, it just looks like mindless symbol manipulation and combination of equations which leads me to the second point...

Doing anything on a galactic scale, you cannot use Hubble's velocity relation. It's not merely that the recessional velocities predicted by it will be much smaller than typical velocities of galactic motion (is this what you're trying to prove?), Hubble expansion DOESN'T HAPPEN in gravitationally bound clusters. Furthermore, this is completely separate from the cosmological constant! In a traditional Lambda-CDM model, the density of dark energy is constant, and gravitationally bound objects (like our galaxy) will stay gravitationally bound indefinitely. (I say traditional because there are some models in which Lambda is somehow a function of time, and grows, leading to 'big rip' scenarios).

As a final point, your equation for escape velocity is incorrect:
[tex]v_{esc}=\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}}[/tex]
While
[tex]v_{orbit}=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}[/tex]
Where this [itex]v_{orbit}[/itex] is the velocity of a circular orbit of radius r.
Hi Nabeshin .
I think it would be helpful if I post the actual question than wrongly restating it.

When you say:
the density of dark energy is constant, and gravitationally bound objects (like our galaxy) will stay gravitationally bound indefinitely.
I have few follow up questions to ask..
1) Does that refer to a cluster of galaxies ?
2) if dark energy density stays constant does that mean it's homogeneous , as in not being concentrated at a point ?
Here's the question:

http://i42.tinypic.com/8wzh20.png

P.S : 'v' is the recessional speed of the galaxy.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
ibysaiyan said:
1) Does that refer to a cluster of galaxies ?
Yes, clusters are gravitationally bound.

2) if dark energy density stays constant does that mean it's homogeneous , as in not being concentrated at a point ?
As far as we know, yes.

Here's the question:

http://i42.tinypic.com/8wzh20.png

P.S : 'v' is the recessional speed of the galaxy.

This is just a lousy question. I understand what the author of it is trying to do (explain that expansion is insignificant compared to galactic motions), but this naive way of doing things is simply wrong. As I've said, the Hubble expansion equation doesn't even apply on these scales, so one should take such a 'proof' as heuristic at best. The second part about galactic clusters will probably yield a result that v_esc~v_hubble, but a conclusion here that Hubble expansion is important on cluster scales in incorrect.

Now that I understand the question though, your calculation in post 1 is incorrect. There is a scaling relationship between the two equations: on some scales, one velocity dominates, while on others, the opposite is true. Therefore, the way to do it is to calculate the characteristic velocities of both, and then compare them. (i.e. assume typical scales for M and r).
 
  • #5
Nabeshin said:
Yes, clusters are gravitationally bound.As far as we know, yes.
This is just a lousy question. I understand what the author of it is trying to do (explain that expansion is insignificant compared to galactic motions), but this naive way of doing things is simply wrong. As I've said, the Hubble expansion equation doesn't even apply on these scales, so one should take such a 'proof' as heuristic at best. The second part about galactic clusters will probably yield a result that v_esc~v_hubble, but a conclusion here that Hubble expansion is important on cluster scales in incorrect.

Now that I understand the question though, your calculation in post 1 is incorrect. There is a scaling relationship between the two equations: on some scales, one velocity dominates, while on others, the opposite is true. Therefore, the way to do it is to calculate the characteristic velocities of both, and then compare them. (i.e. assume typical scales for M and r).

I see. When you say "assume typical scales for M and r" , does that mean any arbitrary value ?
Do I find a set of equations relating recessional speed using Hubble's constant and v_esc in the above equation ?
Apart from the escape velocity given ~ 10-3 c (300km/s) and Hubble's constant ~ 75km/s/Mpc there isn't much given.

Hm..

EDIT: I took some arbitrary points and the results which i ended up with are: Hubble speed of 757*10^-3 km/s for separation distance of 2.6*1-^17 km... when I plug the same distance in v_escapre equation.. it gives 300km/s ...
 
Last edited:
  • #6
ibysaiyan said:
I see. When you say "assume typical scales for M and r" , does that mean any arbitrary value ?
Do I find a set of equations relating recessional speed using Hubble's constant and v_esc in the above equation ?
Apart from the escape velocity given ~ 10-3 c (300km/s) and Hubble's constant ~ 75km/s/Mpc there isn't much given.

Hm..

I mean you know about how massive a galaxy is, and about how big they are. So using those values, you get some characteristic velocity scale for both equations.
 
  • #7
Nabeshin said:
I mean you know about how massive a galaxy is, and about how big they are. So using those values, you get some characteristic velocity scale for both equations.

I have found some values ( they're on the previous post at the end).
 
  • #8
So does anyone think my values are sensible ?
 
  • #9
ibysaiyan said:
So does anyone think my values are sensible ?

Seems about right. Our sun's rotational velocity about the galactic center is something like 220km/s, and the Hubble recession velocity is about what I get.
 
  • #10
Nabeshin said:
Seems about right. Our sun's rotational velocity about the galactic center is something like 220km/s, and the Hubble recession velocity is about what I get.

Thanks for all your help !
 
  • #11
Galaxy expansion??
 

What is galaxy expansion?

Galaxy expansion refers to the phenomenon of galaxies moving away from each other, causing the universe to expand. This expansion is believed to be a result of the Big Bang, which is the widely accepted theory for the origin of the universe.

What is the cosmological constant?

The cosmological constant is a term in Einstein's theory of general relativity that represents the energy density of the vacuum of space. It is often denoted by the Greek letter lambda (Λ) and is used to explain the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion.

How does the cosmological constant affect galaxy expansion?

The cosmological constant is believed to play a significant role in accelerating the expansion of the universe. It is thought to counteract the force of gravity, causing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. This expansion affects the distance between galaxies, causing them to move further apart.

Is the cosmological constant constant?

The name "cosmological constant" can be misleading, as it does not necessarily have a constant value. In fact, the value of the cosmological constant has been a topic of much debate and research in the scientific community. Some theories suggest that the value of the cosmological constant may change over time.

What are the implications of galaxy expansion and the cosmological constant?

Understanding galaxy expansion and the role of the cosmological constant has significant implications for our understanding of the universe and its evolution. It can also help us make predictions about the fate of the universe, such as whether it will continue to expand forever or eventually collapse in a "Big Crunch."

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
668
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
187
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
691
Replies
1
Views
525
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top