Register to reply 
Expanding universe? 
Share this thread: 
#1
Jun414, 03:49 PM

P: 66

Universe is expanding which means the earth is getting away from the sun. Without the sun, it is probably that all organisms on the earth would die. Is there any calculation or estimation from scientists that how many years before the earth is too far away from the sun so that we will all die



#2
Jun414, 03:58 PM

P: 127

In smaller scales (small group of galaxies, inside a galaxy, in our solar system) things are not getting away from each other (on average). 


#3
Jun414, 04:56 PM

Mentor
P: 12,006




#4
Jun414, 09:59 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,488

Expanding universe?
Just for fun, let's try doing the math. There are 9.46E15 meters in a light year and 3.26 million light years in a megaparsec. That makes for a total of about 3E22 meters per megaparsec. The expansion rate of the universe is about 70,000 m/sec/mpc which is roughly 1 m/sec for every 4.4E17 meters. Earth's distance from the sun is about 150 billion meters. That means [ignoring gravity] the earth and sun would currently be receding at a rate of 3.4E07 meters per second, or about 10.7 meters per year. This same reasoning yields a recession value of the moon from earth [d=384 million meters] of 8.73E10 meters per second, or about 2.75 centimeters a year. We have measured the actual recession speed of the moon [3.8 cm] and it is explained by tidal friction. The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment should have detected an anomalous extra 2.75 cm of recession per year if expansion played a role.



#5
Jun514, 04:42 AM

P: 66




#6
Jun514, 04:44 AM

P: 66

Why big stuff would have weak gravity? It contradicts according to F=GMm/r^2 


#7
Jun514, 04:52 AM

P: 740




#8
Jun514, 05:03 AM

Mentor
P: 12,006




#9
Jun514, 01:36 PM

P: 28

But in the far future, the accelerating expansion will overcome gravity, tear apart super clusters, then clusters, galaxies, solar systems, the whole shebang. Only photons will be left wondering about in an empty universe.
Is this not the interpretation by most, well, many, cosmologists? 


#10
Jun514, 02:03 PM

P: 1,857

the big rip is invalidated, in order for the big rip to work the cosmological constant would have to gain energy density strong enough to overcome the strong force and gravity. However the cosmological constant has been shown to have a constant energy density. Instead we are heading for what is known as heat death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe even then this fate is hypothetical 


#11
Jun514, 07:07 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,686




#12
Jun514, 07:40 PM

P: 1,857

hrmm interesting hadn't seen that paper before thanks, has there been any further findings in regards to a varying cosmological constant in the last year that your aware of?



#13
Jun514, 08:43 PM

P: 190

If I understand correctly some researches think we are in a "dark energy" phase of evolution of the Universe, considering that periods have existed in which relative importance, even existence, of determining factors have changed during succeeding epochs. Deductive reasoning often falls into the "if this, then that" category and that works but is not without limitations. If humans, like dragonflies, had lifespans of one day, it might be very difficult to imagine snow, let alone Winter, if you were born, say, during June.
That said, unless some major change occurs, and there is certainly enough time (and possibly, space) for such to occur, it is impossible or at least fruitless to speculate. "Smart Money" is on No Big Rip. 


#14
Jun514, 11:27 PM

P: 11

I think Cooperstock, Faraoni, Vollick’s 1998 The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems contains a good technical paper explaining why the metric expansion of space isn’t noticeable on solar system scale. In section 4"Cosmological corrections to the twobody problem in the LIF", they calculate a fractional change in period of orbit of 2.8e33/year, which (courtesy of Kepler’s 3rd law) give an increase in the radius (more correctly, semimajor axis) moon’s orbit of 2.8e33^(2/3)*386e6 = 7.6e14 m/y, on the order of 1/10^22th the observed rate and the rate calculated by post #4’s straightforward application of the current Hubble’s constant
I don’t feel technical explanation are very intuitively satisfying, though. While it’s accurate to state that the reason Expansion is so much smaller on interplanetary scales than given by the Hubble constant, such statements don’t feel detailed enough. So I find it intuitively appealing to take a simple 2body, one big, one tiny, in a circular orbit, simulation and add a small constant outward radial acceleration to the tiny body. Coincidentally, I recently ran a simulation for a solar sail at various angles relative to the direction of the Sun, which in the 90deg case and a very low acceleration, is nearly identical. What happen in this case is that the body doesn’t transfer to a different orbit, but follows a forced, precessing elliptical orbit with periapsis matching the initial circular orbit. While Expansion causes no detectible increase in radius or orbit, perhaps it causes a very small deviation in the General Relativitypredicted precession of the orbit that could be detected? Alas, my GR physics skills aren’t up to calculating it. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Expanding Universe or Expanding Space?  Cosmology  21  
Since the universe is expanding does this mean Quantum Particles are expanding too?  Quantum Physics  5  
Expanding universe... expanding atoms  Cosmology  19  
Expanding people in an expanding universe?  Special & General Relativity  36  
Expanding people in an expanding universe?  Astronomy & Astrophysics  7 