Distance expansion and escape velocity ( thought experiment )

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a thought experiment involving two kilogram masses placed at a distance of 400,000,000 meters apart in a vacuum, analyzing their Hubble law recession rate versus classical escape velocity. The conclusion reached is that the Hubble law expansion rate of approximately 9.2 x 10-10 meters per second exceeds the escape speed, meaning the masses will continue to separate rather than attract each other. This phenomenon is attributed to the Hubble parameter, which is defined as 71 km/s per Mpc, translating to a frequency of 2.3 x 10-18 Hz. Calculations indicate that at 400,000 kilometers, the expansion rate surpasses the gravitational potential energy, while at 300,000 kilometers, the masses would eventually fall together.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hubble's Law and Hubble Parameter
  • Basic knowledge of Newtonian physics and gravitational potential energy
  • Familiarity with concepts of escape velocity
  • Knowledge of cosmological distances and their measurements
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Hubble's Law on cosmic expansion
  • Learn about gravitational potential energy calculations in astrophysics
  • Explore the concept of escape velocity in different gravitational fields
  • Investigate the relationship between distance and recession velocity in cosmology
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and students interested in cosmology, gravitational physics, and the dynamics of cosmic expansion will benefit from this discussion.

marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
795
Distance expansion and escape velocity ("thought experiment")

If you care to, it would help if you would check my arithmetic. I may have made one or more mistakes. Thanks to anyone who can show the conclusion here is wrong.

The question came up if you have a pair of kilogram masses and you place them each at CMB rest slightly over one light second apart, then does their Hubble law recession rate exceed their classic escape speed?

It is imagined that you do this out in "open" space, away from any galaxies, groups of galaxies, superclusters etc. So that even though the force of attraction between the pair of kilogram balls is unimaginably weak all the other forces can be neglected.

As time permits I will show some work indicating how I came by the answer, but for the moment to make a long story short, I found that the Hubble law expansion of 400,000,000 meters even though unimaginably slow does exceed the escape speed. So the two balls would continue to separate and not eventually start to fall towards each other.

That distance is roughly the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org


Maybe if I made a mistake I'll find it myself as I type in some work. Everybody should know that the Hubble parameter is the reciprocal of a time (called the "Hubble time") and therefore it is a frequency. The Hubble frequency.

Indeed if you type "71 km/s per Mpc " into the googlebox, ending with a space or equal sign, it will tell you "2.3 x 10-18 Hz".

So imagine you have a proper distance between two objects at CMB rest and the distance is 400,000,000 meters. How fast is this distance expanding? Just multiply by the Hubble frequency. 9.2 x 10-10 meters per second.

From a Newtonian center of mass perspective each has kinetic energy .5*(4.6 x 10-10)2 joules.
So the combined kinetic energy is (4.6 x 10-10)2 joules. In other words, 2.12 x 10-19 joules.

If I am not mistaken that more than cancels the Newtonian gravitational potential of a pair of kilo balls 400,000 kilometers apart.

Namely 6.67 x 10-11/400,000,000 = 1.67 x 10-19 joules.

So at 400,000 kilometers expansion rate exceeds escape speed. A similar calculation shows that at 300,000 kilometers it does not. The balls would begin by getting farther from each other but would eventually begin to fall together.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K