Critical density and total observable mass

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating observable matter based on critical density, specifically whether to use a volume with a 13.7 billion light-year radius or a 45 billion light-year radius. Using the smaller radius results in a significantly lower mass estimate, suggesting that matter density dilutes with the universe's expansion. There is debate over the appropriate volume, with conflicting sources recommending both the larger and smaller volumes. One participant proposes considering Hubble's time for volume calculations, although they acknowledge its misleading nature. The conversation highlights the complexity of determining observable mass in cosmology.
jimjohnson
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Assuming a Hubble constant of 74.3 km/sec/Mpc, the critical density is about E-29 gm/cm3. To calculate observable matter based on 5% of this density (the other 95% is dark matter and dark energy), a volume has to be used. But which volume, the one with a 13.7 billion light year radius or the approximate 45 billion light year radius of the expanded universe?
The two results vary by 39 times, 4.6 x E54 gm or 1.8 x E56 gm.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
After pondering this, I think the answer should be to use the volume based on the 13.7 billion year radius. Since matter density dilutes with expansion, it is more logical to assume the amount of mass is based on the 13.7 billion year radius.Then, matter density would be 39 times less at the larger radius. Sound correct?
 
jimjohnson said:
After pondering this, I think the answer should be to use the volume based on the 13.7 billion year radius. Since matter density dilutes with expansion, it is more logical to assume the amount of mass is based on the 13.7 billion year radius.Then, matter density would be 39 times less at the larger radius. Sound correct?

Here's a guess.. since Hubble's constant can be defined : (dR/dt) /R_{0} so it'd make sense to take into account the volume of the universe corresponding to hubble's time ( although Hubble's time is a misleading way of finding the age of the universe) . Just a thought . I don't see anything wrong with your logic . I maybe wrong wait for other ( more experienced users) to post.
 
I have two conflicting sources.
The first says use the larger volume: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
The second says use the "present event horizon" which is the smaller volume: NASA, Ask the Astrophysicst, Feb 11 ,1998 by Jim Lochner
Other input? Thanks.
 
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Asteroid, Data - 1.2% risk of an impact on December 22, 2032. The estimated diameter is 55 m and an impact would likely release an energy of 8 megatons of TNT equivalent, although these numbers have a large uncertainty - it could also be 1 or 100 megatons. Currently the object has level 3 on the Torino scale, the second-highest ever (after Apophis) and only the third object to exceed level 1. Most likely it will miss, and if it hits then most likely it'll hit an ocean and be harmless, but...
Back
Top