Astronomy - Distance with different scale factors

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the scale factor R(t) for a flat universe and determining the distance between two sites one year after the Big Bang. The user initially expressed the distance in meters and time in seconds, leading to confusion over the constants C1 and C2 due to differing units. They realized that using years and light-years would simplify the calculations. After receiving advice, they successfully solved the problem, highlighting the importance of unit consistency in cosmological calculations. The conversation emphasizes the utility of adapting units to fit the problem context for easier problem-solving.
tosv
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Expansion of the universe is described by the scale factor R(t), where t is the time after the Big Bang. For a flat universe the scale factor is today
R(t)=C_{1}\cdot t^{\frac{2}{3}}

When the Universe was radiation dominated, for t <200,000 years, the scale factor was
R(t)=C_{2}\cdot \sqrt{t}

Today, about 12 billion years after the Big Bang, we measure the distance to another superhop to 1 billion light years. How big would the distance between these sites one year after the Big Bang, if we assume that we live in a flat universe.

The attempt at a solution
I express the distance in meters
R(t)=9.461\cdot 10^{24}\, m

Then I express the time in seconds
t=3.787\cdot 10^{17}\, s

I found that the constant is
C_{1}=1.8075\cdot 10^{13}

I need to know the constant C_{2}, but I'm not sure how I'll be able to calculate it.

I have tested just to put C_{1}=C_{2}, but the result for the distance was wrong. I then realized that the two constants have different units.

Does anyone have a suggestion how I may proceed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For t = 200,000 years, both expressions for R(t) should give the same result.

To make your life easier, consider using units of years and light-years rather than seconds and meters.
 
Thanks for your reply, now I was able to solve the problem.

Thanks for your advice, I'll keep it in mind.
 
Glad it worked out.

I know we get SI units drilled into our heads in intro physics classes, but they are not always the most convenient. If the problem statement uses alternate units, that's a hint for you to consider it too. :smile:
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top