Calculating Universe Density: Cosmology Equations

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AleksanderPhy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the calculation of the universe's density, exploring various cosmological equations and concepts related to density measurement in cosmology. Participants engage with theoretical and observational aspects of density, including the implications of an expanding universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the existence of a definitive equation for calculating universe density, noting the challenges posed by the universe's expansion and the lack of absolute measurements for mass and volume.
  • Another participant argues that density can be measured in the observable universe, which is considered uniform, and suggests that statements about density typically refer to this observable part.
  • A participant proposes a method for estimating density based on spatial flatness and the angular size of known objects at known distances, mentioning the Friedmann equation as a tool for this calculation.
  • The Friedmann equation is presented in a specific form, relating the Hubble constant to mass density, with a discussion on the variability of the Hubble constant over time and its implications for understanding cosmic expansion.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the Hubble constant's decline and its leveling off at a positive value, suggesting that this indicates a slight acceleration in the growth of distances in the universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of calculating universe density and the implications of the universe's expansion. There is no consensus on a single method or equation for determining density, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the absolute measurements needed for such calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the assumptions about the universe's size and the uniformity of density, as well as the dependence on specific definitions and observational data.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying cosmology, astrophysics, or anyone curious about the methods used to estimate cosmic density and the implications of an expanding universe.

AleksanderPhy
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Hello I have question about universe density so is there any equation what says how to calculate universe density because on meany cosmology equations:wink:.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Calculate it based on what?
You need some measurement input.
 
First of all we don't have any absolute or right idea how big our universe is. And also the universe is expanding.so the volume of the universe is not absolute.even if you use the general formula of density:-

Density=mass/volume
Than too you will need mass and the volume of the universe,which I don't think you can do.yet.
 
You don't have to know the overall size of the universe to measure its density. You can measure the density of the universe everywhere in the observable part. It is extremely uniform (if we account for expansion over time). It is reasonable to assume that it doesn't change significantly outside, but usually statements are made about the observable part only.
 
Ok thank you
 
Thanks(;
 
One way to estimate the density is like this:

It can be determined that the U is spatially flat or else very nearly so. Basically this is done by measuring the angular size of things of known width at known distance. It is involved and it is not perfect. Or one can measure the rate that volume of sphere increases with radius, by galaxy count. All the evidence is consistent with near spatial flatness.

Once that is done then we can apply the Friedmann equation (a simplified version of basic GR equation) for the spatial flat case, and find the density.

A form of the Friedmann equation is this:

H2 - H2 = (8πG/3)ρ

where rho ρ is the mass density and H is the Hubble constant and H is the long-term asymptotic value of the Hubble constant to which the present value is seen to be tending.

Aleksander, I think it is very interesting that the Hubble constant (think of it as a percentage growth rate of distances) is not constant over time. Since we can look back in time we can get an idea of how the percentage growth rate is changing! It is declining slowly but the decline is leveling off. The fact that the decline is leveling off at a positive value (not just going to zero) was discovered in 1998.

Einstein included that possibility in the original 1917 GR equation but for most of the time people did not consider it as a serious possibility.

As a percentage growth rate the current H is now about 1/144 of a percent per million years. The longterm growth rate H that it is tending towards is around 1/173% or 1/174% per million years.

You can calculate the density yourself if you want, by squaring these growth rates, taking the difference, and dividing by (8πG/3), G is just Newton G.

The fact that the H decline is leveling out at a positive constant rate means that the growth of an invidual distance is almost exponential. If the rate were constant it would be exponential at a fixed percentage rate, and it is nearly that. So that is the "acceleration" that people make so much fuss about. It is a very slight acceleration you would see if you watch an individual distance over a long period of time. It just means the decline in H is slowing, H is leveling out at a positive value.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for a very enormous article for me It wrealy helped me:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K