Can the Universe's Acceleration be Measured in m/s^2 Instead of m/s/pc?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the universe's expansion can be measured in meters per second squared (m/s²) instead of the conventional meters per second per parsec (m/s/pc). It is clarified that while there are various ways to express the Hubble growth rate, such as in percentage per unit time, measuring it as acceleration (m/s²) is incorrect since the growth rate is a speed-to-size ratio rather than an acceleration. The concept of a parsec is emphasized as a unit of distance, not time, which further invalidates the idea of using m/s² for this measurement. Participants also reference a related thread discussing perceptions of the Hubble rate for additional insights. Ultimately, the consensus is that while alternative expressions exist, m/s² is not a valid representation of the universe's expansion rate.
H-S-D
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to measure the universe' expansion in m/s^2 instead of metres per second per parsec?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
H-S-D said:
per parsec?
Google "parallax second."
 
H-S-D said:
Is it possible to measure the universe' expansion in m/s^2 instead of metres per second per parsec?
Hi HSD, Bystander often has good ideas so that may be a good suggestion that you google "parallax second" the root meaning of the distance measure called "parsec", but I do not understand how that relates to your question

Maybe I don't understand your question. Of course it is possible to measure the Hubble growth rate in different ways. Parsec is a measure of distance, a unit of length. So the conventional version
eg 67 km/s per Mpc
is a L/T per L quantity and the L units cancel so it is basically a 1/T quantity, a reciprocal time

One way to express the present-day Hubble growth rate H0 is as a unitless number per unit time (a fractional part or percentage per unit time)
like 1/144 percent per million years.

Or as the reciprocal of a long interval of time called the "Hubble time" namely 14.4 billion years.

You can express the Hubble growth rate in various equivalent ways. But you would never express it as a
m/s2 quantity because that would be an ACCELERATION. The growth rate is a fractional growth rate or a speed-to-size ratio. It is not an acceleration! So that would not be mathematically equivalent to the growth rate and would not make sense. What particular distance do you imagine would be accelerating? :oldbiggrin:

So the answer is YES there are a lot of different equivalent ways to express this quantity,
and NO you would not want to try expressing it as a m/s^2 acceleration quantity.
 
Last edited:
Two different "seconds."
 
I see, that makes sense. You suspect HSD of mistakenly imagining that "parsec" is a unit of time, rather than distance.
Could be. There was that famous goof in the Starwars movie.

Anyway, there is a thread (with a poll) about "how do you think of the Hubble growth rate?". Maybe HSD would get something out of it.
I'd be interested in your view, Bystander---what your mental picture of the Hubble rate is, or your concept of it.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/poll-how-do-you-think-of-the-hubble-rate.826968/
 
Well, if "meter" is a unit of time, so is "parsec" :wink: .
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
176
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top