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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of measuring the universe's expansion in meters per second squared (m/s²) instead of the conventional meters per second per parsec (m/s/pc). It explores the implications of different units of measurement in the context of cosmological expansion rates.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether it is feasible to express the universe's expansion in m/s², suggesting that it is fundamentally a measure of acceleration.
  • One participant clarifies that the Hubble growth rate can be expressed in various equivalent ways, but emphasizes that it should not be represented as an acceleration (m/s²) since it is a speed-to-size ratio.
  • There is a suggestion that the confusion may stem from a misunderstanding of the term "parsec," which is a unit of distance, not time.
  • A participant humorously remarks on the idea of "meter" being a unit of time, indicating a playful tone in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the Hubble growth rate can be expressed in different ways, but there is contention regarding the appropriateness of using m/s² as a unit of measurement for this quantity. The discussion remains unresolved on the implications of using different units.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the potential for misunderstanding the relationship between units of distance and time in cosmological measurements. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions and implications of the units discussed.

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: .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K