Critical density and total observable mass

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the critical density and total observable mass of the universe, assuming a Hubble constant of 74.3 km/sec/Mpc. The critical density is approximately E-29 gm/cm3, leading to two potential calculations of observable matter based on different volumes: one with a 13.7 billion light year radius and another with a 45 billion light year radius. The results differ significantly, yielding 4.6 x E54 gm for the smaller radius and 1.8 x E56 gm for the larger radius. The consensus leans towards using the 13.7 billion light year radius due to the dilution of matter density with cosmic expansion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hubble's Law and the Hubble constant
  • Familiarity with concepts of critical density in cosmology
  • Knowledge of the observable universe and its volume calculations
  • Basic principles of cosmic expansion and matter density
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Hubble's constant on cosmic expansion
  • Learn about the calculations of critical density in cosmology
  • Explore the differences between the 13.7 billion light year radius and the 45 billion light year radius
  • Investigate the concept of the present event horizon in cosmological studies
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, and physics students interested in the calculations of the universe's mass and density, as well as those exploring the implications of Hubble's constant on cosmic expansion.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K