What is the Average Density of the Universe and Its Scale Over Time?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the average density of the universe over time, specifically addressing the scale factor and its implications on volume and density. The original calculation suggested that the average density at an earlier time was approximately 5.32 × 10^-24 kg/m^3, converted to hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. However, participants pointed out errors in the conversion process, particularly in the misuse of Avogadro's number and the misunderstanding of how scaling distances affects volume. It was clarified that while the distance scales down by a factor of 12.1, the volume scales down by 1772, and the correct conversion should involve dividing by the mass of a single hydrogen atom rather than multiplying by Avogadro's number. Accurate unit tracking is essential to avoid such errors in density calculations.
Thomas Smith
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
The current average density of the universe is roughly 3 x 10^-27 km m^-3. What was the average density of the universe at the time the light was emitted by a galaxy with the red shift of z=11.1? Express your answer in terms of a number of H atoms per cubic meter.
Relevant Equations
R(t)/R(t0) = 1/1+z

Na x p/mH Where Na is Avogardo's number in terms of atoms, mH is the mass of the hydrogen atom in kg and p is the average density.
Firstly i worked out the scale factor of the universe
R(t)/R(t0) = 1/1+z = 1/1+11.1 = 1/12.1 = 12.1^3 = 1/1772

The distance between the galaxies were 12.1 times less than today and the volume was 1772 times smaller than today.

Then I think the average density in the universe at that time is (3×10^-27 )×1772 = 5.32 × 10^-24kg m^-3

then the average density in terms of the hydrogen atom
= 6.023×10^23 × (5.32×10^-24/1.67×10^-24) = 1.92×10^24 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.

This does not seem right to me at all!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have the density in kg/m^3, and you want the density in hydrogen atoms/m^3, then you need to divide by kg/hydrogen atom, which you correctly have as 1.6x10^-24. Why did you then multiply by Avogadro's number?
 
phyzguy said:
If you have the density in kg/m^3, and you want the density in hydrogen atoms/m^3, then you need to divide by kg/hydrogen atom, which you correctly have as 1.6x10^-24. Why did you then multiply by Avogadro's number?
I thought that in regards to the number of hydrogen atoms you needed to include it
 
Thomas Smith said:
I thought that in regards to the number of hydrogen atoms you needed to include it
Including it is fine. Including it twice is not. If you had tracked units carefully, the error would have made made itself more obvious.

There is another error in your calculation. One that tracking units will not catch. If you scale down distance by a factor of 1772, what does that do to volume?
 
jbriggs444 said:
There is another error in your calculation. One that tracking units will not catch. If you scale down distance by a factor of 1772, what does that do to volume?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the OP did this correctly. The distance scales by a factor of 12.1, which scales the volume by 12.1^3 = 1772.
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
Thomas Smith said:
I thought that in regards to the number of hydrogen atoms you needed to include it

No. including it gives you the mass of a mole of hydrogen atoms. You want the mass of a single hydrogen atom.
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
803
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K