1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Question using Hubble's Constant

  1. May 15, 2015 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Converting Hubble's constant in SI units of s-1 into kms-1 Mpc-1 (kilometers per second per megaparsec)
    Number given is 2.31 x 10^-18 s-1.

    2. Relevant equations
    H = v/d (where H is Hubble's constant, v = velocity and d = distance)

    3. The attempt at a solution
    I can see how you get the answer but it took me a while to see the reasoning for what to divide/multiply by. I reasoned that if you use H = v/d then 2.31 x 10^-18 s-1 can be re-written as 2.31 x 10^-18 ms-1 m-1 (meters per second per metre). I then treated the numerator and denominator separately. So to get from m/s to km per second you divide by 1000. Then to get from per metre to per megaparsec you multiply by the number of metres in a megaparsec. So overall you get 2.31 x 10^-18 x 3.09 x 10^22 / 1000 which gives 71.4 kms-1 Mpc-1. Using the same logic I don't understand something on the additional notes in the mark scheme for this question. I have uploaded the question and markscheme. They have shown an example of if you forget to convert hubble's constant into s-1 otherwise it will be in years-1. They then work this answer through the same way and give less marks for it however they say that the units are still kms-1 Mpc-1 at the end but that seems wrong to me. If you take hubble's constant in years-1 instead of seconds-1 and then multiply by the same number and divide by the same number surely its impossible to end up with the same final units? or am I missing something?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. May 16, 2015 #2

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think they just give half mark because the reasonning behind it is somewhat correct and the answer if off "only" because it confuses units - but you are right, that second answer is just wrong (unless 2×10^9=71:wink:).

    Note that calculating the Hubble constant from the age of the universe is rather dubious, and that constant is actually observed, not derived.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Question using Hubble's Constant
  1. Hubble constant (Replies: 1)

Loading...