Why Don't We Feel the Universe's Expansion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manicwhale
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expansion
AI Thread Summary
The universe's expansion is imperceptible to us for two main reasons: it occurs at an extremely small rate, approximately 0.00005% per year, and it affects all objects uniformly, meaning we don't notice it in our immediate surroundings. The forces of electromagnetism and gravity keep bound systems, like galaxies and solar systems, stable, preventing noticeable changes in their sizes due to expansion. While the expansion can affect wavelengths of light over vast distances, it primarily impacts intergalactic spaces, particularly beyond 10 million light-years. The current rate of expansion is negligible for small distances, further contributing to our inability to feel it. Understanding these dynamics clarifies why the universe's expansion remains unnoticed in everyday life.
Manicwhale
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I can think of two reasons:

1. Expansion is very small, and therefore not noticeable. That is, space expands by 0.00005% in a year (which does not rule out the universe expanding by say, a million light years in a year), so we don't feel it.
2. Everything expands, so we don't notice it. But then... how did we discover it?

Perhaps I'm partially right, but can someone give a thourough explanation?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The first is true. It is only noticeable at large distance scales.
 
Thanks.

Also, in terms of why we'd notice it at any scale, would it be right to say that while space expands, certain forces (e.g. EM, or gravity on larger scales) keep objects (e.g. the earth, or galaxies on larger scales) together, so that the distances (as measured by the length of a given object) between objects increase?
 
Manicwhale said:
Thanks.

Also, in terms of why we'd notice it at any scale, would it be right to say that while space expands, certain forces (e.g. EM, or gravity on larger scales) keep objects (e.g. the earth, or galaxies on larger scales) together, so that the distances (as measured by the length of a given object) between objects [do not] increase?

did you mean to say "do not increase"?

In that case I would say that you are right. the expansion of space does not affect the size of ordinary objects, or even things as large as the solar system and our galaxy.

As long as they are held together by physical forces or form bound systems.

the expansion of distances can affect smallscale stuff like the wavelength of light, but the undulation track of a wave is not an object held together by forces like a steel rod. the undulations can get stretched out by expansion, over a long period of time

but typically I think of expansion of distances as affecting only really largescale distance like 100 million LY between galaxies that have nothing to do with each other (not part of some gravitationally bound assembly). Probably 10 million LY is far enough.

I think you have it right but just forgot to type in a couple of words
==================

To reinforce what Russ Watters said. the current rate of expansion is only 1/140 of a percent every million years
or one percent every 140 million years. So for small distances it would be neglible.
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top