Schwarzchild Radius of the UniverseIs the “far” universe expanding more quickly?Does the math work out...

Chess with symmetric move-square

Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?

A Journey Through Space and Time

How to add power-LED to my small amplifier?

I see my dog run

Is there really no realistic way for a skeleton monster to move around without magic?

Can I interfere when another PC is about to be attacked?

Banach space and Hilbert space topology

How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?

How is it possible for user's password to be changed after storage was encrypted? (on OS X, Android)

Possibly bubble sort algorithm

Example of a relative pronoun

What makes Graph invariants so useful/important?

Should I join office cleaning event for free?

Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?

Why CLRS example on residual networks does not follows its formula?

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

whey we use polarized capacitor?

Shell script can be run only with sh command

Is Social Media Science Fiction?

DOS, create pipe for stdin/stdout of command.com(or 4dos.com) in C or Batch?

What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?

Schwarzchild Radius of the Universe

"You are your self first supporter", a more proper way to say it



Schwarzchild Radius of the Universe


Is the “far” universe expanding more quickly?Does the math work out for there being enough time for the formation of the heavier elements and their distribution as seen in today's universe?How is the universe expanding?What would happen in the final days of the universe?How much of the universe is observable at visible wavelengths?What's the point of looking at distances beyond $13,7$ billion light years?How long was the universe radiation dominated?physical meaning of dark matter virial radiusWhat happens in the event that the cooling radius is shorter than the virial radius of a Cold Dark Matter Halo?The Cosmic Microwave Background Paradox













1












$begingroup$


According to the Wiki on the Rs, the Rs of the observable universe is 13.7BLY.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
(The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light-years.[7][8])



The reference for this statement is:



https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.0933 and the Encyclopedia of Distances



Can someone please explain this to me... Is this simply because to get into the non-observable portion of the universe, you have to go faster than the speed of light?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    According to the Wiki on the Rs, the Rs of the observable universe is 13.7BLY.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
    (The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light-years.[7][8])



    The reference for this statement is:



    https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.0933 and the Encyclopedia of Distances



    Can someone please explain this to me... Is this simply because to get into the non-observable portion of the universe, you have to go faster than the speed of light?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      According to the Wiki on the Rs, the Rs of the observable universe is 13.7BLY.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
      (The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light-years.[7][8])



      The reference for this statement is:



      https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.0933 and the Encyclopedia of Distances



      Can someone please explain this to me... Is this simply because to get into the non-observable portion of the universe, you have to go faster than the speed of light?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      According to the Wiki on the Rs, the Rs of the observable universe is 13.7BLY.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
      (The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light-years.[7][8])



      The reference for this statement is:



      https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.0933 and the Encyclopedia of Distances



      Can someone please explain this to me... Is this simply because to get into the non-observable portion of the universe, you have to go faster than the speed of light?







      astronomy






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago







      Rick

















      asked 6 hours ago









      RickRick

      620315




      620315






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          In this paper, the author begins by defining the radius of the observable universe as the radius of the Hubble sphere $r_{HS}=frac{c}{H_0}$, where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant. He then assumes that the universe is a homogeneous and isotropic collection of matter with density $rhoapprox rho_c$, where $rho_c=frac{3H^2}{8pi G}$ is the critical density of the universe at which the curvature of space is zero.



          Since he assumed that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, the author uses the classical definition of density $rho=frac{3M}{4pi r_{HS}^3}$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_{HS}=frac{2GM}{c^2}$. The author then asserts that $r_{HS}$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the universe, because what he came up with looks like the formula for a Schwarzschild radius.



          This is where the big problem is: the conditions that the author assumed in the beginning are not compatible with the conditions that admit the definition of a Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein field equations requires that all of the mass of the universe is concentrated in a physical singularity at $r=0$, and the rest is vacuum. The author assumes essentially the exact opposite: that the mass of the universe is as spread out as possible, so that none of it is concentrated anywhere, there is no vacuum, and the universe has uniform density. As such, calling this a Schwarzschild radius doesn't really make sense, as it has nothing to do with the Schwarzschild solution besides sharing a superficial similarity in how we express their definitions. Just because he calls it a Schwarzschild radius doesn't mean that it is one.



          The moral of the story: though finding similar expressions in different contexts can often be a useful tool to guide intuition, it doesn't actually prove any connection, and isn't a substitute for an actual proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            probably_someone is still being kind ... the paper's author does not seem to understand even the basics of Einstein's formulation of general relativity ... the OP should just ignore this paper
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            5 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            It did not make any sense to me either which is why I posted the question. Thanks for the confirmation...
            $endgroup$
            – Rick
            1 hour ago












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471160%2fschwarzchild-radius-of-the-universe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5












          $begingroup$

          In this paper, the author begins by defining the radius of the observable universe as the radius of the Hubble sphere $r_{HS}=frac{c}{H_0}$, where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant. He then assumes that the universe is a homogeneous and isotropic collection of matter with density $rhoapprox rho_c$, where $rho_c=frac{3H^2}{8pi G}$ is the critical density of the universe at which the curvature of space is zero.



          Since he assumed that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, the author uses the classical definition of density $rho=frac{3M}{4pi r_{HS}^3}$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_{HS}=frac{2GM}{c^2}$. The author then asserts that $r_{HS}$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the universe, because what he came up with looks like the formula for a Schwarzschild radius.



          This is where the big problem is: the conditions that the author assumed in the beginning are not compatible with the conditions that admit the definition of a Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein field equations requires that all of the mass of the universe is concentrated in a physical singularity at $r=0$, and the rest is vacuum. The author assumes essentially the exact opposite: that the mass of the universe is as spread out as possible, so that none of it is concentrated anywhere, there is no vacuum, and the universe has uniform density. As such, calling this a Schwarzschild radius doesn't really make sense, as it has nothing to do with the Schwarzschild solution besides sharing a superficial similarity in how we express their definitions. Just because he calls it a Schwarzschild radius doesn't mean that it is one.



          The moral of the story: though finding similar expressions in different contexts can often be a useful tool to guide intuition, it doesn't actually prove any connection, and isn't a substitute for an actual proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            probably_someone is still being kind ... the paper's author does not seem to understand even the basics of Einstein's formulation of general relativity ... the OP should just ignore this paper
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            5 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            It did not make any sense to me either which is why I posted the question. Thanks for the confirmation...
            $endgroup$
            – Rick
            1 hour ago
















          5












          $begingroup$

          In this paper, the author begins by defining the radius of the observable universe as the radius of the Hubble sphere $r_{HS}=frac{c}{H_0}$, where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant. He then assumes that the universe is a homogeneous and isotropic collection of matter with density $rhoapprox rho_c$, where $rho_c=frac{3H^2}{8pi G}$ is the critical density of the universe at which the curvature of space is zero.



          Since he assumed that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, the author uses the classical definition of density $rho=frac{3M}{4pi r_{HS}^3}$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_{HS}=frac{2GM}{c^2}$. The author then asserts that $r_{HS}$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the universe, because what he came up with looks like the formula for a Schwarzschild radius.



          This is where the big problem is: the conditions that the author assumed in the beginning are not compatible with the conditions that admit the definition of a Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein field equations requires that all of the mass of the universe is concentrated in a physical singularity at $r=0$, and the rest is vacuum. The author assumes essentially the exact opposite: that the mass of the universe is as spread out as possible, so that none of it is concentrated anywhere, there is no vacuum, and the universe has uniform density. As such, calling this a Schwarzschild radius doesn't really make sense, as it has nothing to do with the Schwarzschild solution besides sharing a superficial similarity in how we express their definitions. Just because he calls it a Schwarzschild radius doesn't mean that it is one.



          The moral of the story: though finding similar expressions in different contexts can often be a useful tool to guide intuition, it doesn't actually prove any connection, and isn't a substitute for an actual proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            probably_someone is still being kind ... the paper's author does not seem to understand even the basics of Einstein's formulation of general relativity ... the OP should just ignore this paper
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            5 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            It did not make any sense to me either which is why I posted the question. Thanks for the confirmation...
            $endgroup$
            – Rick
            1 hour ago














          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          In this paper, the author begins by defining the radius of the observable universe as the radius of the Hubble sphere $r_{HS}=frac{c}{H_0}$, where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant. He then assumes that the universe is a homogeneous and isotropic collection of matter with density $rhoapprox rho_c$, where $rho_c=frac{3H^2}{8pi G}$ is the critical density of the universe at which the curvature of space is zero.



          Since he assumed that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, the author uses the classical definition of density $rho=frac{3M}{4pi r_{HS}^3}$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_{HS}=frac{2GM}{c^2}$. The author then asserts that $r_{HS}$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the universe, because what he came up with looks like the formula for a Schwarzschild radius.



          This is where the big problem is: the conditions that the author assumed in the beginning are not compatible with the conditions that admit the definition of a Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein field equations requires that all of the mass of the universe is concentrated in a physical singularity at $r=0$, and the rest is vacuum. The author assumes essentially the exact opposite: that the mass of the universe is as spread out as possible, so that none of it is concentrated anywhere, there is no vacuum, and the universe has uniform density. As such, calling this a Schwarzschild radius doesn't really make sense, as it has nothing to do with the Schwarzschild solution besides sharing a superficial similarity in how we express their definitions. Just because he calls it a Schwarzschild radius doesn't mean that it is one.



          The moral of the story: though finding similar expressions in different contexts can often be a useful tool to guide intuition, it doesn't actually prove any connection, and isn't a substitute for an actual proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          In this paper, the author begins by defining the radius of the observable universe as the radius of the Hubble sphere $r_{HS}=frac{c}{H_0}$, where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant. He then assumes that the universe is a homogeneous and isotropic collection of matter with density $rhoapprox rho_c$, where $rho_c=frac{3H^2}{8pi G}$ is the critical density of the universe at which the curvature of space is zero.



          Since he assumed that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, the author uses the classical definition of density $rho=frac{3M}{4pi r_{HS}^3}$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_{HS}=frac{2GM}{c^2}$. The author then asserts that $r_{HS}$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the universe, because what he came up with looks like the formula for a Schwarzschild radius.



          This is where the big problem is: the conditions that the author assumed in the beginning are not compatible with the conditions that admit the definition of a Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein field equations requires that all of the mass of the universe is concentrated in a physical singularity at $r=0$, and the rest is vacuum. The author assumes essentially the exact opposite: that the mass of the universe is as spread out as possible, so that none of it is concentrated anywhere, there is no vacuum, and the universe has uniform density. As such, calling this a Schwarzschild radius doesn't really make sense, as it has nothing to do with the Schwarzschild solution besides sharing a superficial similarity in how we express their definitions. Just because he calls it a Schwarzschild radius doesn't mean that it is one.



          The moral of the story: though finding similar expressions in different contexts can often be a useful tool to guide intuition, it doesn't actually prove any connection, and isn't a substitute for an actual proof.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          probably_someoneprobably_someone

          18.8k12960




          18.8k12960












          • $begingroup$
            probably_someone is still being kind ... the paper's author does not seem to understand even the basics of Einstein's formulation of general relativity ... the OP should just ignore this paper
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            5 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            It did not make any sense to me either which is why I posted the question. Thanks for the confirmation...
            $endgroup$
            – Rick
            1 hour ago


















          • $begingroup$
            probably_someone is still being kind ... the paper's author does not seem to understand even the basics of Einstein's formulation of general relativity ... the OP should just ignore this paper
            $endgroup$
            – Paul Young
            5 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            It did not make any sense to me either which is why I posted the question. Thanks for the confirmation...
            $endgroup$
            – Rick
            1 hour ago
















          $begingroup$
          probably_someone is still being kind ... the paper's author does not seem to understand even the basics of Einstein's formulation of general relativity ... the OP should just ignore this paper
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          5 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          probably_someone is still being kind ... the paper's author does not seem to understand even the basics of Einstein's formulation of general relativity ... the OP should just ignore this paper
          $endgroup$
          – Paul Young
          5 hours ago














          $begingroup$
          It did not make any sense to me either which is why I posted the question. Thanks for the confirmation...
          $endgroup$
          – Rick
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          It did not make any sense to me either which is why I posted the question. Thanks for the confirmation...
          $endgroup$
          – Rick
          1 hour ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471160%2fschwarzchild-radius-of-the-universe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Gersau Kjelder | Navigasjonsmeny46°59′0″N 8°31′0″E46°59′0″N...

          Hestehale Innhaldsliste Hestehale på kvinner | Hestehale på menn | Galleri | Sjå òg |...

          What is the “three and three hundred thousand syndrome”?Who wrote the book Arena?What five creatures were...