Schwarzchild Radius of the UniverseIs 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

What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?

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

Compute hash value according to multiplication method

I probably found a bug with the sudo apt install function

Pronouncing Dictionary.com's W.O.D "vade mecum" in English

Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?

When blogging recipes, how can I support both readers who want the narrative/journey and ones who want the printer-friendly recipe?

Is it possible to make sharp wind that can cut stuff from afar?

Prevent a directory in /tmp from being deleted

Copycat chess is back

How long does it take to type this?

How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?

Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?

Infinite past with a beginning?

What would the Romans have called "sorcery"?

How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?

N.B. ligature in Latex

Can a German sentence have two subjects?

Japan - Plan around max visa duration

What would happen to a modern skyscraper if it rains micro blackholes?

Why has Russell's definition of numbers using equivalence classes been finally abandoned? ( If it has actually been abandoned).

What is the logic behind how bash tests for true/false?

Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?

What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files



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 26 mins ago







      Rick

















      asked 5 hours ago









      RickRick

      620315




      620315




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          In this paper, the author begins by defining the radius of the observable universe as the radius of the Hubble sphere $r_HS=fraccH_0$, 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 $rho_c=frac3H^28pi G$ 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 $rho=frac3M4pi r_HS^3$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_HS=frac2GMc^2$. 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
            4 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
            28 mins 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









          4












          $begingroup$

          In this paper, the author begins by defining the radius of the observable universe as the radius of the Hubble sphere $r_HS=fraccH_0$, 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 $rho_c=frac3H^28pi G$ 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 $rho=frac3M4pi r_HS^3$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_HS=frac2GMc^2$. 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
            4 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
            28 mins ago















          4












          $begingroup$

          In this paper, the author begins by defining the radius of the observable universe as the radius of the Hubble sphere $r_HS=fraccH_0$, 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 $rho_c=frac3H^28pi G$ 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 $rho=frac3M4pi r_HS^3$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_HS=frac2GMc^2$. 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
            4 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
            28 mins ago













          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          In this paper, the author begins by defining the radius of the observable universe as the radius of the Hubble sphere $r_HS=fraccH_0$, 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 $rho_c=frac3H^28pi G$ 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 $rho=frac3M4pi r_HS^3$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_HS=frac2GMc^2$. 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 $r_HS=fraccH_0$, 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 $rho_c=frac3H^28pi G$ 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 $rho=frac3M4pi r_HS^3$, where $M$ is the total mass of the observable universe, and with a bit of algebraic manipulation comes up with $r_HS=frac2GMc^2$. 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 4 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
            4 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
            28 mins 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
            4 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
            28 mins 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
          4 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
          4 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
          28 mins ago




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

          How should I use the fbox command correctly to avoid producing a Bad Box message?How to put a long piece of text in a box?How to specify height and width of fboxIs there an arrayrulecolor-like command to change the rule color of fbox?What is the command to highlight bad boxes in pdf?Why does fbox sometimes place the box *over* the graphic image?how to put the text in the boxHow to create command for a box where text inside the box can automatically adjust?how can I make an fbox like command with certain color, shape and width of border?how to use fbox in align modeFbox increase the spacing between the box and it content (inner margin)how to change the box height of an equationWhat is the use of the hbox in a newcommand command?

          Doxepinum Nexus interni Notae | Tabula navigationis3158DB01142WHOa682390"Structural Analysis of the Histamine H1 Receptor""Transdermal and Topical Drug Administration in the Treatment of Pain""Antidepressants as antipruritic agents: A review"

          inputenc: Unicode character … not set up for use with LaTeX The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEntering Unicode characters in LaTeXHow to solve the `Package inputenc Error: Unicode char not set up for use with LaTeX` problem?solve “Unicode char is not set up for use with LaTeX” without special handling of every new interesting UTF-8 characterPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character ² (U+B2)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. acroI2C[I²C]package inputenc error unicode char (u + 190) not set up for use with latexPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char u8:′ not set up for use with LaTeX. 3′inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeX with G-BriefPackage Inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ́ (U+301)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. includePackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ̂ (U+302)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. … $widehatleft (OA,AA' right )$Package inputenc Error: Unicode char â„¡ (U+2121)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]Package inputenc Error: Unicode char − (U+2212)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character α (U+3B1) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode characterError: ! Package inputenc Error: Unicode char ⊘ (U+2298)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX