# Expansion of the universe and strain

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
1351 views

From cosmological models that involve expansion of the universe, can we not say that there are ever increasing tidal forces felt by solid bodies?

If so, the material in solid bodies like metal blocks, glass rods, skeletal systems will tend to separate causing a strain on the body which counteracts the expansion

If the tidal forces increase with time, will there not come a point in time, when the stress limit is reached and our bodies begin to shatter under intense tidal forces (similar to 'spaghettification')?

If the above is true, using present cosmological data, has anyone calculated how long it will take before our bones shatter?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user dj_mummy
related: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70047/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

This is really just a footnote to Luboš's answer, but for completeness (and because it's fun :-) we should note that the equation of state of dark energy has not been determined and it remains possible that the ratio between the dark energy pressure and its energy density is less than or equal to -1. If so, this is known as phantom energy, and it causes an ever increasing acceleration leading eventually to a Big Rip and the destruction of, well, everything!

In this scenario there is indeed a growing stress on anything with a finite size, and our bones will indeed shatter. Fortunately this seems a remote possibility.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user John Rennie
answered Sep 9, 2013 by (470 points)
AHA!!! I knew it! Today I can sleep well knowing that I have discovered one more way general relativity can kill us all. By the way, has anyone made a calculated guess (roughly) of the limit of inflation beyond which ALL stable bound states possible cease to exist?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user dj_mummy
@dj_mummy: for Schwarzschild-De-Sitter space, this is governed by the dimensionless parameter $\Lambda M^{2}$, where $M$ is the mass of the central body. So, given a fixed $\Lambda$, you'll be able to find some $M$ such that $\Lambda M^{2}$ still lies in the range where orbits are allowed.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jerry Schirmer
Right. And the effect is nonvanishing even when the equation of state is a cosmological constant rather than the type that would cause a big rip scenario.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

As discussed in more detail in this answer, for two test particles released at a distance $\mathbf{r}$ from one another in an FRW spacetime, their relative acceleration is given by $(\ddot{a}/a)\mathbf{r}$. This is observed as an anomalous tidal force. Some people will insist that there is no such effect, but this is simply wrong. A good discussion is given in Cooperstock 1998. What is incorrect is to imagine that bound systems expand in proportion to the FRW scale factor $a$.

The factor $\ddot{a}/a$ is on the order of the inverse square of the age of the universe, i.e., $\sim H^2$, the square of the Hubble constant. So let's say we want to estimate the strain in your thigh bone due to cosmological expansion. The length of the bone is $L$, so the anomalous acceleration of one end of the bone relative to the other is $\sim LH^2$. The corresponding tension is $\sim mLH^2$, where $m$ is your body mass. The resulting strain is

$$\epsilon \sim \frac{mLH^2}{AE} \qquad ,$$

where $E$ is the Young's modulus of bone (about $10^{10}$ Pa) and $A$ is the bone's cross-sectional area. Putting in numbers, the result for the strain is about $10^{-40}$, which is much too small to be measurable by any imaginable technique --- but is not zero! I believe the sign of $\ddot{a}$ is currently positive, so this strain is tensile, not compressive. In the earlier, matter-dominated era of the universe, it would have been compressive. There is no "secular trend," i.e., your leg bone is not expanding over time. It's in equilibrium, and is simply elongated imperceptibly compared to the length if would have had without the effect of cosmological expanson.

If the tidal forces increase with time, will there not come a point in time, when the stress limit is reached and our bodies begin to shatter under intense tidal forces (similar to 'spaghettification')?

These tidal forces are not expected to increase significantly over time. If dark energy is really described by the equation of state of a cosmological constant, then in the vacuum-dominated epoch of the universe, which we are now entering, the tidal forces approach a constant (because $\ddot{a}/a$ approaches a constant). This would not be true, however, in a Big Rip scenario.

Cooperstock, Faraoni, and Vollick, "The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems," http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803097v1

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell
answered Sep 9, 2013 by (1,070 points)
Clearly, for all practical purposes the expansion of "metal blocks, glass rods, skeletal systems" is completely negligible. So I don't think you are right to say " Some people will insist that there is no such effect, but this is simply wrong." I think it would be better to say " Some people will insist that there is no such effect, and this is essentially correct as the effect is completely negligible, although strictly speaking not exactly equal to zero".

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user physicsphile
No, @Ben, as physicsphile says, the forces are negligible for all bound systems. But for atoms, molecules, solids, glass rods, and skeletal systems, the claimed stretching is exactly zero. For example, there is nothing such as a hydrogen atom with radius equal to 1.00001 times what we are used to. The atomic radius as a proper distance is totally determined by local physics and nothing in cosmology can change anything about it. What cosmology could do in general is to discontinuously ionize or rip atoms or their conglomerates, but this can't be measured by "stress" and is very unlikely.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
I must also explicitly add that the 1998 paper cited in the completely wrong answer above (that some people still seem to enthusiastically upvote) doesn't apply to atoms, molecules, solids, glass rods, and skeletons which are non-gravitationally bound and therefore their defining proper lengths don't change by the effects of cosmological expansion, not even by an epsilon. They only discuss gravitationally bound local systems (orbiting celestial bodies) for which the expansion is negligible but in principle nonzero.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell
@physicsphile: I agree with all the objective statements in your comment. We disagree only on style and emphasis.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell
@LubošMotl: I've responded to your first comment in a comment on your answer, since you made the same comment there. Re the second comment, it is certainly true that the dynamics play out differently for a gravitationally bound system than for condensed matter. If you look more carefully, I think you'll see that I have not simply recycled Cooperstock's results for the solar system and applied them to condensed matter, which would indeed be incorrect. For the solar system, we get a secular trend that depends on $d/dt(\ddot{a}/a)$, and if the gravitational stress were removed, the system [...]

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell
[...] would remain in its expanded state. For condensed matter, there is a stress that is proportional to $\ddot{a}/a$, and if the stress were removed, the object would reexpand or recontract back to its equilibrium size. Note that your claim that such an effect vanishes identically is not viable, since that would imply that matter would survive arbitrarily large values of $\ddot{a}/a$ without being disrupted; but that is not the case -- see, e.g., arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302506 .

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

There is no stress whatsoever trying to disrupt solid bodies – or bound states of any sort – caused by the expansion of the Universe.

The individual atoms or pieces of solid bodies are arranged to minimize the total energy and have stable relative positions for that reason. Equivalently, it is possible to parallel transport a body in the timelike direction, along the world line, and that's exactly what these bodies are doing as they evolve in time.

This becomes particularly clear in the de Sitter space – the exponentially accelerating expansion caused by the positive cosmological constant, a phase that we have been entering in recent billions of years. The isometry of $dS_4$ is $SO(5,1)$ which also includes a boost-like generator that plays exactly the same role as the time translations in the flat Minkowski space. So this isometry tells you how bound states evolve in time.

Your assumption reflects a widespread misconception about what is actually expanding. What is expanding is the Universe itself, not the size of the objects. The size of atoms, molecules, and even planets etc. stays the same which really means that the expanding Universe is able to harbor an increasing number of atoms, molecules, and/or planets. It is really expanding. It's not just some vacuous change of units that wouldn't change anything material.

Whether the distance between two objects is increasing as the result of the expansion of the Universe depends on what determines their location. If they're just "attached" to some regions of space, like galaxies, they will expand with the space itself. But bound objects' molecules or components have positions determined by the equilibrium of various forces, especially attractive forces, acting inside them. So they're not attached to "independent regions of space" which is why the distance between them isn't increasing, surely not by the same factor as the factor that stretches the distances between galaxies.

Some intermediate situations, like clusters of galaxies that are "partly/loosely bound", would deserve a special discussion. They may expand a bit and it's calculable how much. However, it's important that the systems dominated by the attractive binding forces, e.g. electromagnetic forces that keep solid matter connected, surely don't suffer from the same rate of expansion as the Universe itself. At the same moment, I have to emphasize that the "cosmological stretching" of atoms, molecules, solids, glass rods, and skeletons is exactly zero because all these proper distances are fully determined by local physics governed by non-gravitational forces. For example, there is nothing such as a hydrogen atom that is 1.00001 times the usual radius and the same observation holds for the other tightly bound states, too. This is elementary quantum mechanics. Some people and some papers may err about this basic point but they will never change the radius of the atom or other tight bound stats.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
answered Sep 9, 2013 by (10,278 points)
Small addition--it turns out that if you have a cosmological constant present in the universe, then orbits around a central massive body, in addition to having an innermost stable circular orbit, will also have an outermost stable circular orbit, beyond which they will be pulled into the surrounding cosmology.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jerry Schirmer
@LubosMotl I realize that the Universe itself is actually expanding. The only assumption I made was that the particles of solid bodies (like galaxies) are attached to independent regions of space, constantly deviated from their timelike geodesic motion by the self-adjusting 'equilibrium forces' in the body. You are making the assumption that solid bodies we deal with are so small that they are infinitesimal, since only infinitesimally sized objects can actually be 'parallely transported'. I think that even the slightest stretch it is significant.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user dj_mummy
.....if the universe is expanding very slowly then what you say is right: that there is no stress on bound states. If the universe was ballooning like crazy and galaxies were zooming past each other, I am pretty sure that the a glass rod will crack a little. If the expansion of the universe is accelerating, then in billions of years, different states of matter will exist depending on the strength of the binding forces.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user dj_mummy
...By what you say, the interatomic distance of a crystal lattice is increasing so slowly and by so little that the system can easily compensate the inflation and restore itself back to the original interatomic distance immediately, thus remaining the same size. But what if the inflation was so massive that even the bound states of nucleons were ripped apart, we would all fly away from each other effectively like little galaxies.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user dj_mummy
Nope, this is wrong, for the reasons given in my answer. Some intermediate situations, like clusters of galaxies that are "partly bound"[...] may expand a bit and it's calculable how much. Yes, this is right. However, it's important that the systems dominated by the attractive binding forces, [...] surely don't suffer from the same rate of expansion as the Universe itself. This is also true, but the effect is nonvanishing. This sentence also contradicts the first sentence of the answer, which asserts that such stresses vanish identically.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ben Crowell
It is a pretty straightforward exercise to evaluate the gravitational corrections to various atomic properties. Just write the general Dirac equation in curved spacetime, plug in Schwarzschild-de Sitter for the metric, take nonrelativistic limits etc etc etc. The effect does not vanish identically, but you will never ever be able to measure it. The point is it is computable and nonzero. No arm waving or arguing required.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Michael Brown
Unless you believe that quantum field theory in curved spacetime is totally broken and unreliable even in the weak field limit...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user Michael Brown
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Ben Crowell's answer contained a very good estimate of the order of magnitude of the stress on bone. From the comments and answers, I gathered that the effect of inflation on bound quantum systems (like the hydrogen atom) was the underlying basis of my question. I did some more hunting around and discovered many astronomers and physicists (like Schrodinger) have pondered this question in the past. I found 2 interesting papers on the topic:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411299.pdf (which mainly discusses the loss of energy in bound quantum systems)

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF02721588.pdf (which mainly discusses the Dirac equation in the FLRW metric, although a few assumptions have been taken in some places)

I would like to quote some sections of the first paper:

Assumption A: "that metric expansion proceeds at all gravitationally classical scale lengths — is not contradicted by available physical evidence, and it is consistent with the standard general relativistic interpretation of the metric."

I believe the above applies to anything above Planck Length scales.

Assumption B: "That bound systems contract in the comoving frame to counter the expansion of space follows naturally from assumption (A) and is consistent with observational evidence such as the recent investigations of the value of the fine structure constant in distant galaxies [10]. The contraction of bound systems (such as hydrogen atoms) proceeds in such a way that fundamental energy levels of quantum systems are unchanged over measurable time-averaged periods. Thus, the energy structure of the systems appears unaffected, in agreement with observation fundamental energy levels of quantum systems are unchanged over measurable time-averaged periods. Thus, the energy structure of the systems appears unaffected, in agreement with observation"

Assumption C: "In contrast to classical systems, quantum systems radiate energy intermittently and discontinuously, and they do not exhibit inertial follow-through . As a result, unlike classical systems, we posit that they can follow the expansion of the comoving metric during time intervals be- tween radiating (Assumption A). If they expand along with the comoving metric between emission, but intermittently collapse back to their original fix ed proper sizes, then they should emit MCE, analogously to classical systems ( e.g. , gas clouds) and more typical quantum systems ( e.g. , hydrogen atoms). We emphasize that quantum MCE emission is not due to change in quantum number, but is due to change in spatial scale only. Emission should continue as long as they are embedded in an expanding spacetime metric, but emission rate clearly depends on the metric expansion rate [12]. Assumption C is consistent with the standard physical interpretation of energy release by classical and quantum systems. I t presumes, of course, the validity of Assumptions A and B."

The paper claims that there is evidence in favor of this MCE and the assumptions. One could say, in a sense, that there is an effect on quantum bound systems on the atomic scale and above, but it is REALLY tiny. However John Rennie has pointed out that if a Big Rip like event occurred, these bound states might certainly destabilize, thus shattering bone.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-08 05:11 (UCT), posted by SE-user dj_mummy
answered Sep 13, 2013 by (155 points)

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$wThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.