13

Celestial bodies that have atmospheres have a gravity sufficient to hold the atmosphere to the body. This atmosphere interfaces with the near vacuum of space yet is held to the body by gravity.

I was asked a question that I need help with.

Why can't a sealed jar be filled with half air and half vacuum on Earth and have the air settle to the bottom of the jar in response to Earth's gravity?

gerrit
  • 2,995
  • 1
    Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_height – PM 2Ring Jan 19 '23 at 08:21
  • 1
    There's no actual interface, the pressure just keeps going down in a smooth gradient. 'Space' isn't a total vaccuum. Earth's exosphere - the top layer of our atmosphere - extends out tens of thousands of km. – Corey Jan 23 '23 at 02:04
  • Thank you for your reply. I agree. Here’s a recent article discussing a study on this topic.

    Ref: https://bigthink.com/hard-science/the-moon-is-inside-earths-atmosphere-claims-study/

    – ProbingOmega Jan 25 '23 at 18:41

4 Answers4

29

It is entirely possible to make such a jar, just very impractical.

If we have air in hydrostatic equilibrium the pressure is equal to the weight of the air above, then at height $h$ the pressure is $$P(h)= P(0) \exp(-h/H)$$ where $$H=\frac{kT}{mg}$$ is the scale height. On Earth it is typically about 8 km but the temperature dependence of course complicates things in the upper atmosphere. If everything has the same temperature the above equations will work even better, and this is the case for the jar. But we need jars that are either many kilometres tall, or very low temperature.

Lower the temperature enough and the air condenses out as a liquid at the bottom. There will not be a perfect vacuum above since some molecules will randomly leave the liquid and bounce around before settling. Just before the nitrogen condenses at 77 K the scale height has been reduced by a factor of 3.5. So even for near-condensed air the jar needs to be kilometres tall to have a noticeable pressure difference.

  • 1
    You could add that m here is the effective molecular mass of air. Perhaps you could get the scale height down if you replace the air by some other gas, preferable one that has an extremely low condensation temperature, except that those also tend to be very light. Now I'm curious: what gas would have the lowest scale height at its condensation temperature? – gerrit Jan 19 '23 at 17:48
  • 1
    @gerrit Probably helium if you mean lowest absolute boiling temperature to molecular weight ratio of a radioactively stable atomic or molecular gas. Radon has a slightly lower ratio, but it only has a half-life of 3.8 days. – jkej Jan 20 '23 at 00:12
  • 2
    It seems that several hexafluorides (tellurium, tungsten, uranium, neptunium, plutonium) actually beat helium too. – jkej Jan 20 '23 at 00:36
  • 2
    If you used a spinning system (Spin launch claims 10000g, it sounds like) would that actually reduce the scale height as much as the equation says? Or would there be other effects that end up heating or mixing the gas up – Alex K Jan 20 '23 at 01:27
  • 2
    Centrifuges can definitely do it (ultracentrifuges can reach a million g, making the scale height millimetres!), although they better not cause too much vibration. If the container also reaches close to the rotation axis there is an issue that the "gravity" is decreasing with height that requires a change to the formulas, but I don't think it matters much once the force is big enough that very little gas remains close to the axis. – Anders Sandberg Jan 20 '23 at 11:04
15

It is not a silly question. The point is that air consists of molecules wizzing around at speed, and the speeds at sea level are such that even under the influence of gravity the molecules will easily wizz to the upper parts of the jar, so there will be negligible 'slump' of the air towards the bottom. The slumping would occur if you could extract enough energy out of the jar so that the average speed of the molecules is reduced to the point at which the effects of gravity dominate their motion- indeed eventually the air would liquefy.

Taking the atmosphere as a whole, the distances are sufficiently great that an air molecule wizzing upwards at high speed would eventually be decelerated to the point at with it stops and falls down again.

So the answer in a nutshell is that jars are too small to allow the deceleration due to gravity to have any appreciable affect on the speed of the air molecules.

Marco Ocram
  • 26,161
  • 2
    FWIW, typical air molecule speeds are ~400 to 500 m/s. See https://i.stack.imgur.com/cYbKM.png & https://gist.github.com/PM2Ring/78d1d9c906bc3c52146cac0edfc88716#file-maxwellboltzmann-py – PM 2Ring Jan 19 '23 at 10:37
  • @PM2Ring an excellent elaboration, thanks! – Marco Ocram Jan 19 '23 at 11:00
  • Wonderful! That sounds very reasonable and I will pass it along. Thank you for taking time to explain. – ProbingOmega Jan 19 '23 at 14:51
9

Sure, but only if earth had a gravitational field comparable to that of a neutron star (and your jar would need to be fairly indestructible). In this article, it is stated that the Chandra X-Ray Observatory has discovered$^1$ a neutron star with an atmosphere with a height of about $10\ \text cm$. Yes, ten centimeters. So, if you filled your jar with air and put it on the surface of the star, most of it will be vacuum (when I say vacuum, I mean really low pressure as you would expect in space) with the air on the bottom (probably in another phase). The materials in this atmosphere would be vastly different to air on earth and under huge pressure, far greater than air on earth (see image below: "thin carbon atmosphere").


EDIT: Added the above text and image below that was found during a search of something related, and found it very interesting, so I have added it to this answer.


But to answer your exact question, you should first note that gases that are in the highest part of earth's atmosphere have small kinetic energies (usually not enough to escape into space) that are far less than the kinetic energy of gases close to the surface of the earth. The average kinetic energy of gas atoms/molecules close to the surface of earth are far greater and certainly not small enough to stay at the bottom of the jar without bouncing to the top.

Also note that technically, a jar with a gas inside will have a slightly greater pressure at the bottom than the top due to earth's gravity. But this pressure difference will be so small that it’s virtually undetectable.

$^1$ From the actual NASA press release:

enter image description here

joseph h
  • 29,356
  • 2
    Thank you for taking the time to answer. This fits with the other answers. It boils down to the energy exhibited by the air molecules at different levels within the atmosphere and this is coupled to the air temperature and altitude, i.e., the weight of atmospheric overburden. – ProbingOmega Jan 19 '23 at 15:14
  • 1
    Of course, the gases as the bottom of the atmosphere also do not have enough kinetic energy to escape into space :) – gerrit Jan 19 '23 at 17:49
  • @ProbingOmega No worries. – joseph h Jan 19 '23 at 19:20
  • The jar needs to be very indestructible. ;) I suppose we can assume the neutron star is old, so its temperature isn't millions of degrees, but its surface gravity will crush any normal matter. And the tidal force in the vicinity of a neutron star is also immense, see https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/631427/123208 – PM 2Ring Jan 21 '23 at 03:28
  • @PM2Ring Certainly. Thanks for the link. Cheers. – joseph h Jan 21 '23 at 05:27
4

You have a misperception here:

This atmosphere interfaces with the near vacuum of space yet is held to the body by gravity.

There's no place that atmosphere interfaces with vacuum. At each point, the ratio of density of air above is only imperceptibly smaller than that of below. If you go up far enough, the density is half what is at sea level. Go up far enough past that, and it's half of that (so one fourth the atmosphere at sea level). Keep going and it eventually is half of that. And so on. If you halve it enough, it becomes near vacuum. But at each point in the process, the density is, locally, near constant.

  • +1 I was going to add this point in my answer but didn’t think by “interface” OP meant a point where there is atmosphere then sudden vacuum. It seems it is what OP thought. Cheers. – joseph h Jan 21 '23 at 20:58
  • Thank you for your reply. The gradual dissipation of Earth’s atmosphere into the near vacuum of space is understood. A recent study concluded that constituents of Earth’s atmosphere extends beyond the moon.

    Ref: https://bigthink.com/hard-science/the-moon-is-inside-earths-atmosphere-claims-study/

    – ProbingOmega Jan 25 '23 at 18:38