<p>The underlying reason that the molecules of Earth's atmosphere do not fly away into the surrounding vacuum is that they are slower than the escape velocity, which would be 11200 m/s. The typical molecule speed at ground level and room temperature appears to be 500 m/s. If it had a free path such a molecule could fly vertically for <span class="math-container">$t = v/a = \frac{500m/s}{9.81m/s^2} \approx 50s$</span> before starting to fall back, with an average velocity of 250 m/s, thus reaching an altitude of 12 or 13 km. (In reality it would collide with other molecules on the way, transferring some kinetic energy to them, so that they could in turn rise higher. Obviously, molecules at the outer fringes of the atmosphere are the real escape candidates.)</p>

<p>Molecules which are fast enough surely do escape Earth's gravity well. Some may have been accelerated by particles of the solar wind, some may just have been on the long tail of the standard distribution. The latter is more likely for light atoms and molecules which are faster, like Helium and Hydrogen. Hydrogen's average speed at room temperature is perhaps 2000 m/s. These gases have indeed mostly left Earth for good long ago. </p>

<p>(By the way, the solar wind would likely "blow away" our atmosphere in the long run &mdash; as it did on Mars &mdash; if it weren't deflected by the Earth's magnetic field.)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T15:03:38.387Z
2019-03-04T10:34:49.297Z
2019-03-04T10:34:49.297Z
Peter - Reinstate Monica
<p>Your assertion that our atmosphere doesn't escape is wrong.</p>

<p>Helium and Hydrogen atoms have a low enough mass that they do have an escape velocity at the temperatures on the edge of our atmosphere.  This means that when those gasses are released, if they fail to react on their way out, then they will be lost forever to the planet.  This is why when you look at our atmosphere we just don't have any.</p>

<p>You also seem to assert that there's a "line" where it's the high pressure of our atmosphere on one side, and a low pressure of space on the other; that line doesn't exist.  The pressure is a gradient, in the same way as you swim down in a pool, at the top the pressure is low; at the bottom it's high; and it changes steadily as you traverse between the two.  Hence why climbers of Everest need to carry oxygen.</p>

<p>The heavier gasses don't escape for the same reason that a rock you throw doesn't escape.  It requires energy to escape the gravitational well of Earth; and they don't have it; currently.  Of course, as the atmosphere heats up from global warming, heavier and heavier particles will gain the energy to leave our atmosphere... </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T01:22:31.750Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/90530/discussion-between-autodidact-and-ukmonkey).
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T16:20:46.470Z
I've deleted the comments here, some of which were constructive and some of which were, uh, not quite as constructive. There's a chat room for any further productive discussion; please go there unless you'd like to suggest an edit to this answer or request a clarification. Thanks.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T16:25:55.560Z
@HDE226868 :) thanks
UKMonkey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T21:00:54.310Z
2019-03-03T21:00:54.310Z
UKMonkey
<p><strong>update:</strong> This answer was written before the question was modified. I've tried to explain where a value like 10<sup>-17</sup> Torr for deep space might come from, but it's since been dropped in lieu of 10<sup>-11</sup> Torr at the Moon, <em>which is probably a better way to formulate the question.</em></p>

<p>I think the answer is the same, two points very far away can have very different pressures. They can coexist in the same solar system, just not right next to each other. I think "Why doesn't the Moon have at least a small atmosphere?" could also be an excellent, but very different question.</p>

<hr>

<p>In a <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/29832/vacuum-of-space-question#comment54191_29832">comment</a> the OP links to the presentation <a href="https://www.raclub.org/Documents/Programs/VACUUM.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">VACUUM (There’s nothing to it… )</a> written from the perspective of an engineer in the semiconductor manufacturing industry.</p>

<p>Slide 6 gives examples of vacuum levels in different situations:</p>

<p>Going down:</p>

<ul>
<li>Low vacuum: 760 Torr to 1 x 10<sup>-3</sup> Torr

<ul>
<li>Vacuum cleaner: to 600 Torr</li>
<li>Thermos bottle 10<sup>-3</sup> Torr</li>
</ul></li>
<li>High vacuum: 10<sup>-3</sup> to 10<sup>-9</sup> Torr

<ul>
<li>Electron microscope</li>
<li>Ion Implanter
– Evaporator
– Sputterer</li>
</ul></li>
<li>Ultra high vacuum: 10<sup>-9</sup> to 10<sup>-12</sup> Torr

<ul>
<li>CERN LHC: 1 x 10<sup>-10</sup> Torr</li>
<li>Moon’s surface: 1 x 10<sup>-11</sup> Torr</li>
<li>Deep Space 1 x 10-<sup>17</sup> Torr = 0.000,000,000,000,000,01 Torr</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<p>So we can see that the value of 1 x 10-<sup>17</sup> Torr is associated with a place in "Deep Space" which is (probably) beyond that of the Moon.</p>

<p>Let's see if we can figure out where the author is getting that number.</p>

<p>According to the Wikipedia article on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium" rel="nofollow noreferrer">interstellar medium</a> (space between stars, far away from solar systems and other things):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In all phases, the interstellar medium is extremely tenuous by terrestrial standards. In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 106 molecules per cm<sup>3</sup> (1 million molecules per cm<sup>3</sup>). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10<sup>−4</sup> ions per cm<sup>3</sup>. Compare this with a number density of roughly 10<sup>19</sup> molecules per cm<sup>3</sup> for air at sea level, and 10<sup>10</sup> molecules per cm<sup>3</sup> (10 billion molecules per cm<sup>3</sup>) for a laboratory high-vacuum chamber. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is harder to talk about pressure than density because pressure is related to both number density and temperature. The atmosphere is more than 10x hotter than interstellar medium, so let's look for a number density ratio of 1/10 of 1000 Torr versus 10<sup>-17</sup> Torr, or a ratio of 10<sup>19</sup>. </p>

<p>If (according to Wikipedia) Earth's atmosphere has a density of 10<sup>19</sup> per cm<sup>3</sup>, we're looking for a density of 1 per cm<sup>3</sup>. Checking Wikipedia we can see that <em>there are components</em> of the interstellar medium with number densities between 10<sup>6</sup> and 10<sup>-4</sup>. </p>

<p>It looks like the value in the presentation a rough ballpark estimate, but isn't off by more than a handful of orders of magnitude ;-)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>How can such a vacuum coexist with the open system of earth’s atmosphere whereby debris from space can enter in?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>While these two pressures can coexist in the same universe, they don't coexist in proximity at all. The interstellar medium is very, very far away from Earth's atmosphere, on the order of a lightyear. </p>

<p>Gravity keeps Earth's atmosphere nearby Earth, the solar system has gas produced by (and attracted by) the Sun's gravity. In interstellar space, there just isn't any source of gas, and what might have been there at one time has moved away, towards sources of gravity, over billions of years.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T16:21:29.550Z
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/90572/discussion-on-answer-by-uhoh-vacuum-of-space).
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T06:12:40.083Z
2019-03-03T14:52:04.347Z
2019-03-03T14:52:04.347Z
uhoh
<blockquote>
  <p>Space is low pressure and the earth’s atmosphere is high pressure. In order to have any pressure the gas requires (demands) that it press upon something. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and that 'something' is Earth's gravity. Gas molecules are pulled down toward the surface just like all other matter. </p>

<p>So there's an equilibrium between gravity and gas pressure. At the upper end of the atmosphere, some gas escapes (molecules reach escape velocity), this is predominantly the light gases. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T12:57:54.027Z
I fully understand the assertion @Hobbes, it’s been said several times in different forms in this questions. In order that I give you the check mark for best answer please provide scientific evidence where this is also proven to be the case. Because right now gravity is strong enough to hold down water but weak enough that water vapor rises. And at some point beyond the gradient atmosphere the low pressure vacuum of space can take up minute number of molecules. We also have the moon pulling on the oceans to create tides but too weak to pull the molecules at the top of the atmosphere. You see?
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T13:26:08.917Z
Earth's atmosphere is not enough evidence for you? It's here despite the vacuum of space, it's been here for a long time and we have good data on atmospheric losses. Any experiment would require building a planet with an atmosphere, and that isn't feasible. So basic physics is all you'll get.
Hobbes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T13:52:42.387Z
Ok so your evidence for how the earth’s atmosphere interacts with the vacuum of space is the earth’s atmosphere interacting with the vacuum of space. That’s a faith based claim if I ever heard one. How about we don’t know but we assume...? Basic physics would ask you demonstrate gravity holding gas inside of a container next to a vacuum and the gas not filling the space. Basic physics and The 2nd LAW of thermodynamics is being suspended to account for an unproven faith based opinion. We can show gradient of the atmosphere but not of the vacuum of space? Isn’t mars far enough to test space?
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T14:05:33.493Z
No, my evidence for there being a force that prevents Earth's atmosphere from escaping is Earth's atmosphere still being there.
Hobbes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T14:07:46.360Z
"demonstrate gravity holding gas inside of a container next to a vacuum and the gas not filling the space"  as I said, you need a large object (the size of a planet) to demonstrate this effect, so this is not a feasible demonstration.
Hobbes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T14:11:12.103Z
There are only 4 possible explanations for Earth's atmosphere not escaping, and these are the [4 fundamental forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction). Lab-scale experiments have ruled out 3 of them, leaving the 4th (gravity) as the only force with a significant effect on the atmosphere.
Hobbes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T14:12:23.880Z
This has nothing to do with faith. It's combining what we know from centuries of studying physics.
Hobbes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T14:33:46.947Z
A conclusion through elimination is not a demonstration, is not falsifiable thus unscientific. Hence faith based. We only know of four, therefore we conclude four is all that can be known. If a,b,c or d then e-> a,b,c doesn’t show e therefore d must show e. If pixie dust, flowers bloom. Flowers do bloom therefore pixie dust. Can you measure pixie dust? Does it have a measurable value? How does it interact with a flower? *cricket*. Gravity that’s how. Can we measure it? Does it have a value? How does it interact with the vacuum? We BELIEVE its gravity because a,b,c is wrong. That’s faith see?
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T14:41:51.227Z
Voted to close, I'm not going to spend time explaining all of physics to you.
Hobbes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T09:50:25.183Z
2019-03-04T09:50:25.183Z
Hobbes
<p>I think uhoh covered proximity  but just to induce equilibrium to further elaborate:<br>
First of all, positive pressure and negative pressure are just terminology based on where we started i.e. 1 atm and above/below, we just went along. There is zero pressure and gradually moving up from that. Say, perfect vacuum starts at zero pressure  and move up as comes across high pressure open system. Things are always at equilibrium and if you want to move something from low pressure to high, you  do some work as you have mentioned second law of thermodynamics. Gravity does that work in this case till some point. Ignore everything,  lets say there is one good looking blue dot aka earth, and as you move close, gravity starts to get stronger. So, it will invite more molecule to be cuddly and at same time pressure gradient will move gas the other way. Eventually they will reach at equilibrium i.e. same transference. This is true for any height from earth. In absence of such equilibrium earth would loose its atmosphere or gain more (may be case at astronomical time scale). We start at one (gravity rules) to continuously (important) merge to space vacuum with equilibrium all along the line. Once gas truly escape earth gravity (i.e. temperature movement is way stronger than earth gravity), it has no reason to hang around. Same way we can gain by unsuspecting wandering gas molecules. Earth atmosphere looks at equilibrium at human timescale.  But earth loose and gain as these forces continuously change with distance. </p>

<p>Edit: let's try to come up based on fundamental property of universe:</p>

<p>Let's take two points A and B sealed in perfect vacuum by a long tube. </p>

<p>1 insert some gas at point A. You would expect, given enough time, gas will diffuse uniformly between point A and B. That is one property of universe: entropy always maximize. (Remember pressure is not a force). There is no answer why but it does and give rise to interesting open physics problem: arrow of time. Wikipedia has nice article on it. </p>

<ol start="2">
<li><p>Now second property: fundamental force gravity which attracts everything. Say gas is diffused and you switch on gravity at point A. You expect gas to move towards point A.
And it will.</p></li>
<li><p>Now both at play. At any cross section , gas would cross to go to A due to gravity and B to maximize the entropy. Given enough time there will be equilibrium. Equal transference at any length between A and B. But you would expect A to be more concentrated since gravity wants all gas at A where entropy wants all uniformly distributed between A and B. So there will be gradient between A and B.</p></li>
<li><p>Now think of tube between earth and space and make it disappear. Now B at low concentration, there can be escape but is it significant at human scale. In short atmosphere gradually thins out. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Answer based on escape velocity are fine but couple of things:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Escape velocity is consequence of  fundamental force gravity.</p></li>
<li><p>You don't need escape velocity to leave earth. Only true for projectile thrown from ground.</p></li>
<li><p>Gas velocity is function of temperature. Earth atomposhere temperate decreases and then increases and then again decreases and guess  -increases again. (With height).See Wikipedia. So will Gas velocity. Where escape velocity will decrease with height.</p></li>
<li><p>Gas in space is hot because of high kinetic energy and lack of collision to transfer heat. Speed is not due to lack of gravity. You can argue lack of gravity explains lack of concentration but that feels like going in circles.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>All of this is in Wikipedia and basic science
Hope it is more clear..</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T19:55:52.917Z
At this point I really neeed citations to decide on the best answer. Could you cite your response or are you merely theorizing?
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T07:29:54.163Z
I will edit to include one simple thought experiment .
HR04375439
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-04T12:11:35.607Z
With due respect I don’t need thought experiments, I’ll read what you have to say but why reinvent the wheel, show me peer reviewed experiments that have been repeated multiple times and are in themselves repeatable. A thought experiment is highly subjective.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T14:47:21.530Z
2019-03-04T08:47:46.667Z
2019-03-04T08:47:46.667Z
HR04375439
<p>First, I’m genuinely interested in a working explanation for this question. It is for this reason that I am editing the question to fine-tune it. In essence, the question has remained the same.</p>
<p>In order for me to checkmark the best answer, I’m going to ask for citations for the claims made in the answers, because I’m getting lots of theory and responders are not in agreement, as far as I can tell. Also, I cannot accept circular reasoning i.e. if we assume x then y, since y therefore x. That’s fallacious logical reasoning, because x was never proven; it was assumed, and y might be independent of x.</p>
<p>The vacuum of space is incredibly powerful, <span class="math-container">$ 1 \times 10^{-17} $</span> torr, and the vacuum between the Earth and the Moon is <span class="math-container">$ 1 \times 10^{-11} $</span> torr.</p>
<h3>How can such a vacuum (very low pressure), in close proximity to the Earth’s atmosphere (high pressure) that goes to 8.5 km elevation, coexist with the open system of the Earth’s atmosphere? How does this not defy the second law of thermodynamics and still remain true?</h3>
<p>Space is low pressure and the Earth’s atmosphere is high pressure. In order to have any pressure, the gas requires (demands) that it presses upon something.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Pressure is a force exerted by the substance per unit area on another substance. <strong>The pressure of a gas is the force that the gas exerts on the walls of its container.</strong> When you blow air into a balloon, the balloon expands because the pressure of air molecules is greater on the inside of the balloon than the outside. Pressure is a property which determines the direction in which mass flows. If the balloon is released, the air moves from a region of high pressure to a region of low pressure, and the balloon deflates. <a href="https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/States_of_Matter/Properties_of_Gases/Gas_Pressure" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Earth is an open system that presses against the vacuum of space. Why therefore is the second law of thermodynamics suspended—if indeed it is a law?</p>
<p>Space is low-pressure, therefore the atmosphere, which is not in a container, should disperse into the low-pressure space.</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://www.raclub.org/Documents/Programs/VACUUM.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">VACUUM (There’s nothing to it…)</a></p>
</li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://web.pa.msu.edu/courses/2014fall/PHY451/Lectures/Vacuum.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vacuum Technology PHY451 October 22, 2014</a></em></p>
</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T09:37:29.300Z
I've voted to close for *off-topic because... This question does not appear to be about astronomy, within the scope defined in the help center.* This has become clear in a series of comments [1](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/29832/vacuum-of-space-question/29833?noredirect=1#comment54205_29833), [2](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/29832/vacuum-of-space-question/29833?noredirect=1#comment54206_29833) This is about the physics of the Earth's atmosphere (paraphrasing: why they have them, how gravity keeps them there even though vacuum is pulling at them) not astronomy
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T09:55:03.997Z
You shouldn't change a question significantly after an answer has been posted. This is not a forum. The proper way is to post a new question.
Peter Mortensen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T12:04:36.213Z
I can't really understand, how do you understand "incredibly powerful" to a $10^{-17}$ torr rare gas. Please fix it asap.
peterh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T12:12:16.383Z
I didn’t realize that the perception of space (astronomy related) would end up avoiding the question altogether @Mortensen on a physics technicality, the very argument being used to close down the question. The question was about the earth next to the vacuum of space, what the value of the vacuum is, 10^-17 or 10^-11 or other is not the question, it’s about positive pressure in an open system, not a container (tube) and negative pressure of a vacuum. If this is not astronomy related then why attempt to respond in the first place. My question was not changed in essense
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T12:17:40.403Z
@Autodidact No, your question is good! See its voting score, you've got a down and 2 ups. You only have to fix small things what we ask in comments. It has 2 close votes now, but I voted with "leave open".
peterh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T12:33:40.577Z
@peterh I don’t understand your comment about rare gas. Where am I claiming rare gas?
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T13:19:45.777Z
@Autodidact It is rare gas. $\approx 1 \frac{\rm atom}{\rm cm^3}$. I interpreted your question as a question about the dynamics and thermodynamics of this rare gas.
peterh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T13:25:18.913Z
I see, the second law of thermodynamics would demand that the rare gas which has a torr value reach equilibrium with the atmosphere immediately next to it, which has a higher torr value. My question is why can they remain in proximity and maintain their torr values thereby defying the second law of thermodynamics. I don’t have the answer which is why I asked. Pressure demands a gas fill the space. Yet it stops at that tangential point but only partially. Why?
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T14:01:33.720Z
It doesn't stop. The pressure drops (approximately) according to the exponential formula in the Scale Height article. It's an approximation because it assumes constant temperature, an ideal gas, and a uniform gravitational field (but the strength of Earth's gravity is only marginally weaker at an altitude of 100 km relative to that at sea level).
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T15:07:54.280Z
@Autodidact Edit it into the question, make it easily comprehensible for the voters. Now it has 3 closure and 2 "leave open" votes.
peterh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T19:57:18.233Z
"The vacuum of space is incredibly powerful" - you're looking at it backwards. The pressure of the atmosphere you're under is immense, due to gravity. In 'space', that pressure is much less, but it's non-zero no matter how far you go. There is no demarcation where "positive pressure touching a negative pressure" is.
Mazura
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T20:00:35.657Z
Fine I’ll retract the negative and positive pressure simplification. Pressure requires something to press upon. What is the atmosphere pressing upon? A vacuum is low pressure and atmosphere is high pressure. Therefore the gas will fill the space. Why is the atmosphere not moving into the vast space full of low pressure?
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T20:05:16.263Z
The atmosphere presses on the Earth, and everything else in it due to displacement (and it's not moving into the vast space full of low pressure) because of **gravity**.
Mazura
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T20:22:33.567Z
Could you please elaborate and provide this in answer form with citations? Thank you in advance.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T21:45:01.430Z
If this stack is not the correct stack, I’m open to having it transferred to the physics stack or which ever is deemed appropriate. Though astronomy most certainly is physics based.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T22:51:34.843Z
I don't see how exactly the second law ("entropy only ever increases in closed systems") comes into play: The earth is most emphatically not a closed system, so entropy can very well decrease here, locally. (I'm not sure it does, I'm just sayin'. For example, humanity could harvest solar energy ([and low entropy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/399463/72043)...)  with a Dyson sphere and cool Earth down, essentially creating a local area of low entropy, much like your fridge at home.)
Peter - Reinstate Monica
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-03T23:07:32.393Z
If earth is an open system then the atmosphere is part of space and this would demand entropy but apparently earth’s atmosphere can be held to the earth. Therefore I’d like a citation where this can be reproduced and demonstrated to be true. Observation is not confirmation because it invokes a logical fallacy and it doesn’t follow the scientific method. A pressure without a container is what’s been claimed.  I’m not discussing temperature, I’m addressing pressure. I take your point with the solar power panels but temperature and pressure are not the same.
Autodidact
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-14T13:13:00.277Z
@ProfRob your condescension reflects on you far more than it does on belittling me the inquirer.
Autodidact
<cosmology><planetary-atmosphere><space><vacuum>
How does the Earth not lose its atmosphere to space?
Autodidact
# How does the Earth not lose its atmosphere to space?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-03)

First, I’m genuinely interested in a working explanation for this question. It is for this reason that I am editing the question to fine-tune it. In essence, the question has remained the same.

In order for me to checkmark the best answer, I’m going to ask for citations for the claims made in the answers, because I’m getting lots of theory and responders are not in agreement, as far as I can tell. Also, I cannot accept circular reasoning i.e. if we assume x then y, since y therefore x. That’s fallacious logical reasoning, because x was never proven; it was assumed, and y might be independent of x.

The vacuum of space is incredibly powerful, $ 1 \times 10^{-17} $ torr, and the vacuum between the Earth and the Moon is $ 1 \times 10^{-11} $ torr.

### How can such a vacuum (very low pressure), in close proximity to the Earth’s atmosphere (high pressure) that goes to 8.5 km elevation, coexist with the open system of the Earth’s atmosphere? How does this not defy the second law of thermodynamics and still remain true?

Space is low pressure and the Earth’s atmosphere is high pressure. In order to have any pressure, the gas requires (demands) that it presses upon something.

> Pressure is a force exerted by the substance per unit area on another substance. **The pressure of a gas is the force that the gas exerts on the walls of its container.** When you blow air into a balloon, the balloon expands because the pressure of air molecules is greater on the inside of the balloon than the outside. Pressure is a property which determines the direction in which mass flows. If the balloon is released, the air moves from a region of high pressure to a region of low pressure, and the balloon deflates. [1](https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/States_of_Matter/Properties_of_Gases/Gas_Pressure)

Earth is an open system that presses against the vacuum of space. Why therefore is the second law of thermodynamics suspended—if indeed it is a law?

Space is low-pressure, therefore the atmosphere, which is not in a container, should disperse into the low-pressure space.

* [VACUUM (There’s nothing to it…)](https://www.raclub.org/Documents/Programs/VACUUM.pdf)
* *[Vacuum Technology PHY451 October 22, 2014](https://web.pa.msu.edu/courses/2014fall/PHY451/Lectures/Vacuum.pdf)*

**Tags:** cosmology, planetary-atmosphere, space, vacuum
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I've voted to close for *off-topic because... This question does not appear to be about astronomy, within the scope defined in the help center.* This has become clear in a series of comments [1](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/29832/vacuum-of-space-question/29833?noredirect=1#comment54205_29833), [2](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/29832/vacuum-of-space-question/29833?noredirect=1#comment54206_29833) This is about the physics of the Earth's atmosphere (paraphrasing: why they have them, how gravity keeps them there even though vacuum is pulling at them) not astronomy  
> **username_2**: You shouldn't change a question significantly after an answer has been posted. This is not a forum. The proper way is to post a new question.  
> **username_3**: I can't really understand, how do you understand "incredibly powerful" to a $10^{-17}$ torr rare gas. Please fix it asap.  
> **username_0**: I didn’t realize that the perception of space (astronomy related) would end up avoiding the question altogether @Mortensen on a physics technicality, the very argument being used to close down the question. The question was about the earth next to the vacuum of space, what the value of the vacuum is, 10^-17 or 10^-11 or other is not the question, it’s about positive pressure in an open system, not a container (tube) and negative pressure of a vacuum. If this is not astronomy related then why attempt to respond in the first place. My question was not changed in essense  
> **username_3**: @Autodidact No, your question is good! See its voting score, you've got a down and 2 ups. You only have to fix small things what we ask in comments. It has 2 close votes now, but I voted with "leave open".  
> **username_0**: @peterh I don’t understand your comment about rare gas. Where am I claiming rare gas?  
> **username_3**: @Autodidact It is rare gas. $\approx 1 \frac{\rm atom}{\rm cm^3}$. I interpreted your question as a question about the dynamics and thermodynamics of this rare gas.  
> **username_0**: I see, the second law of thermodynamics would demand that the rare gas which has a torr value reach equilibrium with the atmosphere immediately next to it, which has a higher torr value. My question is why can they remain in proximity and maintain their torr values thereby defying the second law of thermodynamics. I don’t have the answer which is why I asked. Pressure demands a gas fill the space. Yet it stops at that tangential point but only partially. Why?  
> **username_4**: It doesn't stop. The pressure drops (approximately) according to the exponential formula in the Scale Height article. It's an approximation because it assumes constant temperature, an ideal gas, and a uniform gravitational field (but the strength of Earth's gravity is only marginally weaker at an altitude of 100 km relative to that at sea level).  
> **username_3**: @Autodidact Edit it into the question, make it easily comprehensible for the voters. Now it has 3 closure and 2 "leave open" votes.  
> **username_5**: "The vacuum of space is incredibly powerful" - you're looking at it backwards. The pressure of the atmosphere you're under is immense, due to gravity. In 'space', that pressure is much less, but it's non-zero no matter how far you go. There is no demarcation where "positive pressure touching a negative pressure" is.  
> **username_0**: Fine I’ll retract the negative and positive pressure simplification. Pressure requires something to press upon. What is the atmosphere pressing upon? A vacuum is low pressure and atmosphere is high pressure. Therefore the gas will fill the space. Why is the atmosphere not moving into the vast space full of low pressure?  
> **username_5**: The atmosphere presses on the Earth, and everything else in it due to displacement (and it's not moving into the vast space full of low pressure) because of **gravity**.  
> **username_0**: Could you please elaborate and provide this in answer form with citations? Thank you in advance.  
> **username_0**: If this stack is not the correct stack, I’m open to having it transferred to the physics stack or which ever is deemed appropriate. Though astronomy most certainly is physics based.  
> **username_6**: I don't see how exactly the second law ("entropy only ever increases in closed systems") comes into play: The earth is most emphatically not a closed system, so entropy can very well decrease here, locally. (I'm not sure it does, I'm just sayin'. For example, humanity could harvest solar energy ([and low entropy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/399463/72043)...)  with a Dyson sphere and cool Earth down, essentially creating a local area of low entropy, much like your fridge at home.)  
> **username_0**: If earth is an open system then the atmosphere is part of space and this would demand entropy but apparently earth’s atmosphere can be held to the earth. Therefore I’d like a citation where this can be reproduced and demonstrated to be true. Observation is not confirmation because it invokes a logical fallacy and it doesn’t follow the scientific method. A pressure without a container is what’s been claimed.  I’m not discussing temperature, I’m addressing pressure. I take your point with the solar power panels but temperature and pressure are not the same.  
> **username_0**: @ProfRob your condescension reflects on you far more than it does on belittling me the inquirer.  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_7 on 2019-03-03. Score: 11

Your assertion that our atmosphere doesn't escape is wrong.

Helium and Hydrogen atoms have a low enough mass that they do have an escape velocity at the temperatures on the edge of our atmosphere. This means that when those gasses are released, if they fail to react on their way out, then they will be lost forever to the planet. This is why when you look at our atmosphere we just don't have any.

You also seem to assert that there's a "line" where it's the high pressure of our atmosphere on one side, and a low pressure of space on the other; that line doesn't exist. The pressure is a gradient, in the same way as you swim down in a pool, at the top the pressure is low; at the bottom it's high; and it changes steadily as you traverse between the two. Hence why climbers of Everest need to carry oxygen.

The heavier gasses don't escape for the same reason that a rock you throw doesn't escape. It requires energy to escape the gravitational well of Earth; and they don't have it; currently. Of course, as the atmosphere heats up from global warming, heavier and heavier particles will gain the energy to leave our atmosphere...

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/90530/discussion-between-autodidact-and-ukmonkey).  
> **username_8**: I've deleted the comments here, some of which were constructive and some of which were, uh, not quite as constructive. There's a chat room for any further productive discussion; please go there unless you'd like to suggest an edit to this answer or request a clarification. Thanks.  
> **username_7**: @HDE226868 :) thanks  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2019-03-03. Score: 9

The underlying reason that the molecules of Earth's atmosphere do not fly away into the surrounding vacuum is that they are slower than the escape velocity, which would be 11200 m/s. The typical molecule speed at ground level and room temperature appears to be 500 m/s. If it had a free path such a molecule could fly vertically for $t = v/a = \frac{500m/s}{9.81m/s^2} \approx 50s$ before starting to fall back, with an average velocity of 250 m/s, thus reaching an altitude of 12 or 13 km. (In reality it would collide with other molecules on the way, transferring some kinetic energy to them, so that they could in turn rise higher. Obviously, molecules at the outer fringes of the atmosphere are the real escape candidates.)

Molecules which are fast enough surely do escape Earth's gravity well. Some may have been accelerated by particles of the solar wind, some may just have been on the long tail of the standard distribution. The latter is more likely for light atoms and molecules which are faster, like Helium and Hydrogen. Hydrogen's average speed at room temperature is perhaps 2000 m/s. These gases have indeed mostly left Earth for good long ago.

(By the way, the solar wind would likely "blow away" our atmosphere in the long run — as it did on Mars — if it weren't deflected by the Earth's magnetic field.)


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-03-03. Score: 6

**update:** This answer was written before the question was modified. I've tried to explain where a value like 10-17 Torr for deep space might come from, but it's since been dropped in lieu of 10-11 Torr at the Moon, *which is probably a better way to formulate the question.*

I think the answer is the same, two points very far away can have very different pressures. They can coexist in the same solar system, just not right next to each other. I think "Why doesn't the Moon have at least a small atmosphere?" could also be an excellent, but very different question.

---

In a [comment](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/29832/vacuum-of-space-question#comment54191_29832) the OP links to the presentation [VACUUM (There’s nothing to it… )](https://www.raclub.org/Documents/Programs/VACUUM.pdf) written from the perspective of an engineer in the semiconductor manufacturing industry.

Slide 6 gives examples of vacuum levels in different situations:

Going down:

* Low vacuum: 760 Torr to 1 x 10-3 Torr
  + Vacuum cleaner: to 600 Torr
  + Thermos bottle 10-3 Torr
* High vacuum: 10-3 to 10-9 Torr
  + Electron microscope
  + Ion Implanter
    – Evaporator
    – Sputterer
* Ultra high vacuum: 10-9 to 10-12 Torr
  + CERN LHC: 1 x 10-10 Torr
  + Moon’s surface: 1 x 10-11 Torr
  + Deep Space 1 x 10-17 Torr = 0.000,000,000,000,000,01 Torr

So we can see that the value of 1 x 10-17 Torr is associated with a place in "Deep Space" which is (probably) beyond that of the Moon.

Let's see if we can figure out where the author is getting that number.

According to the Wikipedia article on the [interstellar medium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium) (space between stars, far away from solar systems and other things):

> In all phases, the interstellar medium is extremely tenuous by terrestrial standards. In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 106 molecules per cm3 (1 million molecules per cm3). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10−4 ions per cm3. Compare this with a number density of roughly 1019 molecules per cm3 for air at sea level, and 1010 molecules per cm3 (10 billion molecules per cm3) for a laboratory high-vacuum chamber.

It is harder to talk about pressure than density because pressure is related to both number density and temperature. The atmosphere is more than 10x hotter than interstellar medium, so let's look for a number density ratio of 1/10 of 1000 Torr versus 10-17 Torr, or a ratio of 1019.

If (according to Wikipedia) Earth's atmosphere has a density of 1019 per cm3, we're looking for a density of 1 per cm3. Checking Wikipedia we can see that *there are components* of the interstellar medium with number densities between 106 and 10-4.

It looks like the value in the presentation a rough ballpark estimate, but isn't off by more than a handful of orders of magnitude ;-)

> How can such a vacuum coexist with the open system of earth’s atmosphere whereby debris from space can enter in?

While these two pressures can coexist in the same universe, they don't coexist in proximity at all. The interstellar medium is very, very far away from Earth's atmosphere, on the order of a lightyear.

Gravity keeps Earth's atmosphere nearby Earth, the solar system has gas produced by (and attracted by) the Sun's gravity. In interstellar space, there just isn't any source of gas, and what might have been there at one time has moved away, towards sources of gravity, over billions of years.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/90572/discussion-on-answer-by-uhoh-vacuum-of-space).  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2019-03-04. Score: 5

> Space is low pressure and the earth’s atmosphere is high pressure. In order to have any pressure the gas requires (demands) that it press upon something.

Yes, and that 'something' is Earth's gravity. Gas molecules are pulled down toward the surface just like all other matter.

So there's an equilibrium between gravity and gas pressure. At the upper end of the atmosphere, some gas escapes (molecules reach escape velocity), this is predominantly the light gases.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I fully understand the assertion @Hobbes, it’s been said several times in different forms in this questions. In order that I give you the check mark for best answer please provide scientific evidence where this is also proven to be the case. Because right now gravity is strong enough to hold down water but weak enough that water vapor rises. And at some point beyond the gradient atmosphere the low pressure vacuum of space can take up minute number of molecules. We also have the moon pulling on the oceans to create tides but too weak to pull the molecules at the top of the atmosphere. You see?  
> **username_9**: Earth's atmosphere is not enough evidence for you? It's here despite the vacuum of space, it's been here for a long time and we have good data on atmospheric losses. Any experiment would require building a planet with an atmosphere, and that isn't feasible. So basic physics is all you'll get.  
> **username_0**: Ok so your evidence for how the earth’s atmosphere interacts with the vacuum of space is the earth’s atmosphere interacting with the vacuum of space. That’s a faith based claim if I ever heard one. How about we don’t know but we assume...? Basic physics would ask you demonstrate gravity holding gas inside of a container next to a vacuum and the gas not filling the space. Basic physics and The 2nd LAW of thermodynamics is being suspended to account for an unproven faith based opinion. We can show gradient of the atmosphere but not of the vacuum of space? Isn’t mars far enough to test space?  
> **username_9**: No, my evidence for there being a force that prevents Earth's atmosphere from escaping is Earth's atmosphere still being there.  
> **username_9**: "demonstrate gravity holding gas inside of a container next to a vacuum and the gas not filling the space"  as I said, you need a large object (the size of a planet) to demonstrate this effect, so this is not a feasible demonstration.  
> **username_9**: There are only 4 possible explanations for Earth's atmosphere not escaping, and these are the [4 fundamental forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction). Lab-scale experiments have ruled out 3 of them, leaving the 4th (gravity) as the only force with a significant effect on the atmosphere.  
> **username_9**: This has nothing to do with faith. It's combining what we know from centuries of studying physics.  
> **username_0**: A conclusion through elimination is not a demonstration, is not falsifiable thus unscientific. Hence faith based. We only know of four, therefore we conclude four is all that can be known. If a,b,c or d then e-> a,b,c doesn’t show e therefore d must show e. If pixie dust, flowers bloom. Flowers do bloom therefore pixie dust. Can you measure pixie dust? Does it have a measurable value? How does it interact with a flower? *cricket*. Gravity that’s how. Can we measure it? Does it have a value? How does it interact with the vacuum? We BELIEVE its gravity because a,b,c is wrong. That’s faith see?  
> **username_9**: Voted to close, I'm not going to spend time explaining all of physics to you.  

---

### Answer by username_10 on 2019-03-03. Score: 2

I think uhoh covered proximity but just to induce equilibrium to further elaborate:  
First of all, positive pressure and negative pressure are just terminology based on where we started i.e. 1 atm and above/below, we just went along. There is zero pressure and gradually moving up from that. Say, perfect vacuum starts at zero pressure and move up as comes across high pressure open system. Things are always at equilibrium and if you want to move something from low pressure to high, you do some work as you have mentioned second law of thermodynamics. Gravity does that work in this case till some point. Ignore everything, lets say there is one good looking blue dot aka earth, and as you move close, gravity starts to get stronger. So, it will invite more molecule to be cuddly and at same time pressure gradient will move gas the other way. Eventually they will reach at equilibrium i.e. same transference. This is true for any height from earth. In absence of such equilibrium earth would loose its atmosphere or gain more (may be case at astronomical time scale). We start at one (gravity rules) to continuously (important) merge to space vacuum with equilibrium all along the line. Once gas truly escape earth gravity (i.e. temperature movement is way stronger than earth gravity), it has no reason to hang around. Same way we can gain by unsuspecting wandering gas molecules. Earth atmosphere looks at equilibrium at human timescale. But earth loose and gain as these forces continuously change with distance.

Edit: let's try to come up based on fundamental property of universe:

Let's take two points A and B sealed in perfect vacuum by a long tube.

1 insert some gas at point A. You would expect, given enough time, gas will diffuse uniformly between point A and B. That is one property of universe: entropy always maximize. (Remember pressure is not a force). There is no answer why but it does and give rise to interesting open physics problem: arrow of time. Wikipedia has nice article on it.

2. Now second property: fundamental force gravity which attracts everything. Say gas is diffused and you switch on gravity at point A. You expect gas to move towards point A.
   And it will.
3. Now both at play. At any cross section , gas would cross to go to A due to gravity and B to maximize the entropy. Given enough time there will be equilibrium. Equal transference at any length between A and B. But you would expect A to be more concentrated since gravity wants all gas at A where entropy wants all uniformly distributed between A and B. So there will be gradient between A and B.
4. Now think of tube between earth and space and make it disappear. Now B at low concentration, there can be escape but is it significant at human scale. In short atmosphere gradually thins out.

Answer based on escape velocity are fine but couple of things:

1. Escape velocity is consequence of fundamental force gravity.
2. You don't need escape velocity to leave earth. Only true for projectile thrown from ground.
3. Gas velocity is function of temperature. Earth atomposhere temperate decreases and then increases and then again decreases and guess -increases again. (With height).See Wikipedia. So will Gas velocity. Where escape velocity will decrease with height.
4. Gas in space is hot because of high kinetic energy and lack of collision to transfer heat. Speed is not due to lack of gravity. You can argue lack of gravity explains lack of concentration but that feels like going in circles.

All of this is in Wikipedia and basic science
Hope it is more clear..

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: At this point I really neeed citations to decide on the best answer. Could you cite your response or are you merely theorizing?  
> **username_10**: I will edit to include one simple thought experiment .  
> **username_0**: With due respect I don’t need thought experiments, I’ll read what you have to say but why reinvent the wheel, show me peer reviewed experiments that have been repeated multiple times and are in themselves repeatable. A thought experiment is highly subjective.  

---

