Flatness of space vs spacetime
- SkyHiker
- Local Group Ambassador
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2293
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 8:40 pm
- 4
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Awards Badges
TSS Photo of the Day
Flatness of space vs spacetime
I had been reading about the universe being flat as opposed to negatively curved, which I thought was the consensus for at least a while. That made me wonder what is meant by that, exactly? I collected some easy-to-read links that explain things a bit but also show the confusion (negative energy and/or pressure, imaginary mass, cosmological constant, vacuum energy, dark this and that, the list goes on).
My standard reference is Weinberg's book from 1971 who assumes no cosmological constant. His FLRW metric and the available measurements lead to 3 possibilities for curvature and age of the universe: Positive (age=7.5B), zero (age=9B), or negative (age=13B). He does not differentiate the pressure part into baryons (regular matter), dark matter, microwave background or dark energy, but rather does the analysis first then starts to wonder where the missing quantities can be found. He concludes that the measurements support the 3rd option but that a lot remains to be investigated.
This educational link gives a nice overview of the four pressure terms in the first couple of paragraphs. About 2/3 of the way down is a time vs scale factor graph that corresponds well with the ages given by Weinberg.
The controversy about the various ways in which people discuss the matter is shown in this interesting physics stackexchange link. It clarifies that the references to flatness are just about the spatial part, which is not the same as a flat spacetime (Minkowski metric/special relativity). If you check the comments, you will see how confusing the terminology gets even among those who seem to know the matter well.
I recall Sabine Hossenfelder referencing the same issue, suggesting that we simply talk about negatively curved spacetime instead of a mysterious term like dark energy. Whatever the answer is, it can all turn out to be a hoax with the new JWST observations. Hope you enjoy the read, maybe it helps if you had the same impressions.
My standard reference is Weinberg's book from 1971 who assumes no cosmological constant. His FLRW metric and the available measurements lead to 3 possibilities for curvature and age of the universe: Positive (age=7.5B), zero (age=9B), or negative (age=13B). He does not differentiate the pressure part into baryons (regular matter), dark matter, microwave background or dark energy, but rather does the analysis first then starts to wonder where the missing quantities can be found. He concludes that the measurements support the 3rd option but that a lot remains to be investigated.
This educational link gives a nice overview of the four pressure terms in the first couple of paragraphs. About 2/3 of the way down is a time vs scale factor graph that corresponds well with the ages given by Weinberg.
The controversy about the various ways in which people discuss the matter is shown in this interesting physics stackexchange link. It clarifies that the references to flatness are just about the spatial part, which is not the same as a flat spacetime (Minkowski metric/special relativity). If you check the comments, you will see how confusing the terminology gets even among those who seem to know the matter well.
I recall Sabine Hossenfelder referencing the same issue, suggesting that we simply talk about negatively curved spacetime instead of a mysterious term like dark energy. Whatever the answer is, it can all turn out to be a hoax with the new JWST observations. Hope you enjoy the read, maybe it helps if you had the same impressions.
Last edited by SkyHiker on Fri Mar 10, 2023 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
... Henk. Telescopes: GSO 12" Astrograph, "Comet Hunter" MN152, ES ED127CF, ES ED80, WO Redcat51, Z12, AT6RC, Celestron Skymaster 20x80, Mounts and tripod: Losmandy G11S with OnStep, AVX, Tiltall, Cameras: ASI2600MC, ASI2600MM, ASI120 mini, Fuji X-a1, Canon XSi, T6, ELPH 100HS, DIY: OnStep controller, Pi4b/power rig, Afocal adapter, Foldable Dob base, Az/Alt Dob setting circles, Accessories: ZWO 36 mm filter wheel, TV Paracorr 2, Baader MPCC Mk III, ES FF, SSAG, QHY OAG-M, EAF electronic focuser, Plossls, Barlows, Telrad, Laser collimators (Seben LK1, Z12, Howie Glatter), Cheshire, 2 Orion RACIs 8x50, Software: KStars-Ekos, DSS, PHD2, Nebulosity, Photo Gallery, Gimp, CHDK, Computers:Pi4b, 2x running KStars/Ekos, Toshiba Satellite 17", Website:Henk's astro images
- Gmetric
- Milky Way Ambassador
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1227
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:08 am
- 4
- Location: Japan
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Flatness of space vs spacetime
Thanks for the links, your thoughts and clarification, Henk. Much appreciated.
Arry (Bortle 7 area)
Telescopes: Sky-Watcher ED72II, Sky-Watcher PDS130, Sky-Explorer SN F4 200mm astrograph and Vixen F11.1 90mm
Cameras: Nikon D5300 modded, Canon Kiss X8i modded, Cooled Canon kiss X4 modded, Atik 16IC and 383 colour, ASI120MC, QHY5LII
Mount: Sky-Explorer HEQ 5 belt driven
Telescopes: Sky-Watcher ED72II, Sky-Watcher PDS130, Sky-Explorer SN F4 200mm astrograph and Vixen F11.1 90mm
Cameras: Nikon D5300 modded, Canon Kiss X8i modded, Cooled Canon kiss X4 modded, Atik 16IC and 383 colour, ASI120MC, QHY5LII
Mount: Sky-Explorer HEQ 5 belt driven
Create an account or sign in to join the discussion
You need to be a member in order to post a reply
Create an account
Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute