Flatness Problem: Understanding Resolution in Big Bang Model

  • Thread starter moving finger
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the problem of understanding the resolution of the flatness problem in the standard Big Bang model. It is mentioned that if k=0 and H0=71km/s/Mpc, then the current mass/energy density is approximately equal to the critical mass/energy density. However, about 73% of this critical density is attributed to dark energy, which remains constant as the universe expands. The remaining 27% is made up of matter, which decreases as the universe expands. This leads to a matter contribution of approximately 99.4% when the universe was one tenth of its present size. However, if we assume flatness, the critical mass/energy density would have been much higher at that time,
  • #1
moving finger
1,689
1
I'm having a problem understanding the resolution of the flatness problem in the standard Big Bang model (k = 0 and Omega = unity).

If k=0 at the present time, then this implies Omega ~ unity (actual mass/energy density ~ critical mass/energy density).

For k = 0 and H0 (Hubble parameter for present time) = 71km/s/Mpc then rho(critical) = 3.H^2/8.pi.G = 9.4665 x 10^-27 kg/m3.

BUT ~73% of this critical mass/energy density (at the present time) is supposed to come from the vacuum energy (Dark Energy) which is hypothesised to be scale-invariant (the vacuum energy density scales as a^0, in other words it does not change as the universe expands). This implies a vacuum energy-density of 6.91 x 10^-27 kg/m3.

Most of the remaining 27% of mass/energy density (at the present time) is made up of matter (visible and cold dark matter), the density of which scales as a^-3, ie the matter density scales as the inverse cube of the size of the universe). This implies a matter-density of 2.56 x 10^-27 kg/m3 at the present time.

The contribution from radiation energy-density at the present time is less than 0.01% of the total.

The above implies that when the universe was one tenth of its present size (which, because a scales as t^2/3 during the matter-dominated era, was when the universe was about 3.16% of its present age, or about 400 million years old) then the mass-density was 1,000 times greater than it is now, which implies a matter mass-density ~2.56 x 10^-24 kg/m3. The vacuum energy density contribution would have been the same as now, at 6.91 x 10^-27 kg/m3. The contribution from radiation energy-density at that time would have still been very small (~0.3% of the total). Thus matter contributed ~99.4% of the total energy density, and the total energy density would have been ~2.58 x 10^-24 kg/m3.

Assuming flatness (k=0), what would have been the critical mass/energy density when the universe was one tenth of it's present size? The same equation applies, rho(critical) = 3.H^2/8.pi.G. But at that time H would have been much higher than it is now. In fact, during the matter-dominated era H scales as t^-1 (this follows from the definition of H as a'/a, where a' is the expansion velocity; during the matter-dominated era a scales as t^2/3 and a' scales as t^-1/3). Therefore H would have been ~H0/0.0316 = 2,247 km/s/Mpc. This gives a value for the critical energy density at that time of ~9.48 x 10^-24 kg/m3.

But the actual mass/energy density, from above, was only ~2.58 x 10^-24 kg/m3, which is only ~27% of the critical mass/energy density at that time, hence Omega = 0.27 when the universe was only 400 million years old.

Where am I going wrong?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Go back to the beginning. You are mixing reference frames. You're not wrong, just making the same mistake we have all made.
 
  • #3
Well for a start there isn't a resolution to the flatness problem in bog-standard big bang cosmology, it's one of those probelms that need inflation to be resolved.

Though I think your going to have to spell out your problem more clearly as 0.27~1 (and I must admit I'm not really completely sure what the value should be, but Omega = 0.27 seems reasonable to me).
 
Last edited:
  • #4
jcsd said:
Well for a start there isn't a resolution to the flatness problem in bog-standard big bang cosmology, it's one of those probelms that need inflation to be resolved.

Though I think your going to have to spell out your problem more clearly as 0.27~1 (and I must admit I'm not really completely sure what the value should be, but Omega = 0.27 seems reasonable to me).

Thanks. I think I know where I'm going wrong, and am working on it.

However I disagree with you on your comment "there isn't a resolution to the flatness problem in bog-standard big bang cosmology" - if the universe was created with Omega = 1 then (inflation or no inflation) it was flat by definition. (Inflation perhaps explains how Omega got to be equal to 1.)
 
  • #5
It wouldn't be much of a problem if it could be easily be explained by normal big bang theory. The flatness problem IS why the universe should have a value of Omega so incredibly close to 1, there's ceratinly no problem with chucking in an initial value of Omega of ~1 in non-inflationary big bang theory (which would be required to re-create the observed flatness of today).


edited to add: looking at your calculations you have defintely gone wrong soemwhere though 0.27 still seems like a resoanbel value for Omega.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
moving finger said:
The above implies that when the universe was one tenth of its present size (which, because a scales as t^2/3 during the matter-dominated era, was when the universe was about 3.16% of its present age, or about 400 million years old) then the mass-density was 1,000 times greater than it is now, which implies a matter mass-density ~2.56 x 10^-24 kg/m3. The vacuum energy density contribution would have been the same as now, at 6.91 x 10^-27 kg/m3. The contribution from radiation energy-density at that time would have still been very small (~0.3% of the total). Thus matter contributed ~99.4% of the total energy density, and the total energy density would have been ~2.58 x 10^-24 kg/m3.

Assuming flatness (k=0), what would have been the critical mass/energy density when the universe was one tenth of it's present size? The same equation applies, rho(critical) = 3.H^2/8.pi.G. But at that time H would have been much higher than it is now. In fact, during the matter-dominated era H scales as t^-1 (this follows from the definition of H as a'/a, where a' is the expansion velocity; during the matter-dominated era a scales as t^2/3 and a' scales as t^-1/3). Therefore H would have been ~H0/0.0316 = 2,247 km/s/Mpc. This gives a value for the critical energy density at that time of ~9.48 x 10^-24 kg/m3.

But the actual mass/energy density, from above, was only ~2.58 x 10^-24 kg/m3, which is only ~27% of the critical mass/energy density at that time, hence Omega = 0.27 when the universe was only 400 million years old.

Where am I going wrong?

Throughout you're assuming a matter-dominated era from the present time to when the universe was a factor of 10 smaller. This isn't the case (because of lambda), so some of the above scalings won't apply (for example, H as t^-1).
 

What is the "Flatness Problem"?

The "Flatness Problem" refers to an issue in the Big Bang Model where the universe appears to have a flat geometry, meaning that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, rather than being curved like a sphere or saddle. This is unexpected because the universe could have started with any curvature, but somehow ended up being flat.

How does the Flatness Problem relate to the Big Bang Model?

The Flatness Problem is a fundamental issue in the Big Bang Model because it challenges our understanding of the early universe and how it evolved. The model predicts that the universe should have some amount of curvature, but observations show that it is extremely close to being flat. This raises questions about the initial conditions of the universe and how it expanded.

What is the significance of the Flatness Problem?

The Flatness Problem is significant because it challenges our current understanding of the Big Bang Model and the early universe. It suggests that there may be some missing pieces or flaws in our current theories. Solving this problem could lead to a deeper understanding of the fundamental laws of physics and the origins of the universe.

What are some proposed solutions to the Flatness Problem?

One proposed solution to the Flatness Problem is the concept of cosmic inflation, which suggests that the universe underwent a rapid period of expansion in the very early stages. This would have smoothed out any curvature and resulted in a flat universe. Another proposed solution is the introduction of dark energy, which may have a repulsive effect on the expansion of the universe and could explain its flatness.

How does the Flatness Problem impact our understanding of the universe?

The Flatness Problem forces scientists to reevaluate and potentially revise our current understanding of the universe. It challenges the assumptions and predictions of the Big Bang Model and may lead to new theories and explanations for the observed flatness. Solving this problem could greatly advance our understanding of the universe and its origins.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
983
Replies
69
Views
4K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
520
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top