Flatness Problem: Understanding Resolution in Big Bang Model

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter moving finger
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the flatness problem in the standard Big Bang model, specifically addressing the implications of density parameters (Omega) and critical density at different stages of the universe's expansion. Participants explore the relationship between matter density, vacuum energy, and the evolution of these parameters over time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents calculations showing that when the universe was one tenth of its present size, the actual mass/energy density was only ~27% of the critical mass/energy density, leading to an Omega value of 0.27.
  • Another participant suggests that the flatness problem requires inflation for resolution, implying that standard Big Bang cosmology does not adequately address it.
  • A different viewpoint argues that if the universe was created with Omega = 1, it would be flat by definition, regardless of inflation.
  • Concerns are raised about mixing reference frames in the calculations, indicating that this could lead to misunderstandings in the analysis of the flatness problem.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the exact value of Omega and the implications of the density contributions from matter and vacuum energy.
  • One participant notes that the assumption of a matter-dominated era may not hold true throughout the universe's history due to the influence of dark energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the resolution of the flatness problem, with multiple competing views regarding the necessity of inflation and the implications of initial conditions on Omega. There is also disagreement on the correctness of the calculations presented.

Contextual Notes

Some calculations depend on assumptions about the scaling of densities and the dominance of matter versus vacuum energy at different times in the universe's evolution, which remain unresolved in the discussion.

moving finger
Messages
1,693
Reaction score
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
Go back to the beginning. You are mixing reference frames. You're not wrong, just making the same mistake we have all made.
 
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:
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.)
 
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:
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).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
13K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K