A Can an Oscillating Eternal Universe be Described without Singularity?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of describing an oscillating, eternal universe without singularities using a specific scale factor defined as a(t)=sin(t)(1+sgn(sin(t)) + ε. Participants question the mathematical and physical validity of this approach, emphasizing the need for a complete metric rather than just a scale factor. The Standard Model of cosmology already provides a framework for the scale factor, which must be integrated into the Friedmann Equations for a comprehensive analysis. There is a consensus that merely proposing a scale factor is insufficient without detailing the entire line element. The conversation highlights the importance of rigorous mathematical formulation in cosmological models.
victorvmotti
Messages
152
Reaction score
5
Consider the FLRW metric.

We pick a specific definition for the scale factor as suggested bellow.

Suppose we have a hypothetical metric having the scale factor defined by

## a(t)=\sin(t) (1+ \text {sgn}(\sin(t)) +\epsilon ##

Does this make sense, mathematically (and physically)?

Like having a continuous smooth (differentiable) manifold. Or relating to the geometric properties of homogeneity and isotropy, an expanding and contracting universe?

Can this describe an oscillating eternal infinite universe without singularity?

If it does not, how to write a metric that can do so?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
victorvmotti said:
Suppose we have a hypothetical metric having the scale factor
Just giving a scale factor doesn't tell us what the metric is. You need to write down the entire line element.
 
PeterDonis said:
Just giving a scale factor doesn't tell us what the metric is. You need to write down the entire line element.
Actually, I meant that the Standard Model of cosmology and its metric to be used, only that we pick a specific definition for the scale factor as suggested.
 
victorvmotti said:
Actually, I meant that the Standard Model of cosmology and its metric to be used, only that we pick a specific definition for the scale factor as suggested.
The Standard Model of cosmology already includes a definition for the scale factor, which is not yours.

If you mean the general FRW metric, you should be able to write it down. And you should also be able to plug your ansatz for the scale factor into the equations that that metric gives (the Friedmann Equations) to see whether they make sense. Anyone with the background knowledge for an "A" level thread on this topic should be able to do that.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...