I Cosmic Flatness Deduced from CMB

AI Thread Summary
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has provided crucial data indicating that the curvature of space is essentially flat, based on temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Researchers deduce spatial curvature from these temperature differences by analyzing the angular sizes of variations, which relate to the geometry of the universe. Despite concerns about the representativeness of the observed radiation, the CMB reflects conditions from a time when the universe was much smaller, allowing for conclusions about overall curvature. The discussion also touches on gravitational lensing and black holes as examples of non-flat space, raising questions about their implications for large-scale curvature. Overall, the findings from WMAP support existing theories of a flat universe, marking a significant achievement in cosmology.
XilOnGlennSt
Messages
18
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Cosmic Background Radiation studies by the WMAP project, concluded that the Universe has basically Euclidian flat curvature. Can someone sketch the reasoning behind this?
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measured temperature differences across the sky in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). See --->(Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe#Main_result)

From these observations researchers concluded that the curvature of space is basically flat. I would love to gain insight into their reasoning. Maybe I can make this easier by exposing major points of my ignorance. Q1: How can spatial curvature be deduced from temperature variation? Q1A: Couldn't all sorts of uniform curvatures also produce uniform temperature variations?

So, the CMB witnessed by WMAP during nine years, took 13.8 billion years to catch up to 'us'. This despite the idea that the CMB pattern was formed at a time when the Universe, including our "position" in it, was much smaller. From this I imagine that the observed radiation would have originated only from a thin 'spherical' section of the original plasma at that time, consisting of points equidistant from our position. Q2: How can overall spatial curvature be deduced from such a select small sample.

Related questions:
Q3: Can we suppose that a similar CMB has been and will continue to be present in our skies?
Q4: We now witness gravitational lensing around black holes and stars. These would seem to be smaller-scale examples of non-flat space. Why wouldn't we expect that larger collective masses could have large-scale effects?
Q5: Wouldn't black holes themselves be examples of high-curvature spaces?

Thanks for your help!
 
Space news on Phys.org
As soon as I posted this, I was guided to all sorts of information on this subject. I'll start there.

Still, comments are welcome. Thanks
 
XilOnGlennSt said:
As soon as I posted this, I was guided to all sorts of information on this subject.
Can you provide a link for other readers of this thread?
 
Basically it is about drawing triangles and measuring the angles of those triangles. The scale of variations can be inferred so that together with the travel distance gives you three legs of a triangle. Measuring the angular size of variations gives you an angle. Compare with what the angle would be in Euclidean space for the same side lengths. A larger angle means closed universe, a smaller open.
 
bapowell said:
So, this post helped me appreciate the depth of theory around this question. Here are my take-aways:
  • Acoustic modeling can be accomplished based on assumptions about the primordial-plasma universe.
  • Such models give different values for dominate sound wavelengths based on its spatial curvature.
  • Observation of the CMB shows dominate wave forms which match those predicted for flat curvature.
This is all news to me, and I'm glad to have a better mental sketch.

If the theory was all settled prior to the observations, then I would say that this is a marvelous triumph for the theorists! Horay!

In any case, congratulations to these researchers. Thanks for the information.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top