Curvature in a Universe with No Cosmological Constant and Zero Density

  • Thread starter Thread starter nrqed
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
In a universe with no cosmological constant and zero density, spatial curvature can exist despite the absence of matter, as demonstrated by the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric. This curvature is coordinate-dependent, meaning that while spatial slices may appear curved, the overall four-dimensional curvature remains zero. The Ricci scalar, which measures curvature, can be zero under specific conditions, even when spatial curvature is present. The discussion highlights that the parameter k, indicating spatial curvature, retains significance in cosmological models, particularly in relation to measurements like the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). Understanding these concepts clarifies the relationship between curvature, coordinate choices, and the dynamics of an empty universe.
  • #31
nrqed:
If k = 0 spacetime is flat. if k != 0 spacetime is curved.

Note that a conformally flat spacetime is not necessarily a flat spacetime.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Nrqed, I don't have a lot of time right now, but GJ I think gave you the transformation needed for the Milne model. If you want to learn more about this and conformal flatness for more general FRW models there are a couple of papers I can recommend. The first is http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610590" paper that describes how to consider the same physical situation in Minkowski and FRW co-ordinates for an empty universe and then generalises this to changing general FRW metrics to conformally Minkowski metrics.

The second paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2106" one that discusses the same issue and hopefully explains this in more detail. I'd probably be just paraphrasing that second paper if I wrote a longer post anyway!

Just qucikly @MJ, I don't think you've got it right. You can't say anything about the curvature of space-time from knowledge of k alone. As discussed in this thread, the Ricci scalar is non-zero for all values of k and is only zero in an empty universe, which can be described by k=0 or k=-1, depending on how the co-ordinates are defined.

The value of k tells you about the curvature of 3D spatial slices of surfaces of constant cosmic time. Since cosmic time in the FRW metric is just one arbitrary way of defining time, there is nothing universal about this. As discussed in the two papers linked to, if you change to a different time co-ordinate, then the curvature of spatial slices of constant time in that co-ordinate changes.

To sensibly talk about curvature of spacetime (as opposed to just spatial curvature) you need to consider things that do not change with a change of co-ordinates, such as the Ricci scalar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
You are correct.

Interesting argument against the notion of "expansion of space" in the first referenced document by the way.
 
  • #34
Wallace said:
Nrqed, I don't have a lot of time right now, but GJ I think gave you the transformation needed for the Milne model. If you want to learn more about this and conformal flatness for more general FRW models there are a couple of papers I can recommend. The first is http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610590" paper that describes how to consider the same physical situation in Minkowski and FRW co-ordinates for an empty universe and then generalises this to changing general FRW metrics to conformally Minkowski metrics.

The second paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2106" one that discusses the same issue and hopefully explains this in more detail. I'd probably be just paraphrasing that second paper if I wrote a longer post anyway!

Just qucikly @MJ, I don't think you've got it right. You can't say anything about the curvature of space-time from knowledge of k alone. As discussed in this thread, the Ricci scalar is non-zero for all values of k and is only zero in an empty universe, which can be described by k=0 or k=-1, depending on how the co-ordinates are defined.

The value of k tells you about the curvature of 3D spatial slices of surfaces of constant cosmic time. Since cosmic time in the FRW metric is just one arbitrary way of defining time, there is nothing universal about this. As discussed in the two papers linked to, if you change to a different time co-ordinate, then the curvature of spatial slices of constant time in that co-ordinate changes.

To sensibly talk about curvature of spacetime (as opposed to just spatial curvature) you need to consider things that do not change with a change of co-ordinates, such as the Ricci scalar.



Thank you to Geaorges for the explicit change of coordinates and to Wallace for the above informative post and for the very good references. I have to ponder a bit and might get with a final question or two. This is very instructive. Thanks to all (Wallace, Hellfire and Georges)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
MeJennifer said:
You are correct.

Interesting argument against the notion of "expansion of space" in the first referenced document by the way.

Wallace said:
Nrqed, I don't have a lot of time right now, but GJ I think gave you the transformation needed for the Milne model. If you want to learn more about this and conformal flatness for more general FRW models there are a couple of papers I can recommend. The first is http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610590" paper that describes how to consider the same physical situation in Minkowski and FRW co-ordinates for an empty universe and then generalises this to changing general FRW metrics to conformally Minkowski metrics.

[PLAIN said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0610590][/PLAIN]
Milne (1933) specified what he meant as ‘the space commonly used in physics’: “flat, infinite, static Euclidean space”. He also wrote: “Moving particles in a static space will give the same observable phenomena as stationary particles in ‘expanding’ space” (Milne 1934). These statements are wrong in general.

I think, actually, Milne was quite right.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=427340&page=5"

Except that when you treat the Milne Model within the Friedmann model, you apparently get an empty universe. Has anyone tried treating the Milne Model within its original context?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
726
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
92
Views
8K